It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If ID and creationism were given funding and grants...

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 10:19 PM
link   
I strongly disagree with creationism and ID be taught in science class and I have one question for such proponents. On the other hand, I have no problem with ID and creationism be taught in philosophy or some kind of religious studies class. When it comes to being taught alongside science is when I get a little confused. The US president has openly stated that it should be taught alongside evolution, so the following question goes out to him and all the other advocates. (I made that seem like he's actually going to read this. hahaha, sorry).

If ID and creationist "scientists" were given funding for research, what kind of experiments would they perform?




posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
I strongly disagree with creationism and ID be taught in science class and I have one question for such proponents. On the other hand, I have no problem with ID and creationism be taught in philosophy or some kind of religious studies class. When it comes to being taught alongside science is when I get a little confused. The US president has openly stated that it should be taught alongside evolution, so the following question goes out to him and all the other advocates. (I made that seem like he's actually going to read this. hahaha, sorry).

If ID and creationist "scientists" were given funding for research, what kind of experiments would they perform?


I have a problem with this. If parents want to teach their children about ID instead of evolution, they have a place for it.

Church. Or Private Religious School.

I don't march into a church and demand that they teach evolution, and frankly the debate over it makes me sick.

"If ID and creationism were given funding and grants..." It would be unconstitutional.

The constitution is not open to interpretation on this. Separation. of. Church. and. State. PERIOD.

People came to this country so that they had a freedom to choose which religion they wished to follow. Indoctrinating our children with Creationism crap violates my rights to bring my child up without a "Religious Background" and their right to choose. Especially if it is taught in a class that is GRADED, as in SCHOOL.

Keep your bible out of my classroom.

[edit on 12-1-2007 by Loki]



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 12:02 AM
link   
I guess they'd search for things that are irreducibly complex and whatnot.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 


Yeah probably.

Irreducibly complex? That is a farce if I ever heard one.

Creationists point to the eye as something 'irreducibly complex', Thereby 'proving' Creation.

Here's the idea:


Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the argument of irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".[9] These examples are said to demonstrate that modern biological forms could not have evolved naturally. Behe is on record stating he believes in evolution, but does not think life evolved from next to nothing. The argument is used in a broader context to support the idea that an intelligent designer was involved, at some point, in the creation of life, against the theory of evolution as far as creating all life (Behe admits life has evolved over millions of years, but does not believe life began through random chance) which requires no designer. In a manner of speaking, the IC argument is a definition of the "designer", or at least "what was designed", a definition that has proven elusive in the past. The most common examples used in argument are the complexity of the eye, the blood clotting cascade, or the motor in a cell's flagellum.


Source

The idea itself is flawed in one element: that it assumes life functions now in the same way that it did millions of years ago, that simply is not verifiable. Who is to say that the way the eye functions now is the way that it has since life began?

Also important to realize is that not every single eye in the natural world works the same way. Fish, mammals, insects, etc. They all have eyes that function differently.

Fossil Record? apparently religious people like to discount this.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Essentially, they would perform experiments attempting to disprove evolution.

'Look it's all so complex it just couldn't have evolved'

That's about as far as it gets, no?

But we already know how prolific ID is:

Progress in complexity, information, and design

Last issue, novermber 2005, heh. They can't even publish in their own journal.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loki
I have a problem with this. If parents want to teach their children about ID instead of evolution, they have a place for it.

Church. Or Private Religious School.

"If ID and creationism were given funding and grants..." It would be unconstitutional.

The constitution is not open to interpretation on this. Separation. of. Church. and. State. PERIOD.

People came to this country so that they had a freedom to choose which religion they wished to follow. Indoctrinating our children with Creationism crap violates my rights to bring my child up without a "Religious Background" and their right to choose. Especially if it is taught in a class that is GRADED, as in SCHOOL.


I certainly agree that they shouldn't be publicly funded and now I am thinking I phrases the question wrong. Another thing, I don't necessarily see anything wrong with teaching it as a philosophy, just as long as there is a definitive distinction between it and science.

I guess what I really mean is, what are ID proponents studying in their labs? If they want it taught beside science, in a classroom, they have to present experimental data. Well, where would it come from? What experiments are they performing?

I don't agree with pseudo-science being taught in science classes. I noticed that evolution proponents have answered to this thread and would like to hear from creationists and ID'ers. (No offense evolutionists)

So creationists and ID'ers...where are you? Help yourselves out by replying and taking the other side of the topic. What experiments are you performing?

[edit on 2-12-2007 by LuDaCrIs]



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 07:31 AM
link   
I don't know. I don't think there are creationist scientists exactly. I think there are scientists and researchers in various areas of science who happen to personally believe in Intelligent Design, etc. They're not carrying out any lab experiments or anything like that, they're making observations and then commenting on those observations.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   
simple answer: they wouldn't know what to do with the money because they have no scientific tests to run...
but they sure as hell would make it look like they're researching.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
simple answer: they wouldn't know what to do with the money because they have no scientific tests to run...
but they sure as hell would make it look like they're researching.


So what is the logic behind ID being scientific, if its not experimental?



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   
They would MESS UP long-held ideologies of godless evolution!

They would go behind the scientists who go on and on about the 'exact' specifics of the evolutionary process and find all of their covered-over falacies and gaps!

For 'science' to have this oversight and scrutiny would be like a breath of fresh air!




posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Not to mention the archaeological, geological and anthropological data that are reserved only for those 'in the loop'.

WOW!!!



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Ah, but they DO get funding - mostly in the form of private donations.

As for what they do with it: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
Not to mention the archaeological, geological and anthropological data that are reserved only for those 'in the loop'.

WOW!!!


Are you being serious with this?


(this is not a one line post)



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by vox2442
 



Private donations don't come anywhere close to what secular(Most of the big ones are) universities have access to, not to mention the government entities!

It's especially hard when you could have the I.R.S. on your neck, like Dr. Hovind has.
Are archaeologists usually taxed to excess???

How could he support his staff, museum and research in the midst of all that?!!!

Ministries are supposed to be exempt!

However he did well with what he did.





posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
So what is the logic behind ID being scientific, if its not experimental?


did i ever say there was any logic behind ID being scientific?
it's just a massive sham.


Originally posted by Clearskies
They would MESS UP long-held ideologies of godless evolution!


i actually laughed audibly at this one...

how?



They would go behind the scientists who go on and on about the 'exact' specifics of the evolutionary process and find all of their covered-over falacies and gaps!


...that's what the scientists to do themselves.



For 'science' to have this oversight and scrutiny would be like a breath of fresh air!


science is a self-scrutinizing institution, it's how they come to the truth. like when we believed that time was a constant, and a scientist was like "no, we have this one wrong"
if evolution was wrong, the first people to say so would be the scientists.
that's the beauty of science.

reply to post by Clearskies
 


yes "dr" hovind

www.kent-hovind.com...

there, i just entirely debunked the fraud with a single link



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


So, according to you, ID is a negative argument against godless evolution.

You do know that the idea in science is to support your own hypotheses, rather than use religious motivations to deny a different theory?

We need people like you to support ID - the more the top-dogs say it is not religiously motivated, the more the 'tourettes'-like cheerleaders show it is. Good stuff, keep it up.



[edit on 5-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


You don't really believe that atheists are un-biased????

They scrutinize each other only so far, so as not to rock the evolutionary boat.
One says " Oh, I know australopithicus(sp) is an intermediate species,BUT, I think he ate thus and so!"
The other says, "But, I believe he, slept thus and so."

WOW, that's hard-line scrutiny.

I don't have Tourrettes, and some who do are really quite sharp!



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   
On the apparent lack of funding for cdesignpropentsists...

Discovery Institute:


In 2003, the Discovery Institute reported $4,233,814.00 total revenue, $3,544,031.00 in end-of-year assets, and $2,499,077.00 total expenses. Of those expenses, $338,977.00 went to officers and directors, $627,285.00 went to other salaries and wages, and $122,809.00 went to travel. (In 2002, I noted that the DI could cut its travel budget in half and fund a research study. I’ll note that $60K is the level of funding for some NSF postdoctoral research fellowships.)

linky

That's $4 million revenue for the DI.

Institute for creation research:


2005:
Revenue: $4,341,000
Expenses: $4,231,885
Net assets at end of year: $5,228,062
Salaries: $2,003,648 (46.2% of revenue)
($306,346 directors/execs, $1,697,302 other salaries)

linky

Another $4 million revenue.

Answers in genesis:


In 2004, Answers in Genesis of Kentucky (AiG-US) saw $10,423,222 in revenue.

In 2005, their revenue dropped to $5,429,923--a nearly 50% decline.

The specific revenue numbers show that donations dropped from $7,754,247 in 2004 to $3,978,239 in 2005, program service revenue (from seminars and "charter memberships" in their creationism museum) dropped from $629,644 in 2003 to $270,350 in 2004, and gross profits from sales of inventory (sales minus cost of goods sold) dropped from $2,025,619 in 2004 to $1,124,438. This suggests a decline in interest in what Answers in Genesis is selling. The only positive changes in their revenue picture were in sales of non-inventory assets (including securities), where they went from a $12,683 loss in 2004 to an $822 gain in 2005, and in "other revenue," where they went from $12,683 in 2004 to $13,798 in 2005.

linky

Another $5 million revenue.

That's the major three. Between them, they have over $10 million every year.

More than sufficient to do something of worth in the scientific arena. I'm involved in a grant submission for about £250,000 for a 3 year project, doing real science of course. With multi-millions, creationists do nada of note in science.

Ask yourself where this money goes? This is big business.

[edit on 5-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by melatonin
 


You don't really believe that atheists are un-biased????


You appear to be confusing atheism and evolutionary biology. They are different things.


WOW, that's hard-line scrutiny.


The problem is that creationists don't do science. They do apologetics. Who do you think it was that showed Haeckel to be incorrect? A creationist?


I don't have Tourrettes, and some who do are really quite sharp!


It was meant to be a metaphor. Sort of like:

Behe: "Intelligent design is not religious, it says nothing about the designer, it is pure science"

You: "evolution is devil's spawn, jaysus is the one true designer, praise the lord!"

Behe: "No, honestly, don't listen to them, it's all science..."

[edit on 5-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Another reason for lack of new science is PURE laziness.

"My professor
did it this way,and his professor so........it's got to be right."
So you don't go back to the basic foundation to re-examine(without bias)

L-A-Z-I-N-E-S-S

How many evolutionist scientists became christians or basically I.D.ers from TRUE study? LOTS.

The premise of evolution is progression without God, hence evolutionary biology, is instilled with godlessness.
It takes faith to believe it!




top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join