Bush wants schools to teach intelligent design.

Parent Cafe
221

<p>Why not? So, all you are saying is that something or someone or whatever made everything, but it does say what that ID is? Ohhh, we are jsut to have faith…I get it…</p>

<p>It is represented as science yet is BEYOND science…so when all the supporters of ID say it is scientifically based, it is not. When they are working in ID, what are they working in? </p>

<p>So, we are to teach about the POSSIBLITY of a DESIGNER as science of how we came about. SOunds like faith to me. And religion. </p>

<p>So in what context will it be taught? In philosophy or in science?</p>

222

<p>

you need look no further than FountainSiren’s link…</p>

223

<p>the seattle based Discovery institute appears to be the main proponent of ID( at least its the first few hits on Google for intelligent design :wink: )
I did finally find a biologist on staff- Jonathan Wells who has a Phd in cellular biology from Berkeley as well as a Phd in religious studies from Yale.
<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

224

<p>From FountainSiren:</p>

<p>"Any rules regarding potential offspring? </p>

<p>You didn’t seem to feel the need to mention any, while being very concerned with either half of this union of adults, so I was just wondering if marriage stipulates any responsibilities the two adults might have to the potential and statistically likely children born to such a union…in addition to the two individuals who chose to have their emotional/sexual/financial union while accruing all the other privileges that attach to it without having to dilute it to any extent by adding the children marriage at one time aimed to protect (along with the woman, who, in times past, did not share the social rights of the man they married and were granted some—limited—social protection through the institution of marriage)."</p>

<p>FountainSiren - I’m actually not at all clear about what you’re trying to say here. I think the short answer is that a very large part of the set of rules designed to govern the relationship between married people has to do with children, and the parents’ rights and responsibilities regarding them - and as it’s a very important set of issues, I think that those rules should apply to all parents - whether heterosexual or not. I mean - homosexuals have children, too. In the finite set of people I personally know, there are childless heterosexual couples, childless homosexual couples, heterosexual couples with children, homosexual couples with children, heterosexual couples who are (I believe) the biological parents of their children, heterosexual parents who (I know) are not the biological parents of their children, couples where one of the parents is the biological parent and the other is not, etc. Children are important - regardless of how they got here - and the rights and responsibilities of those who are members of their family - biologically related or not - are a big ticket item. It is very important to have a well thought out set of rules to guide those relationships, because people screw up. I don’t see why those rules should not apply to homosexual couples the same way they do to heterosexual couples. Does that answer your question?</p>

<p>Next, you accuse me of being judgmental. That’s true. I make judgments, it’s what I’ve learned to do as I got older. I used to be much less judgmental, because I had little experience to test my interactions with people against. When I was in college I tended to take people at face value; I’m less likely to do that now, as my experience in the intervening decades has tended to show me that many people tend to put a false face on their true feelings. So I judge people more by their actions than their words. </p>

<p>And the actions of the majority of people who claim to “love the sinner” doesn’t square with “love” to me. What I see is people who want to treat the sinners as being worthy of less respect, rights and privileges than the “non-sinners”. Because basically they feel they shouldn’t be sinners (Pretty logical, when you think about it.) So by defining a person’s basic biological makeup as being sinful, well, you’ve pretty much determined they’re unworthy, haven’t you? And the discussion about homosexuals is, to me, Exhibit A.</p>

<p>So yeah, I find that most people who claim to “love” the sinners are sanctimonious hypocrites who are spouting a well crafted line to cover their inherent dehumanization of the “sinners”. Sorry.</p>

225

<p>I’m a die-hard liberal Democrat, who believes in totally unfettered speech. I’m very against the Iraq war. </p>

<p>I’m also a believing and practicing Christian. I’m against abortion, and I supported the first Gulf War.</p>

<p>Now, if that doesn’t prove there are miracles, I don’t know what does !</p>

226

<p>CGM-
Your questions have all been answered in earlier posts. In fact, you don’t have to venture back any farther than the last page to find the answers. Give it a shot.</p>

<p>Using LOTS and LOTS of CAPITAL LETTERS and repeating THE SAME THING and asking THE SAME QUESTIONS all the time despite NUMEROUS DIRECT RESPONSES don’t add much to the mix. Just MHO, of course.</p>

227

<p>Well, so, indulge me, I didn’t see the answers. What does the IDer look like, is it God, and if not, what. And where would it be taught?</p>

<p>And, I guess I am frustrated because I see a lot of dodging going on. The and for my capitals, I am emphasizing others words.</p>

<p>But, hey don’t answer my questions. I really want to know. To claim it is not God, I see as hiding the real meaning behind ID. And that, I find, to be a campflage to teaching religion as science.</p>

228

<p>I repeat the same thing because I get no answers. Just, well, ID doesn’t have that answer. ID is not teaching about Faith and God. Well, then what is the Intelligent Designer? I really want to know. Is it based on Faith?</p>

<p>If I was getting answers, I would be much less frustrated. But I get, ID is beyond science…so what does that mean…beyond science…yet it is presented as science with quotes from scientists, links to websites that purpote science, yet it is beyond science. See the problem…</p>

229

<p>Susantm,</p>

<p>“When scientists from SETI are looking for intelligence life, they study radio waves to see if they show patterns that might indicate intelligence behind them.”</p>

<p>I think this is an excellent analogy to ID. When scientists are looking for extraterrestrial life by analyzing all of the various radio signals, etc., they do not ASSUME a priori that any radio signals they ever receive must necessarily be due to random events. Rather, SCIENTISTS know many rigorous mathematical ways to distinguish random noise from information (that would presumably be from intelligent life). How is this fundamentally different than looking at cells, molecules, etc. and trying to scientifically assess if the current world is more likely the result of random processes or due to some intelligence?</p>

230

<p>Whose intelligence? Please tell me.</p>

231

<p>

Your question, as pafather suggests, presupposes that if you don’t know the answer to this question, the default position is randomness. ID simply says that your dictum may not be true. That randomness isn’t the only conclusion. And you seem to consider such to be apostasy, CGM.</p>

232

<p>“Whose intelligence?”</p>

<p>Who cares?!</p>

<p>We have not even reached the stage in this discussion of determining whether there is “an intelligence” to speak of. </p>

<p>You don’t ask who committed a crime without knowing that a crime has been committed.</p>

233

<p>CGM,</p>

<p>“Whose intelligence?”</p>

<p>You keep echoing the same questions, but you have not realized that your questions have been answered time and again.</p>

<p>Continuing the analogy from before, your insistence of refusing to even look for intelligence unless you know ahead of time WHOSE intelligence it is is very UNSCIENTIFIC. If those looking for extraterrestrial life refused to look for signs of extraterrestrial intelligence unless they knew ahead of time WHOSE intelligence they would potentially find, that would be a completely UNSCIENTIFIC excuse for halting the research.</p>

234

<p>cgs, Your question has been answered over and over again, but you do not seem able to accept it, perhaps because it does not fit your preconceived ideas about ID. ID is a methodology that studies the natural world to see if there is evidence of design. It does NOT go beyond that to state what or who the designer is because there is not enough evidence to scientifically determine that. That would go beyond science, so it is not part of ID.</p>

<p>Yes, most of those who promote ID probably believe in a God. They do not all believe in the same God. That does not make ID a religion, any more than the fact that I am a Democrat makes everything I believe a Democratic position.</p>

<p>Hayden, we have a lot in common. Glad to hear I am not the only schizophrenic liberal. :-)</p>

235

<p>Susantm - If I could smiley faces, I would leave one here for you!</p>

236

<p>Here’s what wikipedia has to say:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It seems like there are two options for ID’ers: either admit that ID is a religion (or would it be a cult, since it has so few folowers?) or admit that it makes no sense. Either way, it shouldn’t be taught in schools. Science triumphs over pseudoscience once more!</p>

237

<p>So, its okay to teach a pseudo science as science, and the fact the we don’t have all the answers, we are just going to say God. And to deny that Intelligent Design does not imply God, or Superior Being or Creator is not being honest. </p>

<p>Be honest and answer, is ID based on Faith or not…yes or no, its is a very simple question…</p>

<p>What do you imagine the Intelligent Designer to look like? What form do you imagine? Is there a brain? A soul? A spirit? An essence? </p>

<p>And, no my questions haven’t been answered. Otherwise why would I keep asking. All I get is round about responses.</p>

<p>Is ID science or not? Is it based on faith or not? Is there some sort of Intelligent Designer as the name suggests? Come on people.</p>

<p>SHow me the answers I missed where someone said ID is science or not…if its not science, what is it? </p>

<p>You are all dodging the answers and you know it.</p>

<p>Just keep avoiding the direct questions. </p>

<p>Biology is Science
Physics is Science
ID is…?</p>

238

<p>

I’m guessing you haven’t yet figured out that Wikipedia is a self-generating “resource,” not unlike CC, but not nearly as reliable. :slight_smile:

Have you never seen Star Trek, CGM? The ID could take many forms.</p>

239

<p>Avoid the question again and again and again.</p>

<p>Driver, you seem so sure of yourself and criticize me, but you won’t answer my question. </p>

<p>Yes or no- Science or not? Relgious Beliefs or Not?</p>

240

<p>A giant, disembodied brain spanning several light years. It shouldn’t be taught as science, though. CGM, as has been pointed out before, the answers to your repeated questions are here for the taking. But you ignore them.</p>