Impressive list.

It really is a tough call for me. On one hand it seems unfair to include one but not the other, on the other I want children to just get the facts as science knows them in science class and leave the rest to parents. What if I am a Catholic that accepts the theory that "God used the process of evolution to perfect His creation?" and my children go to school where a hard-line Southern Baptist teaches that God only did a "poof" and the world was instantly made? How do I reconcile that with my child while dealing with the second influence in their life; which is a man who always undermines what I say as sin?

There are so many reasons I can think of why it should stay out, and not that many that think it should go in.

OT, I am still waiting on your answers.

Originally posted by Conclusion

Creationism doesn't have proof? lol. Would you agree that statistics is a science? Well if you do then think on this statistically speaking of course. Evolution..a theory mind you...taught as science.....hmmm.

When was the last time you jumped off a cliff trying to disprove the theory of gravity?
Do you believe that I'm a pixie living inside your computer screen and writing this stuff?

Originally posted by madeioo

Originally posted by Conclusion

Creationism doesn't have proof? lol. Would you agree that statistics is a science? Well if you do then think on this statistically speaking of course. Evolution..a theory mind you...taught as science.....hmmm.

When was the last time you jumped off a cliff trying to disprove the theory of gravity?
Do you believe that I'm a pixie living inside your computer screen and writing this stuff?

POINT?


That's a distraction friend....


Unless OT missed something....the eyes are going tho....please elaborate, ok?

Old OT

haha well of course they would bar him from any good science course, crazy old fool with all that outdated and wrong science! Didn't you hear Newtonian model is old news, energy is equal to the mass times speed of light in a vacume squared, clocks tell diffrent times on trains, etc, etc - Did anyone even mention that light is both a particle AND a wave? lol, silly old newton thought Gravity was a PULL not a PUSH haha sorry old buddy, this is a science school you'll need to do a PHD at least.....

haha of course i jest, Newton wouldn't have sat around pondering what makes apples fall or whatever he did with himself back when you had to wear silly hats and ruffles - asumeing that somehow the same newton was born into todays world we can only assume that he would be out looking for 'the god particle' at LHC or debating fineman on the nature of 9,10,11 and 12 dimensional physics.

We must then assume that if his scientific and social upbringing were different, i'm sure the amount of times he says 'privy wench' would be drastically cut in the 21st C for example, then we must assume that his religious tendency would also be modeled in a more modernist vein. Who knows what he would have made of our modern society, maybe he would have made youtube videos about stupid statistical fallacys which seem to disprove evolution for a second, we just don't know. I get the feeling that he might well have joined with everyone else involved in serious rational study of the world and decided that god either doesn't exist or isn't interested so one might as well get on with the things we can know for sure, the things science hopes to prove through study, observation and repeated experiment.

OT does believe there are those ATS-er's that will do their due diligence....

For those ready, willing, and have the time, here's a good start...

Elsberry, W, and Shallit, J. (2004) "Playing Games with Probability: Dembski's Complex Specified Information." In Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism, Rutgers University Press: Piscataway, New Jersey.

Häggström, O. (2007) "Intelligent Design and the NFL Theorems." Biology and Philosophy, 22:217-230.

Matzke, N. (2007) "Book Review: The Edge of Creationism." Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 22:566-567.

National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine (2008). Science, Evolution, and Creationism. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. www.nap.edu/catalog/11876.html

Olofsson, P. (2008) "Intelligent Design and Mathematical Statistics: A Troubled Alliance." Biology and Philosophy (in press).

Perakh, M. (2003) Unintelligent Design. Prometheus Books: Amherst, New York.

Shallit, J. (2002) "Book Review: No Free Lunch." BioSystems, 66:93-99.

Sober, E. (2002) "Intelligent Design and Probability Reasoning." International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion, 52:65-80.


U2U me after you have read....

2 and 2 = 4 OT

Originally posted by NatureBoy
haha well of course they would bar him from any good science course, crazy old fool with all that outdated and wrong science! ....

friend you are better than that right?

You are not judging one from the 200 yr later vantage point are you? come on now....

??????

OT


Please articulate the discoveries learned SINCE....be careful realy cause OT's gonna show you.....followers of Jesus found them toooooooo.....

Oh well, Humble OT just askin'