"Churches urged to back evolution "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4731360.stm
"US scientists have called on mainstream religious communities to help them fight policies that undermine the teaching of evolution. "
Religion proving something? That's sort of an oxymoron....

Why can't people just accept Intelligent Design as a concept, whether then a theory which is absolutely true? If Intelligent Design is taught just as an idea, and evolution taught as a theory, then I don't really see any problem, do you?

Teaching children many perspectives is important to increase their understanding of life. If we teach Descartes even tough he was wrong, what's wrong with teaching Intelligent Design?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ever heard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

http://www.venganza.org/


[Renrue]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I knew pirates were better then ninjas!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

since it's about random comments at this point, this reminds me of the Scopes trial...in your face, fundies!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You guys are so religious...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes. Is that relevant?

Science hasn't disproven the possibility of a God just as much as religion hasn't proven it. Therefore, agnosticism is the only logical way to go.

 

Science cannot prove the possibility of god and religion had plenty of chance to prove it. Hence atheism is the only logical way to go.

 

You don't have absolute proof that there is no god either.

I agree that agnosticism is the only assumption-free way. Which is convenient because I myself am an agnostic

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Agnosticism is the only safe way, yes, but why not be bold?
I'm selfish, and don't want to be bold, so I'm an agnostic, but I agree that the judeo-christian-islamic god doesn't exist. That motherfucker is entirely illogical.

 

Why not? Would you have imagined a black hole 20 years ago?

How?

Atheism ignore the fact that the abscense of evidence cannot disprove something.

 

That makes two of us.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Why do you say he is entirely illogical? What is the extent of your knowledge about him. Often, when something looks illogical, it might just not be well explored yet.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

THERE is a way to combine intelgent design and evolution...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

-MT

 

agnostic- the greek equivelent of the english 'ignoramous'

 

hmm...I'm not a physicist, but:

I'm not interested in disproving a silly concept. We are not ignoring it. We are well aware of it. We are just not interested in stupid pursuits.

 

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is relevant because if many theories should be taught, why should the specific version of I.D. pushed in the US be included but polytheistic design theories (e.g. from Hinduism), Invisible Pink Unicornism and Flying Spaghetti Monsterism not?

I have nothing against teaching these as part of a historical or cultural lesson but I don't think they belong in the science classroom. Intelligent Design is non-science because instead of saying, "here's a difficult question to explain, but here's the best explanation we've got so far" it says "here's a difficult question to explain ... too difficult, so we'll say He did it." It throws away the intriguing game of science in favour of a cheat - an old cheat with a lot of history but still a cheat. Teach about it in history, in literature, in art if you want - but it's not science.

 

In a court of law it is up to the prosecution to prove a fact. If religion says that god exists then the burden of proof is on the religious types.

 

And religion exists since when? That's not what I meant with my comment. I meant that many ideas take time to get accepted in the mainstream.

Btw, where did you get that?

What is silly about the concept of a god? I'm not talking particularly about the Christian God, I'm talking about a god as a "supernatural" being, with certain characteristics. My perspective is more of a logical exploration rather then a simple explanation.

 

I'm not saying theories should be taught. The purpose is to make them aware of different perspectives, and to teach them to be logically explorative.

Well, I suppose you can teach it at philosophy. But, yes, it is not really science. At least at this point

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That does not imply that atheism is correct. If they want to be correct, they need to find a way to disprove the possibility. They can't, because that's simply logically impossible. Even if the burden of proof lies on the theist, the idea cannot be said to be untrue just because the theist cannot come up with a proof. It would be like saying that an integration does not have a solution just because nobody has been able to find yet!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!