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.

 

"Intelligent Design" is a conspiracy.

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
IDers are conspiring to inject religion into schools under the guise of "science". Dover, Del., and the Evolution Wars in Kansas have shown this to be the case.

What I'm wondering is if they think the whole country is stupid enough to believe that ID is anything but a sham?




posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
hmmmmmm....

most intelligent people who talk about intelligent design do not necessarily include God in their discussions....rather, the discussion wraps around an idea that something/someone/somehow makes us tick is by design versus evolution, which some claim is a conspiracy in its own right.






[edit on 6-4-2009 by prjct]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by prjct
hmmmmmm....

most intelligent people who talk about intelligent design do not necessarily include God in their discussions....rather, the discussion wraps around an idea that something/someone/somehow makes us tick is by design versus evolution, which some claim is a conspiracy in its own right.

[edit on 6-4-2009 by prjct]

Thanks, that's the point I like to make. The IDers hide the fact that they're a religion-based movement, not a scientific movement. Thus the conspiracy. "Wink-wink, nudge-nudge, we won't mention Goddidit, because nobody was buying that as science."



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Yep, I think the vatican have sayd it a couple of times now, they are planning on educating about ET life , and so it goes...

Coz they do expect 'a change in 5 to 10 years' I think it was they sayd !!

Tina SETI any one ??



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
ID may or may not be a sham, but until there is credible scientific evidence to support or deny it, it does not belong in schools as a science topic.

As a religous or philosophy topic yes, it is definitely worthy of discussion.

But so far there is no credible scientific evidence to support ID. Therefore, ID is not appropriate as a science class subject.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
What I'm wondering is if they think the whole country is stupid enough to believe that ID is anything but a sham?


yeas, i'm sure that there's a bunch of creationists out there that think the same thing about evolutionists, so what?

if it's such an idiotic idea then why on earth would you have a problem with people being exposed to it?



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
What I'm wondering is if they think the whole country is stupid enough to believe that ID is anything but a sham?


yeas, i'm sure that there's a bunch of creationists out there that think the same thing about evolutionists, so what?

if it's such an idiotic idea then why on earth would you have a problem with people being exposed to it?


Because they're trying to ram it down the throats of America by disguising it as "science" and insisting it be taught in science class.

Astronomy/Astrology, Chemistry/Alchemy, Biology/Intelligent Design. Do you have a problem with any of those?



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
The Monkey Man theory I dont belive one bit out of.
Why are there still monkeys?
Why dont the monkeys drive cars?
Why are the monkeys just as dumb now as for 10.000 years ago?
How can a monkey turn into a human in one fingersnap counting in Time. As have been somewhat proven, is that humans evolving from one cell to what we are today, would have taken alot longer than the time that have passed since the start of the universe 16.5 billion years ago..

There is noway all the right enzymes just happen to get together in the right order to create life naturally in this short ammount of time...
... Think abit !!!



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
It's not a conspiracy, it's just stupid.

Maybe they're conspiring to make everybody else as dumb as they are.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChemBreather
The Monkey Man theory I dont belive one bit out of.
Why are there still monkeys?
Why dont the monkeys drive cars?
Why are the monkeys just as dumb now as for 10.000 years ago?
How can a monkey turn into a human in one fingersnap counting in Time. As have been somewhat proven, is that humans evolving from one cell to what we are today, would have taken alot longer than the time that have passed since the start of the universe 16.5 billion years ago..

There is noway all the right enzymes just happen to get together in the right order to create life naturally in this short ammount of time...
... Think abit !!!


Apes, including humans, evolved from a common ancestor millions of years ago. That takes care of your first four problems.

As for the right enzymes bit, given a large enough "soup", say a big ocean, why couldn't it "just happen"? Chemical combine randomly all the time. After a billion years it's quite likely that the right combination would be along.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Because they're trying to ram it down the throats of America by disguising it as "science" and insisting it be taught in science class.
so saying that the only valid theory for consideration is evolution is random accident isn't ramming it down peoples throats?


Astronomy/Astrology, Chemistry/Alchemy, Biology/Intelligent Design. Do you have a problem with any of those?


what do you mean "do i have a problem", alchemy and chemistry are essentially the same thing. there is no hard line of division between the two.

astrology and astronomy are totally different, in much the same way that being a farmer and being a chef are different professions related to food, astronomy and astrology are different professions related to stars.

biology and intelligent design are perfectly compatible, ID says that there was a design to creation, you say, i assume, that there wasn't. neither opinion is relivant to the study of biology.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Because they're trying to ram it down the throats of America by disguising it as "science" and insisting it be taught in science class.
so saying that the only valid theory for consideration is evolution is random accident isn't ramming it down peoples throats?


Astronomy/Astrology, Chemistry/Alchemy, Biology/Intelligent Design. Do you have a problem with any of those?


what do you mean "do i have a problem", alchemy and chemistry are essentially the same thing. there is no hard line of division between the two.

astrology and astronomy are totally different, in much the same way that being a farmer and being a chef are different professions related to food, astronomy and astrology are different professions related to stars.

biology and intelligent design are perfectly compatible, ID says that there was a design to creation, you say, i assume, that there wasn't. neither opinion is relivant to the study of biology.


So you would give equal time to Alchemy in science classes?


Intelligent Design is not compatible with biology. Biology is a science, ID is a religion.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Funny thing is, there is not one SHRED of evidence in favour of ID.

I mean, the theory has nothing to add, only deny evolution by natural selection.

It was dismissed at the Dover trial as "non-scientific" and basically it's just the Discovery Institute's latest salvo to use a "wedge" strategy to get religion taught in state schools.

Scopes: "Creationism is not science, don't teach it in science class."
Dover: "ID is not science, don't teach it in science class."

Finally, one last point. I would concede to teach ID in a science class if "alternative" views are to be allowed to be taught in bible study or at the pulpit. I mean why not "teach the controversy?"



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
So you would give equal time to Alchemy in science classes?


Alchemy and chemistry are the same thing, they're the same root word with the same meaning. there is no difference between alchemy and chemistry. if you mean the pursuit of the objective of transmutation of metals, simply put, it is possible but not cost effective. the chemical equations can be, and often are, explained for illustrative and teaching purposes in science classes.

telling kids they can turn lead to gold is an attention getter.


Intelligent Design is not compatible with biology. Biology is a science, ID is a religion.


biology is the study of living things, it should make no claims as to their initial creation. there is little or no evidence to suggest a conclusion about the genesis of "life" as we know it.

both "intelligent design" and the idea of a totally random genisis are philosophical ideas that have no basis in science. neither are provable. if it cannot be proven, it is not science.

if the idea of a random genesis is taught in schools why not the idea of a designed genesis?

and by genesis, i mean the process not the first book of the bible.



[edit on 6/4/09 by pieman]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
So you would give equal time to Alchemy in science classes?


Alchemy and chemistry are the same thing, they're the same root word with the same meaning. there is no difference between alchemy and chemistry. if you mean the pursuit of the objective of transmutation of metals, simply put, it is possible but not cost effective. the chemical equations can be, and often are, explained for illustrative and teaching purposes in science classes.

telling kids they can turn lead to gold is an attention getter.


Intelligent Design is not compatible with biology. Biology is a science, ID is a religion.


biology is the study of living things, it should make no claims as to their initial creation. there is little or no evidence to suggest a conclusion about the genesis of "life" as we know it.

both "intelligent design" and the idea of a totally random genisis are philosophical ideas that have no basis in science. neither are provable. if it cannot be proven, it is not science.

if the idea of a random genesis is taught in schools why not the idea of a designed genesis?

and by genesis, i mean the process not the first book of the bible.



[edit on 6/4/09 by pieman]

So, you would teach that a person can change lead into gold? With a Philosopher's Stone perhaps?

Note also that the origin of life is covered in abiogenesis, not in biology. So that part was irrelevant. Science makes no claims as to how like actually started, although they do speculate about it. However, they don't claim that a Great Sky Fairy was involved it the process.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
So you would give equal time to Alchemy in science classes?


Alchemy and chemistry are the same thing, they're the same root word with the same meaning. there is no difference between alchemy and chemistry. if you mean the pursuit of the objective of transmutation of metals, simply put, it is possible but not cost effective. the chemical equations can be, and often are, explained for illustrative and teaching purposes in science classes.

telling kids they can turn lead to gold is an attention getter.


Intelligent Design is not compatible with biology. Biology is a science, ID is a religion.


biology is the study of living things, it should make no claims as to their initial creation. there is little or no evidence to suggest a conclusion about the genesis of "life" as we know it.

both "intelligent design" and the idea of a totally random genisis are philosophical ideas that have no basis in science. neither are provable. if it cannot be proven, it is not science.

if the idea of a random genesis is taught in schools why not the idea of a designed genesis?

and by genesis, i mean the process not the first book of the bible.



[edit on 6/4/09 by pieman]


Then you misunderstand ID. It has nothing to say on abiogenesis. Though science is coming closer each year, it too does not have the compete picture.


ID postulates that things like the "eye", "wing" or "bacterial flagellum" are so complex that if you take one part away the rest is useless and therefore "designed by an intelligence" is the only answer.

Well guess what, it's not. ALL of the "proof" presented for this "theory" has been thoroughly trashed on public record and counter arguments presented with solid evidence to back them up.

It's not science, it does NOT belong in the biology class.
Unless, of course, you say that "well it's another world view" and my counter argument to that is: There are MANY world views on biology, should we be teaching spiritual healing? How about the musings of an african witch doctor?



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
So, you would teach that a person can change lead into gold? With a Philosopher's Stone perhaps?


as far as i know, a fission or fusion reactor is needed, not sure which. it's possible but hardly practical, one element to another is not easy as it requires the breaking of atomic bonds.


However, they don't claim that a Great Sky Fairy was involved it the process.


they don't rule out a "great sky fairy" either. they don't investigate "great sky fairies" because that is unlikely to be the instigator, however if all other more likely avenues are explored and found wanting they will then investigate "great sky fairies" as an explanation. this is called logical inquiry.

at this point, "great sky fairies" have as much factual basis as random accident. belief in one scenario or the other falls somewhere between the realms of faith and opinion.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
So, you would teach that a person can change lead into gold? With a Philosopher's Stone perhaps?


as far as i know, a fission or fusion reactor is needed, not sure which. it's possible but hardly practical, one element to another is not easy as it requires the breaking of atomic bonds.


However, they don't claim that a Great Sky Fairy was involved it the process.


they don't rule out a "great sky fairy" either. they don't investigate "great sky fairies" because that is unlikely to be the instigator, however if all other more likely avenues are explored and found wanting they will then investigate "great sky fairies" as an explanation. this is called logical inquiry.

at this point, "great sky fairies" have as much factual basis as random accident. belief in one scenario or the other falls somewhere between the realms of faith and opinion.


Probability is also part of logical inquiry. Because of the very nature of chemicals (especially the carbon atom), they form bonds easily. Is it more probable that given the billion or so years that the earth had no life, some of these bonded to form amino acids? then peptides, protiens, RNA, DNA, cells?
Or that someone/something "put" it there, but we don't know ANYTHING about the someone/something.

(Look up Oparin/Haldane and the Miller experiments, by the way.)



[edit on 6-4-2009 by AshtonBlack]

[edit on 6-4-2009 by AshtonBlack]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   
If one were to impart quality to design then one would have to implore that evolution doesn't exist but only in the minds that think it "intelligent" for chaos to have brought it about.

If nothing were designed then nothing were thought.

There can be no evolution without a designing preconception of change.

Hence you are either a stupid evolutionist or a intelligent evolutionist, which would you prefer in your theoretical designs?

The social construction of religion and evolution both seem absurd to me.

All constructions depend on their validity by their usefulness.

Theories about the meaning of life, seem absurd only if I myself seem absurd. One interjects their own view and bias into everything, even by stating they are not biased and scientific.

So nothing rational can exist without the view of something upon it. Gravity may exist outside our beliefs.

So there are many things that are not explainable and so the atheist and theist cannot explain everything.

People think of evil conspiracies only since they are afraid of their favorite theories or politics or views maybe in danger of being discarded.

Evolution seems just as absurd as saying god did it. But maybe something intelligent designed something or everything in Universe structures.

Maybe billions of galaxies didn't just happen by accident, and we maybe much better for that opinion, rather than wallowing in self pity and atheistic depression.

How it happened I don't think the IDer's have set out to prove, maybe only that something rather than nothing gives purpose and meaning to desireing to find out why.

If there were no meaning or just chaos it would make sense from our view, but our view represents .01 percent of the known existence of reality, so maybe this chaos has an order a meaning to it that can be deciphered and it would enable us to try to figure it out.

Saying God did it or nobody did it, says "I give up", it maybe as Bill Hicks would say "wearing your pajamas out in public", a sign of resignation to insignificence.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by AshtonBlack
 


to be honest, it depends on what mood i'm in.
some days i look around and say, "man, it can't all be random, it just feels too perfect" and some days i look around and say "man, it has to be random, it just feels too perfect" and some days i say "man, it feels too perfect to care".

weather or not ID is the most probable explanation should not influence the decision on weather or not the idea should be presented. the idea, at it's core, seems as sound as not and is either way unproovable.

my view is that it can and should be responcibly taught as an alternative to the standard model where significant members of the public wish alternatives to be discussed as part of the science curriculum.




top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join