<p>of course you don’t have to care what anyone here’s opinion on it is, but why would you want to care what the legistlators’ opinion on it is?
Their opinion does not change the theory of ID. </p>
<p>“calling something science when it is clearing not just science…”
would you like to suggest a new name then? keep in mind that it is based on scientific observations…</p>
<p>and to kluge:</p>
<p>“But the reason that is true is not important. That is, identical circumstances can lead to identical results whether there is “a designer” or not.” -was that supposed to be your proof?</p>
<p>to dmk, before you declare, oh, bneg, you are simply wrong, can you prove it first? i don’t get it, you’re saying that there might be resolutions for evolution, none have been proven, and therefore i am simply wrong? please, i know you have a life and if you would believe so i have one too…please do not waste anymore tme declaring stuff on this thread with longs posts that ultimately contain no support. Please feel free to criticize me, all i ask is that you support your claims. And this is the second time i ask.</p>
<p>I just want to remind everyone of you that said we were “Crazy” when we said ID proponents want to teach it as science in schools…and that we were looking for an agenda that wasn’t there</p>
<p>bneg, please read my full post.
"Is it not based on the complexity inf science, and CONCLUDES in divine intervention? I ask no more than for you to support your claims sir! "-you said this with regard to ID, and I responded in the latter half of my post. </p>
<p>Here is the latter half of my response, reproduced here so you dont have to hit the back button. I know its long, and many people have short attention spans, but I did include support for my argument.</p>
<p>And I am sorry, but with regards to ID, you are simply wrong. You are confusing what you are trying to prove and what you wish to prove it with. You are trying to prove humans evolved through ID, and you prove it with the fact there hasn’t been enough time for random evolution to take us this far. If you have doubts about that, refer to what started this topic. Bush proposed teaching ID as an alternate to evolution. Well evolution is a theory as to the creation of life, as is ID. Otherwise, Bush’s proposal would have been: use ID to prove the existence of God. If you believe that is ID, then that IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. But obviously that isnt so, because even Bush knows that would be pushing it.</p>
<p>you keep saying i think it is long…here, let me summarize your ‘supports’ for you~</p>
<p>1.i say there isn’t enough time for random evolution for such complexity, that’s because i am confused.
if i have doubts about that statement, hear this!:
bush proposed teaching ID as an alternate</p>
<ol>
<li>ID and evolutionism deals with creation of life, if not, bush would use ID to prove existence of God</li>
</ol>
<p>3.if i believe ID proves the existence of God, then that is a violation of church and state. but obviously i don’t, because even bush know that is not true</p>
<p>which part was supposed to prove me wrong, or even make sense?</p>
<p>THe ID proponents themselves have stated that the IDers is GOD. And a Christian one at that. THese are the scienctist whose research is used. They themselves have said ID is a wedge to get religion and God into school.</p>
<p>Read up on the ID pushers, read their philosophy and mission, the ones that present the science.</p>
<p>To teach something that is obviously based on Faith and a particular religion, if you read the papers and books and articles and websites and speeches of the ID people, you can’t deny it is about God. Ch
eck out there own words on this thread…</p>
<p>“To teach something that is obviously based on Faith and a particular religion”
again, obviously ‘based’ on faith. same to you, citygirlsmom. please DO support your statements. their opinions on it does NOT influence the nature of the theory. sound familiar?</p>
<p>bneg, please have your father/mother older sibling read my last post and explain it to you, because it obviously went straight over your head. I will try to explain this one last time, with small words and short sentences. My post contained two sections. The first section was purely for your benefit, because you had indicated you had not learned any of the holes in evolution at school. So I tried to give you a quick summary of some problems of evolution and some attempted resolutions. Purely for your benefit, having no bearing to the second half of the post or my argument.</p>
<p>The second part of my post dealt with your assertion that ID’s main purpose is to prove the existence of God with scientific fact. See the excerpt in my previous post. Now please reread my previous post and see if you can understand it. If not, ask an older family member to explain it to you. I have really tried to break this down for you. If anyone else thinks I am unclear, please say so, so that I can improve my writing skills.</p>
<p>where did i even say that ‘ID’s main purpose is to prove the existence of God with scientific fact’. i am saying the use for ID is to provide a different view for the students on the origin of life, and let them be aware of the possible flaws in the theory of evolutionism.</p>
<p>in fact, ‘ID’s main purpose is to prove the existence of God with scientific fact’. sounds like something I would try to prove wrong myself. please, let’s all be careful with what we read and say.</p>
<p>"Is it not based on the complexity inf science, and CONCLUDES in divine intervention? I ask no more than for you to support your claims sir! "-bneg</p>
<p>that means, dmk, ID is not based on faith. it is based on scientific observations, and the theory CONCLUDES, (note: not ‘based’) in divine intervention. that does not say “ID’s main purpose is to prove God exists.” I would attack that statement myself. (please see previous post, edited)</p>
<p>and that was a response to people’s opinions (which I believe, includes yours)on how ID is based on faith and totally not scientific and shouldn’t be taught in science class and lalalala…
note: not an assertion of what you thought</p>
<p>Okay bneg, your science education has been a little shaky, either because you attend a bad school or you havent taken a real science class yet. ID is a theory. A theory has many parts, but I will simplify it by reducing it to two. The first part is data, observations logic and calculations. All this leads to a conclusion or final assertion. Take relativity as an example-the conclusion is E=MC^2. The proof consists hundreds of pages of math calculations, the knowledge C is a constant, and basic newtonian mechanics. Einstein did not know E=MC^2, before he did his calculations. Rather, he did years of work based on a hunch, and that formula is what he came up with at the end of all his math.</p>
<p>I already gave my support. It is in my original post that started this little exchange. Please reread it keeping what I said in my previous post in mind. Im sorry if I was a little rude, but Its difficult explaining something over a message board, at least for me. Anyway, try to read that post over one more time. If you still have trouble, I will try to explain it another way.</p>
<p>no, you are not rude, you were just trying to prove something I didn’t say as wrong…however, what you said about ID being BASED on divine intervention is still unsupported. As I have said, ID compares observations on the complexity of nature with the theory of evolutionism, and ultimately concludes in divine intervention. It does not begin by, ‘there is a god, now let’s find him’. i find its process scientific, and although whether the conclusion is scientific or not is debatable, we cannot disregard the flaws it points out in evolutionism, or declare it has no use in a science class room.</p>
<p>bneg you have to realize that the vast majority of the scientific community does not take this serious as a theory or as a process for developing a theory. If I offerred a theory that we won WWII because God was on our side…it would be hard to prove and probably not worthy of a public history course.</p>
<p>"a molecule with 221 nucleotides is so complex that there are actually 4 ^221 or 10^133 combinations, and in these combinations, only one is good for living organisms. If, if the rate of combination of nucleotides was 10^4 time per second, and supposing that the universe is 30 billion years old, then from the beginning of the universe to now the universe can make only 10^105<em>10^18</em>10^4= 10^127, which is really insignificant compared to the 10^133 combinations we have to really try out. 221 nucleotides is actually insignificant to the average 1200 nucleotides of molecules of simple organisms. " (this is from a book i read, quite illustrative, eh?)</p>
<p>this is much more than saying…the German ships sank, and it was impossible to have a storm on that day, because it was sunny or something like that. This is scientific. Although the scientific community *might not approve of this, as fountainsiren pointed out, some very prominent scientists (not a pile of no-namer’s) seem to have different opinions…</p>
<p>This isn’t the first time scientists have had to rationalize impossible or seemingly contradictory facts. But they have managed to come up with scientific solutions before, so why not now. Why do we say, now God stepped in, and played around with the laws of nature. In the past hundred years, scientists have always looked for and found solutions without invoking God, so why is this time different? Because evolution contradicts the judeao-christian view of creation.</p>