W and ID
sha...@intelligent-design.us
in school". I may be wrong about this, but I don't think I am.
Foremost, "who" or "what" is the Designer?
Second, Catholics have one view of Creation, J.W.'s have another view,
and Baptists have their own view of Creation and I am sure they have
individual differences on `how' the elusive designer designs. Certainly
there are some who disagree with Intelligent Design hypothesis, and
will not want their children taught the hypothesis? Or, am I in error
on this?
Why should one religious ideaologue be taught in the school system,
given preference over other "design hypothesis"?
I've not really kept up with the issue, because Spongebob is
monopolizing screen-time. Occasionally I get to tune into the news and
catch up with what's going on in the world...
More of my question . . .
I presumed that the Constitution provided that State would not
superimpose one religious view over the next. They often call "atheism"
a religion and the atheists have their own view of how life came about,
and sometimes atheists do not agree on every detail between themselves
(how much more so then, Christians?), but one thing they have in common
is a lack of belief in "purpose". The I.D. theory assumes life was
planned, "designed by a designer"... we were created for "what
purpose"?
Will they give equal time to atheistic "origins"? The bleak view that
we die and that's all there is to it... the chaos of the cosmos... the
flaws and barbarity found in nature, atheists can paint a pretty
cynical picture if given room to tell their world view in the
classroom. If they give time to I.D'rs, they should give equal time to
the "non-intelligence, non-designers".
Those who would claim Evolution is already there for atheists, are
wrong...
Evolution does not teach "why we are here", simply how we got here:
Fossils are fact, not hypothesis. Really, when debating this "ID
hypothesis", without empirical evidence for said Designer, everything
boils down to nothing more than hopeful speculation and philosophy
which has no place in science. But George Bush probably doesn't fully
understand what either evolution or intelligent design are, himself.
If my understanding is correct, these ID'rs are saying some things
cannot be explained by science. Perhaps it cannot at this time... even
Einstein could not fully explain the atom . . . another fifty years,
maybe science can find the answer. It's hardly time to start filling in
gaps with "superstition".
"The US president told newspaper reporters in Texas that children
should be taught about intelligent design so they could better
understand the debate about the origins of the universe."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4136690.stm
"Both sides ought to be properly taught?" asked Hutcheson
""Yes," Bush answered, "so people can understand what the debate
is about."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1089733,00.html
---
How will people understand what the debate is about unless they allow
the "non-intelligent, non-designers" to give their side, and that is
not part of Bush's plan --though it is the only way "both sides" can
be heard.
Even still `evolution', which deals with fossils is not part of this
issue, as there are many Theistic / Christian Evolutionists.
You figure George Bush has got the "Divine Tinkerer Hypothesis" or
"Ignorant Designer Hypothesis" or all the sub-hypothesis in between
worked into that plan to "help children understand what the debate is
about"?
Of course not. He's too ignorant about the debate himself. He actually
believes evolution is the only "alternative view" and is somehow a view
exclusively held by atheists and apostates.
More on W and ID . . .
Has Intelligent Design Hypothesis been proven anymore "empirical" than
any other Design hypothesis, i.e., Divine Tinkerer hypothesis? If not,
it should be shown no partisanship over its other hypothetical
counterparts. I say "Teach the Intelligent Design hypothesis", so long
as W is also willing to spend tax dollars on teaching kids "Ignorant
Design" as well. W wants them to *understand* the debate afterall, I
say "Go For It".
Apostate
>I say "Teach the Intelligent Design hypothesis", so long
>as W is also willing to spend tax dollars on teaching kids "Ignorant
>Design" as well. W wants them to *understand* the debate afterall, I
>say "Go For It".
It's a matter of choosing an academic subject into which ID can be spliced. Certainly,
it can't be forced into a science curriculum, pretending that it is science. Perhaps a
Conscientious Objectors to Science course could be added to the curriculum, as an elective
the fundies could substitute for learning to count to twelve by threes. Everything that could
be culled into a Theory of Intelligent Design, as of today, could be fit neatly into the lesson
time that that last-mentioned skill takes to teach/learn. But if they'd like to pursue my
proposed new course idea, they could afterwards (after the first five minutes of class day one,
that is) consider the chief alternative theories to Newton's theory of gravity, as enhanced by
Einstein: Intelligent Grappling (the more ancient of the leading pretenders) and Intelligent
Falling, the new comer. In a few years, we might hope for some anti-Maxwellian to finish
his thesis on Faith-Based Charge Phenomena and Currents, and if we get really lucky, Holy
Fluid Dynamics (God's Snot Amused.)
--
/Apostate
alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
e-mail to lower-case only
Ken
> Certainly
> there are some who disagree with Intelligent Design hypothesis, and
> will not want their children taught the hypothesis? Or, am I in error
> on this?
I don't really want my kids taught this stuff in science class. I wouldn't
mind if it was taught in a comparative religion class or even a civics
class as an example of a current issue. It isn't science.
--
Ken
DanielSan
I, too, would not mind Intelligent Design to be taught in school... as
an elective course. Also, in that same elective course, have other
"theories" such as the ancient Egyptian "theory," the Great Green
Arkleseizure Theory, and so forth.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
sha...@intelligent-design.us
problem, "Apostate", Ken and Daniel.
"It's a matter of choosing an academic subject into which ID can be
spliced. Certainly, it can't be forced into a science curriculum,
pretending that it is science." and "It isn't science."
Very insightful.
---
August 20, 2005
George Bush and Intelligent Design
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/bush_intelligent_design.html
George Bush intends to add ID Hypothesis to the public school
cirriculum so children 'understand the debate'. After review, one can
conclude Bush does not understand the debate himself. He must likewise
include such counterpart hypothesis as 'ignorant design' and the
'divine tinkerer hypothesis, including the non-design hypothesis of
atheism. Evolution does not attempt to answer 'why' we are here, but
confirms through empirical evidence 'how' we got here. Does GWB intend
the course to provide children with insight into the many flaws in ID
Hypothesis, or scientific points debunking it?
------------------
Foremost, "who" or "what" is the Designer?
Timothy Chase: Well, here is one interesting article which argues that
the intelligent designer must, as a matter of logic, be God (odd
periodical for it to appear in, though):
The Bait and Switch of Intelligent Design
http://www.americandaily.com/article/8086
... although you might also ask the father of the Intelligent Design
movement:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson
... then you might ask one of its leading theorists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dembski
---
TIM CHASE: Do you mean something along the lines of silly an
intelligent designer must have been to give us goose bumps so as to
fluff nonexistent fur, which if we had such fur, would better insulate
us against the cold -- but as it is, ends up being worse than useless?
I can see your point. At the same time, I believe that even if the
classroom weren't to become politically charged as the result of
bringing an intelligent designer and an inept designer into the
classroom, simply bringing both of these fellows in will leave less
time for real science and education. But here is another view which
might be worth considering:
Should we Teach ID in Schools?
Posted by Steve Reuland on March 16, 2005 10:44 AM
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000875.html
Further Points:
Bruce Carter: As for "separation of church and state" - that phrase
appears nowhere in the Constitution of the United States.
Ian Robinson: But the first amendment, Article I., states the concept
in slightly more legal language. Namely:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Bruce Carter: A variation of it, however, did appear twice in the
Constitution of the old Soviet Union.
Ian Robinson: Well that got that right then. Lots of things they got
wrong. But not that.
sha...@intelligent-design.us
~That's what is taught exclusively now.
~--
~Pastor Dave
~
~http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
~http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
I disagree. If atheistic origins were taught in the classroom, children
would be coming home in tears crying "I don't want to die, the teacher
taught us there is nothing beyond this life and the teacher said there
is no God." Children would be indoctrinated to believe the state of
consciousness depends entirely upon active chemicals in the brain
--when the brain shuts down --life ends, and there is nothing more.
That would qualify as a "religious belief", and does not belong in the
classroom. Nobody knows the answer "what happens" after we die. Science
does not attempt to embark on the unknown such as "life after death".
Science (Evolution) merely addresses the empirical, as in
interpretation of fossils.
Evolution does not attempt to answer "why we are here" or "where we
are going" after we die.
Elroy Willis
> Children would be indoctrinated to believe the state of
> consciousness depends entirely upon active chemicals in the brain
> --when the brain shuts down --life ends, and there is nothing more.
> That would qualify as a "religious belief", and does not belong in the
> classroom.
Wouldn't it qualify as a lack of religious belief?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
sha...@intelligent-design.us
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> - Find messages by this
author
>> Children would be indoctrinated to believe the state of
>> consciousness depends entirely upon active chemicals in the brain
>> --when the brain shuts down --life ends, and there is nothing more.
>> That would qualify as a "religious belief", and does not belong in the
>> classroom.
> Wouldn't it qualify as a lack of religious belief?
Yes of course. In another way, atheism is also a philosophical view.
Nobody really knows these answers (origins, afterlife, if there's a
purpose, etc) -- everyone has an opinion, and that's really all
religion is, an opinion. What's funny, is Christianity alone, has
around 35,000 of them.