more fuel for thought: evolution

Parent Cafe
1

<p>

</p>

<p><a href=“http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2002522889_evolution27.html[/url]”>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2002522889_evolution27.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>And in other news- a determined group of apostate educators insist the earth is flat</p>

<p><a href=“http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/[/url]”>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/&lt;/a&gt;
2002522891_evolutiontrial27.html</p>

2

<p>White once wrote, the church accepts science in three stages, 1. staunch objection 2. merged acceptance trying to include their own theory as part of the science 3. Acceptance, We knew that all along.</p>

3

<p>Best quip I’ve seen on the subject: “Intelligent Design” is “Creationism” with aluminum siding.</p>

4

<p>Intelligent design is an evolved form of the prime mover theory. Anyone who tries to say its a disguised form of the Genesis account is a liberal apologist either ignorant of what it is, or purposely trying to spin it.</p>

5

<p>Vyse:
You’ve got it. Glad to have another sharp 17 year old to fill in for our beloved FountainSiren. (she went and turned 18 on us).</p>

6

<p>You won’t have me for long I’m afraid, I’ll be 18 October 20th.</p>

7

<p>Just because intelligent design purportedly has no testable evidence doesn’t make it a bad theory. Einstein’s theory of relativity wasn’t verified until Cockroft and Walton came along some years later.</p>

8

<p>so intelligent design is a new theory?</p>

9

<p>Intelligent design is flawed because it can’t make predictions; Einstein’s theories did provide testable predictions, which verified his theories.</p>

10

<p>Intelligent design is a cop-out of such proportions that it’s almost funny. “Gee, science can’t explain something quite yet. It must be God!” Reminds me of the Onion’s article on “intelligent falling” in lieu of gravity.</p>

11

<p>

</p>

<p>…that merely precludes it from ever being a knowledge-claim.</p>

12

<p>Or anything remotely scientific, for that matter. Didn’t creationists and ID proponents take science in high school? Or did they sleep through the classes they didn’t agree with?</p>

<p>“I think physics is dumb. I’ll ascribe the causes to the flying spaghetti monster instead! That’s scientific, and my theory!”</p>

<p>Jeez.</p>

13

<p>Any person who truly subscribes to the notion of ‘Faith’ knows that it is non-rational. It is not rational or irrational; it does not fall under the framework of logical or rational assessment. </p>

<p>Any faith-based belief is impertinent in a course that embodies use of rational methodology in accounting for phenomena. It is akin to teaching Shakespeare in a Chemistry course.</p>

<p>Intelligent Design material can be taught in a separate course; to be sure, integrating it with anything scientific would do the theory disservice.</p>

14

<p>For those who desire disabuse in ‘Faith’, I recommend reading an existential (or ontological) variation of it. The best text for this is, in my opinion, Paul Tillich’s ‘Dynamics of Faith.’</p>

<p>I am an agnostic, so do not attempt to cast me in either the theist or atheist category.</p>

15

<p>

</p>

<p>Oh dearest Horatio, how beautiful were thine moles!</p>

<p>Get it? Moles? Huh? Huh?</p>

16

<p>

</p>

<p>That depends on how you define ‘knowledge-claim’; however, even on a wide understanding of it, intelligent design does not qualify - I cannot think of any probability calculus it fulfills.</p>

17

<p>This is from a viewpoint article written by a physics professor at my school (UCLA). Great article - couldn’t agree more.
<a href=“http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?id=34339[/url]”>http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?id=34339&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>

18

<p>Best one-liner on the subject I’ve seen: “Intelligent design” is creationism with aluminum siding. Science it ain’t.</p>