Creationism strikes back

It's not a theory, because it has no proof, no tinyest suggestive evidence, no nothing, just fantasy.
It's an assumption at best.
 
Nasor said:
They do not, however, have the right to use the government to force everyone to undergo indoctrination on their religious beliefs.

As I understand it, they're simply teaching the "theory" of intelligent design as an extension to the science of evolution. The "theory" of ID is no different to any other "theory" and it's going to be taught in the same way ...NOT as a replacement to evolution, but an extension or additional "theory" in human existence.

And in that way, it seems to me, Kansas has gotten around the principle of separation of church and state ...not to mention that they are NOT teaching a religion, but a "theory" to extend the science of evolution (the part that evolution does not/can not explain).

I find it extremely interesting that this issue has gotten so little national news coverage. In fact, just tonight NBC covered the situation in Dover, PA, but said absolutely nothing about the vote in Kansas. Interesting, huh? Do you suppose that the news media has found things a bit more difficult in Kansas??

And please, please, try to rmember ...the schools in Kansas are NOT teaching any particular religion, but the idea, the "theory", of intelligent design as an extension of evolution. That's much, much different to teaching religion!

Baron Max
 
Avatar said:
It's not a theory, because it has no proof, no tinyest suggestive evidence, no nothing, just fantasy.
It's an assumption at best.

One can have a theory without having a proof! In fact, the Theory of Evolution was published long, long before there was any actual proof (and certainly not enough proof that was accepted widely).

So, we have the "Theory of Intelligent Design" ...and we're still searching for the final proof. :)

And while I think about it ......is there any actual, scientific proof that man actually evolved from some creature or other? I mean, now, actual, solid, irrefutable proof that man arose from the apes (or whatever?)? If so, please provide a link for it .....or is that where the term "missing link" came from? :)

Baron Max
 
Baron,

I am brought to mind of the story of Galileo and his fight with the church over heliocentrism.

Apparently, the church didn't object to Galileo espousing the ideal of heliocentrism, nor did they object to him teaching the idea that the planets move around the sun rather than the sun moving about the Earth. The 'theory' of heliocentrism was the simplest method of properly explaining the available observations. The church wasn't concerned with 'theories'. They were concerned with facts.

The problem they had with Galileo is that they wanted him to teach his ideas in a specific manner. They wanted him to teach that God made the universe so that it appears, when viewed from the Earth, as if the Earth and all the other planets moved around the Sun.

Do you see it? They wanted to keep the theory of heliocentrism for its predictive power, but they wanted to encase it within a wrapping that stole its truth for its own purposes.

They demanded that the Earth was the center of creation and that all things moved around the earth, but they were confounded by the observations that could only lead to heliocentrism. Therefore, they concocted a method of God having specifically designed the universe to appear heliocentric when it was, in fact, geocentric. This means that the theory of geocentrism has no predictive value in itself, it depends utterly upon heliocentrism and simply adds an unnecessary complication on top of it all.

This is about power.

Eppur si muove, Baron.

Intelligent design has no inherent value. It is a parasite that latches onto a successful theory to suck its life's blood.

Intelligent design is saying basically that life on Earth was intelligently designed by some greater power (God, Vishnu, Satan, The Great Green Arkleseizure, whatever...) so as to appear to be driven by non-intelligent processes...
How muich value is there in this theory?


And. You might be interested to know that the theory of evolution is just a theory. It's not fact. Only those who speak against it ever try to say that it's viewed as fact by its adherents.

And in that way, it seems to me, Kansas has gotten around the principle of separation of church and state

Yeah. That's what I said. However, what they're doing is deceptive and unethical. In more ways than one. It's not that they've successfully gotten around seperation of church and state, but rather that they've provided a facade by which people can pretend that they have.

...not to mention that they are NOT teaching a religion, but a "theory" to extend the science of evolution (the part that evolution does not/can not explain).

Do you understand what a theory is?

How would you go about testing this theory? A vital element of science is that every hypothesis must have methods to test it and to falsify if it fails the test. Is there a method of disproving god then? The only way that intelligent design could be a valid scientific theory is if there is a way to disprove it. (I.e. God.)

One can have a theory without having a proof! In fact, the Theory of Evolution was published long, long before there was any actual proof (and certainly not enough proof that was accepted widely).

Proof?
You really have no idea what science is. Do you?
That's really not a surprise...

Anyway.
The theory of evolution has stood up over time because its such a simple and elegant explanation of the available observations.
The theory of evolution, by the way, doesn't state that man evolved from apes. The idea that man evolved from apes is a consequence of the theory of evolution, but not part and parcel of the theory itself. The theory of evolution merely states that there is biological change over time. There are subsets of evolutionary theory that explain various ways that these changes take place and what influences these changes. Natural selection is one of these subsets.

So, we have the "Theory of Intelligent Design" ...and we're still searching for the final proof.

Again. You've just shown that you have no idea what science is. Nobody is looking for 'the final proof'. Except, of course, for the religious. It is in religion that we find final answers. Not science.
 
Last edited:
Lest we forget Galileo!!!
Remember Galileo!!!

Galileo said the earth was "round" but the church went and threatened to put their collective fingers in his anus - as usual.

His legacy is an inspiration to me :)
 
Baron Max said:
It's a "theory" in much the same way that evolution was a "theory" for a great many years before it became accepted as factual. The "theory" of relativity was also a "theory" long before it was accepted by science. That crippled guy who came up with a new "theory" recently is still being discussed by science and probably won't be accepted/proven for a good number of years .......but that doesn't stop people from "believing" in it, does it?

Baron Max

ID isn't a scientific theory. You can discuss it all day in any manner you want, but it just isn't. It doesn't explain the current collection of data and facts (evolution does). It never will.

It's a shyhook. We don't use shyhooks in science. We use cranes.
 
Y'all keep talkin' about "proof" ....can evolution actually, conclusively, irrefutably, prove that man evolved from the apes(or whatever?)?

And, please, I mean absolute proof? We have lots of conjecture; we have lots of old bones; we have old campsites and such, but is there a direct, scientific proof that man evolved from lower animals? I've read and studied lots of articles on ancient man, but to date, I don't believe that I've ever seen one which states categorically that one or more discoveries PROVE that man came from the apes.

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
Y'all keep talkin' about "proof" ....can evolution actually, conclusively, irrefutably, prove that man evolved from the apes(or whatever?)?

Yes (in scientific terms), unless you ask me if it is written in the bible.


ID doesn't explain anything about the existence of humans or monkeys btw. So for why questions you are safer with evolution.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Yes (in scientific terms), ....

Do you have a link or a book or anything which states that conclusively? ...and which is accepted by all members of the scientific community? I'd really like to read it/study it ...it would be very interesting.

(What does "in scientific terms" mean?)

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
Do you have a link or a book or anything which states that conclusively? ...and which is accepted by all members of the scientific community? I'd really like to read it/study it ...it would be very interesting.

(What does "in scientific terms" mean?)

Baron Max

As I said it isn't written in the bible (if you want your kind of conclusive truth). If you want a to know what scientific terms are go get some scientific education. I heard you are retired.

The scientific community thinks that there is enough proof to state man and monkeys have the same ancestors. That is what is meant by conclusive proof.
 
Furthermore, the entire scientific community has accepted that ID isn't even a scientific theory. Let alone that there is proof for it.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
The scientific community thinks that there is enough proof to state man and monkeys have the same ancestors. That is what is meant by conclusive proof.

So if a bunch of religious people think that there is enough proof to state that god created man, the animals and the universe, that's "conclusive proof"???

...just a lot of people in agreement?

Baron Max
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Furthermore, the entire scientific community has accepted that ID isn't even a scientific theory. Let alone that there is proof for it.

So the "scientific community" is the only group who can accept something and, if they do, then it's okay?

What if the "entire religious community" accepts something ...that doesn't count for anything? Like, ONLY scientists can say that something is right or wrong?

Baron Max
 
spuriousmonkey said:
It's good enough for religion classes, but not good enough criteria for science class. Do you understand the difference?

No. I still want to know where everything first came into being and how. Please answer that one, simple question for me. How was there something for which evolution could work on?

Baron Max
 
In fact, as I recall my science studies, physics and chemistry basically state that there must be something on which those theories and laws operate .....but they never, ever state where all of that came from in the first place! One of the laws actually states that energy can not be created or destroyed ...which indicates that all the energy in the universe was there for all eternity. It never came into being, and it can never be destroyed. So how did it come into being???

Baron Max
 
spuriousmonkey said:
If you want to call something scientific..yes.

Simple isn't it.

Yes, and that's EXACTLY what the religious community is saying about their theory of intelligent design! Yet you accept one, but reject the other. Why?

Baron Max
 
Back
Top