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: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
L-A-Z-I-N-E-S-S


Heh, so evolutionary biologists are lazy?

That's quite funny.


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


What's this TRUE study? I'm guessing it has nothing to do with science.

And if you are saying LOTS, then some evidence of this would be good. Especially as the religious are in the minority in academic science.

In 1916, 40% expressed a belief in a supreme god-dude. In 1977, same again, 40%. In 1998, 7%. (linky)

So, TRUE scientific study does have an effect of religious belief, but not the way you think it does.


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


So what? Scientific explanations of the weather are also 'godless'. Do we need 'intelligent weather' now as well? And faith is not required, science requires evidence, and evolutionary biologists do often get off their lazy butts and find it.

ABE: lets try to stick to the topic - funding. What would you study, clearskies? If I gave you £500,000, what would you investigate? How would you find support for creationism?

[edit on 5-12-2007 by melatonin]




posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   

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


there are more scientists named steve than there are IDers....

just look in to project steve, it's quite nice.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I think the idea of issuing government grants and funding to teach ID and Creationism is terribly frightening. That thought has nothing to do with my own personal beliefs, which I will disclose in a moment.

In the US, it is unconstitutional for government to prefer religion over nonreligion, or to show preference to one religion over another. I am not going to claim that I am an expert in world religions, but I know that there are many many religions in the world that do not follow the Bible. If you teach that God created living things by means of X, you would then also have to teach that God created living things by means of Y, A, etc. Considering that evolution is usually taught as a chapter in a biology textbook (or at least that's how I had it), to teach all of the other possibilities alongside it would waste incredible amounts of time. Evolution/ID/creationism would have to be it's own course, with its own book. To pick and choose among the world religions to only teach creation as it pertains to "mainstream" or "popular" religions would be unconstitutional.

I went to a Catholic high school. In biology class, we learned about evolution. We learned that it was a theory, but that based on scientific evidence it was pretty much the best theory. In religion class, we learned that God created everything, and you can read about it in Genesis. I have no problem with splitting it up into science and religion/philosophy classes.

My own personal belief is that God created life, and it has evolved. That is not to say that God created creatures that were faulty, and thus needed to evolve. It is to say that God created the whole universe, and so he created things like meteorites and volcanoes and weater... evolution was a response to those things, and the universe continues on.

I believe that God is still creating, and I in no way believe that God made everything in the world in less than a week 6,000 years ago. I mean no disrespect to those who believe this, however. I just think that the belief has no place in a science curriculum.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by vox2442
Ah, but they DO get funding - mostly in the form of private donations.

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



Well, I read through that post and the only thing I got from it was that Hovind didn't pay his taxes and is going to jail for it. I don't recall reading anything about experiments.

Can we please stay on topic!!

I'd like to know, if creationism and ID are to be considered science, then what experiments would they perform?

Clearskies - Stop trashing the scientific community and leave the others alone unless you are going to contribute specifically to the topic of what kind of experiments can be performed to substantiate ID and creationism.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheHypnoToad
My own personal belief is that God created life, and it has evolved. That is not to say that God created creatures that were faulty, and thus needed to evolve. It is to say that God created the whole universe, and so he created things like meteorites and volcanoes and weater... evolution was a response to those things, and the universe continues on.

I believe that God is still creating, and I in no way believe that God made everything in the world in less than a week 6,000 years ago. I mean no disrespect to those who believe this, however. I just think that the belief has no place in a science curriculum.


I think most scientists would agree that we should separate science and religion, without taking religion out of our minds completely. I would agree with that as well.

Its not like scientists are saying we should all be atheists. They are merely saying it has no place in science.

How many times does science impose on religion?
How many times does religion impose on science?

I'd say more of the latter than the former.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   


Clearskies - Stop trashing the scientific community and leave the others alone unless you are going to contribute specifically to the topic of what kind of experiments can be performed to substantiate ID and creationism.


Well, if you want specifics!
They would have money to pay archaeologists, anthropologists and geologists to go out to diverse fields and RESEARCH.

Instead of little plots in Rosedale? Texas, they would have a wide array, worldwide!
They could dig in Iraq, Iran, American Stonehenge, etc....



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies

Well, if you want specifics!
They would have money to pay archaeologists, anthropologists and geologists to go out to diverse fields and RESEARCH.

Instead of little plots in Rosedale? Texas, they would have a wide array, worldwide!
They could dig in Iraq, Iran, American Stonehenge, etc....


.....and find what there??? You've essentially left a premise without a conclusion.

When you say "research", be more specific. What would they be looking for? What could falsify their research? How do you answer the question: Why did the designer design in such a manner?

Don't think of scientists as your enemy. In fact, if ID research and creationism has any merit, scientists will be the only ones to help you.

Again, it's not a matter of hating one ideology over the other. As both can exist mutually exclusive. But, when ID and creationism tries and to call itself science, it steps over a line and until it can conform to scientific standards, it should not be called science, regardless of what YOU might think of as "scientific standard".



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

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.


I was merely asking the members as a whole and not specifically you. Sorry for any confusion there.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 09:57 PM
link   
The theory of intelligent design is not unique to christianity. And does not have to be taught from a christian veiwpoint. It can be taught simply as a theory that the universe and all of the systems of evolutionary process within it were created and put in place by a non-specific, politically correct, unidentified higher form of intelligent life. And if intelligent design where given public funding, that is exactly how it would be taught...much to the dismay of the christians that so many of you seem to have such contempt for. So relax, it would not christianize the educational institutions.

And to be honest, I think it should be included in the educational process for the theory that it is. It will not pose a threat to the integrity of science as it is currently taught. It will however, pose a threat, to those who believe that non-theism should hold the monopoly on how evolution is taught. Theism and non-theism alike should be put forth side by side for consideration when exploring the evolutionary process.. And if ID is taught in a non-specific, politically correct way, nobody's beliefs will be forced down anybody's throats. And nobody will be offended. Except for maybe the militant atheists who are hellbent on trying to use science to disprove the existence of anything beyond the mundane.

Also, I suspect that the experiments and research that ID would do if given funding would probably be not that different from what the secular community does. Although I'm sure that whatever it chooses to do would be demonized as "psuedo-science" by those who believe ID has no place in scientific community or educational institutions.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Lightmare
 


i think you missed a point about "ID"

it's not science
at all

it has no experiments to run and nothing to prove. the whole argument is "i don't see how something so complex could arise from a natural process"

that "i don't see" part is where it fails at science.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   
No. I didn't miss any points. And neither did I claim that ID is science. I simply stated that it should be included side by side with the non-theistic veiw of evolution.

And there have been proponents of ID within the scientific community. The problem is that whenever they present their work, the militant atheists come out and do their worst to discredit it all as "psuedo-science". And all just because it says something a little bit different than their pet theories.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Lightmare
 


Here is the problem though Light, the two largest religions in the united states is what? Christianity and Islam. It is only a matter of time before somehow, someway, it would go from being politically correct and not supporting any one religion to... you guessed it... forcing one belief on everyone.

The simple fact is we have the separation of church and state. It is what the founding fathers wanted for a reason. I cannot condone the teaching of creationism and ID in public schools. It violates the separation that our founding fathers fought for.

In all honesty, it is the parents who have the job of teaching children creationism and ID. Not the schools. Just like, in my opinion, it is not the schools job to teach my children about sex. Teach them about biology yes, sex.. no. That is my job.

Besides, we have Bush in office. If he has his way, it would be christianity all the way, and other religions would be offended. I say keep it as it is. No creationism, no ID.

VV



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lightmare
I simply stated that it should be included side by side with the non-theistic veiw of evolution.


Included where?


The problem is that whenever they present their work, the militant atheists come out and do their worst to discredit it all as "psuedo-science".


There is no real work to discredit. Just rhetoric. Moreover, one of the most 'militant' opponents to ID is Ken Miller, he's far from an atheist.

Behe himself accepted that to bring ID into science, we would have to accept astrology as science. No thanks.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   
I disagree that teaching ID would be a gate way to christianizing the educational realms. There are too many angry naysayers who would fight tooth and nail to prevent that from happening. And I suspect they would win. The Bush administrations days are numbered and political pendulum is now swinging decidedly to the left. It would start off politically correct and it would stay that way. I'm quite sure of that.

I realize that many parents would prefer not to have there children learn ID in the public schools. And that is fine. There is no problem with that. But what many in this thread fail to realize is that there are also just as many parents who would prefer that their children be taught ID instead of non-theistic evolution. And not all of them have the money to send their children to private schools. If these two concepts can not find a way to co-exist and be taught side by side, then I would suggest keeping them both out of science class.

Seriously, if you really want to be politically correct about it, that would be the way to go. Leave the subject of how or why the universe was formed out of science class. Leave that subject up to the parents to teach their children as they see fit. That way nobody gets offended and you have neither christianity or atheism being pushed down anybody's throats.



*****ducks for cover as the masses reach for their flame throwers*****



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Lightmare
 


I think you are looking too positively on the idea that it would not become focused on one religion. Imagine the hollering from the religious leaders should creationism and ID was allowed in school. You would have the christian ministers demanding it be christian based. You would have the Islamic ministers (sorry cannot remember what they are called for the life of me) angry that their children were being taught different than their beliefs. Athetists and Pagans would rise up because they do not want someone else's views taught.

How do you propose to keep it completely free of any one religion when it is basically religious tenet? I do not see a way this could come about that would not infringe on someone's rights.

And there is still the matter of separation of church and state. No matter how you dice it, it still boils down to the fact that ID and creationism are religious indoctrine and thus, would be against our own constitution.

Removing all of it from schools is an idea, though I do not think it would work simply because you would have a huge gap in teaching when it comes to the galaxy, planets, etc. It could be done though, just.. hard.

****No flamethrowers.. just.. hugs!!****

VV



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lightmare
I realize that many parents would prefer not to have there children learn ID in the public schools. And that is fine. There is no problem with that. But what many in this thread fail to realize is that there are also just as many parents who would prefer that their children be taught ID instead of non-theistic evolution. And not all of them have the money to send their children to private schools. If these two concepts can not find a way to co-exist and be taught side by side, then I would suggest keeping them both out of science class.

Seriously, if you really want to be politically correct about it, that would be the way to go. Leave the subject of how or why the universe was formed out of science class. Leave that subject up to the parents to teach their children as they see fit. That way nobody gets offended and you have neither christianity or atheism being pushed down anybody's throats.


First off, I don't think evolutionist should be labeled "atheists". The two might seem to be the same, but they are not or should they be treated as such.

I don't think anyone will disagree with the concept of teaching ID in public schools; AS LONG as its not in a science class. It could be taught in an elective religious or an elective philosophy class. This way, the people who you say can't afford private schools, can also be informed by their own choice in an elective class.

The debate is whether or not ID should be taught alongside evolution in a science class. I started this thread to help ID proponents make their case as to why it should be taught alongside evolution in a science class by enabling them to describe what kind of experiments they perform.

Again, this is not whether or not ID should be taught in public schools, but whether or not it belongs alongside in a science class.

Is everyone ok with the idea of teaching ID in an elective religious or philosophy class?

What experiments are ID proponents doing to falsify their hypothesis? I would like to see specifics.

This thread shouldn't even mention evolution as it deals exclusively with ID and creationism. From now on let's not include evolution in this thread.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Here are some questions:

Given the complexity of DNA, how is it that life works just right?

Do you think there are any parts of life that aren't explained perfectly by evolution?

Can evolution explain all the nuances of qualia, consciousness, purpose?

I'm not saying that evolution is mostly wrong -- no -- but I need convincing that it is completely correct. I suspect that there is some information that is still missing -- perhaps some undiscovered physical law that will resolve these questions?



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Woopsie -- a double post.

But since I have this open, let me just add -- it seems to me that comparative biology, natural selection, genetics are all pretty much valid. However, there is no way that we can program a computer by hitting random keystrokes -- try it! There is not enough time in the universe!

[edit on 7-12-2007 by Buck Division]



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Science is valuable because it makes predictions that can be tested. The only prediction creationism makes is that evolution is false, which is problematic because any experiments performed to prove this would assume as their basis the validity of the conclusion. In philosophy (Western science used to be called natural philosophy) this is called "begging the question."

The notion that "intelligent design" would look for "irreducible complexity" is also problematic. Western science actually has a fairly precise understanding of complexity. Concepts in cognitive and information science, such as "Kolmogorov complexity," correlate the complexity of something with the shortest possible description of that thing.

For example, the sequence of digits 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
is not very complex because it can be described by a much shorter, simple rule: repeat "1" 500 times. Likewise, the number Pi, even though it contains an infinite string of nonrepeating integers, can be described as a simple ratio. Pi is not very complex.

The most complex numbers are those for which no shorter description is available. In essence, things that are random tend to be most complex.

Thus, creationists who invoke "irreducible complexity" as scientific evidence that God is behind all creation (to the exclusion of intermediary forces such as evolution) are in effect arguing that God behaves randomly. A God who behaves randomly doesn't fit too well in a Christian/Semitic theology (at least not the theology pushed by most creationists).



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 10:01 PM
link   
It is unfortunately true the religious leaders would bicker over who gets the monopoly on the ID theory. And that is the beauty of seperation of church and state. None of them would get it. Unfortunately the whole debate would be a lot more trouble than its worth and they would probably have to just do away with it anyways. Thats why I say get the non-theistic evolution out of science class as well. If the atheistic community wishes to avoid having religion shoved down its throat, thats all well and good. But it sure as heck better be ready to show the same respect to the religious who don't want atheism forced down their throats. True political correctness can only be achieved if both sides are removed from the classroom.

I think that removing the subject of origins from science class could be done without taking too much out of it. You would still be able to teach about galaxies, planets, stars, ect. You would be able to teach most aspects of science. Its just that one touchy subject of beginnings that would need to be avoided for the sake of true political correctness.


****thanks VV for hugging instead of flame throwing*****************



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join