Intelligent Design ruling

[Autofac]

Am I the first person to think that combining baby baptism and "life begins at conception" could be conjoined into one super-ceremony that would guarantee a full house at every church in the world?

Orgies in a baptismal pool?

 

[JohnOAS]

Congratulations Buckeyefan 1 for creating the thread that just won't quit!

I've tried to ignore it for a while, but just like herpes it just keeps showing up

Isn't that just like the underlying cause of the original topic, organised religion?



A cream that would make religion (or at least it's symptoms) go away, now there's a marketing campaign I'd like to see!

 

[Adam]

Wow, this is a long thread. I read pages 1 (okay, part of it), 56, and 57. I'm sure that I missed some stuff...but I'm not going to read the middle part.

Just thought that I'd bring it back around for Dave's amusement.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Wow, this is a long thread. I read pages 1 (okay, part of it), 56, and 57. I'm sure that I missed some stuff...but I'm not going to read the middle part.

Just thought that I'd bring it back around for Dave's amusement.

Yes, you did miss an interesting thread. It may be the longest one here at AH, not sure.

Well, Sarah will make it taught in school if she gets elected
She has no problem having it taught in school.

 

[adk highlander]

Well, Sarah will make it taught in school if she gets elected
She has no problem having it taught in school.

That will be a sad day for us all.

 

[Alex2507]

The slogan 'Created not Related' comes to mind but I can't speak for others.

 

[Adam]

The slogan 'Created not Related' comes to mind...

A view that I respect. Personally, I don't think that creationism and evolution are conflicting ideas, though (and I'm not the only one). That's because I don't believe in a literal translation of the Bible.

 

[Alex2507]

I just like the slogan and the insulting implication that somebody else is related to an ape. I'm in the I may not know but certainly don't care camp on this nonsense. A court ruling on this is proof that lawyers will always find a way to make a buck. You know they didn't argue this for free.

 

[Adam]

Ahhh, I'm with you now.

You know they didn't argue this for free.

True, but their souls weren't worth that much to begin with.

[Just a joke, my fellow AH who are lawyers. No offense...hopefully.]

 

[The Dukester]

Yes, you did miss an interesting thread. It may be the longest one here at AH, not sure.

Well, Sarah will make it taught in school if she gets elected
She has no problem having it taught in school.

Agreed on the first part. On the second, I have no problem with ID being taught in schools, either. For those that do, are you guilty of the narrow mindedness that Christians are so often accused of?

 

[zhimbo]

You know they didn't argue this for free.

Actually, they did. Most, if not all, of the legal work was pro bono for both sides of the case.

 

[zhimbo]

Agreed on the first part. On the second, I have no problem with ID being taught in schools, either. For those that do, are you guilty of the narrow mindedness that Christians are so often accused of?

Nope. I have sound scientific, pedagogical and legal reasons for excluding ID from science education - except, perhaps, as an instructive bad example.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Agreed on the first part. On the second, I have no problem with ID being taught in schools, either. For those that do, are you guilty of the narrow mindedness that Christians are so often accused of?

It certainly doesn't belong in a science or biology class. It is irrelevant to evolution.

 

[Adam]

For those that do, are you guilty of the narrow mindedness that Christians are so often accused of?

Hmmm, a thought-provoking comment. At least for me.

I am against it being taught as the primary theory, but I'd have trouble expressing why. I'm certainly not against having the concept being mentioned and discussed. I suspect that it probably comes up in conversation in a lot of schools anyway, regardless of it is on the planned curriculum. It did in my seventh grade class back in the 80's. This topic is something that comes up outside of secular schools all over the world, and I'd hope that was true for most kids. After all, where we come from and why we're here are hopefully topics that parents discuss with their kids. Regardless of what someone believes, that's pretty fundamental stuff to talk about, IMO.

 

[Alex2507]

Actually, they did. Most, if not all, of the legal work was pro bono for both sides of the case.

Thanks for the correction. Is there some big payday associated with having your name tattooed on a famous case? I guess I'm just a suspicious sort.

 

[Davemcc]

Well, Sarah will make it taught in school if she gets elected

By my understanding, education is a state responsibility meaning the Feds can't force an issue to be taught. Yet the states' education systems are subject to the constitution and can be prevented from teaching certain things. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong there. I'm not American so I'm honestly not sure how it works.

Personally, I don't think that intelligent design should be taught in schools and I do think evolution should be taught as a theory, which it is. The problem with intelligent design is that it observes certain relationships in the universe, but rather than try to examine or explain the phenomena, intelligent design proponents jump prematurely to a supernatural explanation. The three great problems I see with this approach are:

1) There is no attempt to study or explain the phenomena as observed. By and large, this study is conducted as molecular chemistry and quantum physics. The jump to a supernatural conclusion before these and other fields of scientific research have rendered a conclusive verdict is premature.

2) The supernatural conclusion reached by our intelligent design friends always seems to mean God, more specifically the Judeo-Christian God. It leaves out all equally plausible and implausible alternatives. If or when science fails to explain our universe, then and only then should we be considering explanations beyond our scale, dimension, or ability to comprehend. It is a conclusion that requires a priori faith in the answer.

3) Intelligent design cannot be science, period. Science by definition provides an answer based on demonstrable, provable and repeatable conclusions. Intelligent design provides a solution that is none of those things, therefore cannot be considered science.

 

[unreal.freak]

But there is that little matter left to us by our forefathers...namely, the separation of church and state. It's in the constitution.

You fail to mention that our forefathers came to this great country to get away from Roman Catholisism, so they can worship Jesus without getting beheaded. Yes this country was founded by men who believed in Intelligent design. That my freind is also being tought in our shool systems. So how can we teach our kids History without including the whole picture?


Peace,
Tommy


edit: the reason they made seperation of church and state a part of the constitution was to keep the gov. from dictating who could worship what/who. Only to keep this country from being like the country they just left. THANK YOU FOREFATHERS!!!!!!

 

[Davemcc]

You fail to mention that our forefathers came to this great country to get away from Roman Catholisism,

Actually, the original 13 colonies were English and were founded by English settlers escaping the influence of the protestant Church of England. The Catholic influences in the U.S. come from such French and Spanish colonies as Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas and others that were not part of the original 13 colonies. The Roman Catholics that came here did so by and large at the behest of the states of France and Spain as part of the massive conquest of the New World.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I am against it being taught as the primary theory, but I'd have trouble expressing why. ....

Once you understand who a scientific theory is derived, unlike what the news media and the non-scientific community uses that word, I bet you would not have any difficulty

Non-science uses 'theory' when they are guessing. Science is a long process before something becomes a scientific theory. Best to ask Astrodon next time he posts.
ID is not a theory but a new idea for creation which is also not a theory. It cannot be falisfied, for one.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Thanks for the correction. Is there some big payday associated with having your name tattooed on a famous case? I guess I'm just a suspicious sort.

Suspicious about what? If they do get a payoff, will that invalidate the case? Or the arguments and evidence provided? Just curious