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 Trumps Creationism AND Darwinism!

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
You can believe in Intelligent Design whatever your orientation. It is the stuff that private schools are teaching nowadays. It says that there is a God and that he created the universe using scientific principles (the Big Bang, evolution).
Plus. it can be taught to any religious audience. Whether they believe in YHWH, the Word, Allah, Brahman, the Yin-Yang, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (which was, quite incidentally, formed as a protest to the ID idea), the students can be taught Intelligent Design without problem.
A common mistake is that some people- yes, ATS, you are guilty of this, too- think that creationism and Intelligent Design are synonymous. In fact, the opposite is true. While teaching Catholic creationism in public schools would certainly violate the First Amendment, Intelligent Design fits very nicely through a little-seen loophole. The First Amendment only states that the government can not make a law about what religion the people practice. However, belief in a God is repeatedly referenced throughout the Declaration of Independance- and, heck, "In God We Trust" is on the dollar bill.

Thanks for your time,
Seraph
edit on 21-4-2011 by seraphnb because: Slip of . . . Keyboard




posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by seraphnb
 


Show me one spot in the Constitution where God is mentioned or infered to... JUST ONE! The freedom of Religion automatically infers the Freedom FROM religion...



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Ah! Did I say Constitution? Sorry, slip of . . . keyboard. I meant the Declaration of Independance. Thanks for catching that. IOU1.

Thanks,
SeraphNB



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
You don't teach Intelligent Design because it is bogus science. No matter how many big sciencey words you attach to it, no matter how many convoluted half truths you attach - it is still not science and has NO - ABSOLUTELY NONE documented proofs.

To believe otherwise is willful ignorance.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by seraphnb
 


Printed on the dollar bill that is created by a NON government run, privately owned bank.

Keep speculation in church



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 

Show me one spot in the Constitution where God is mentioned or infered to... JUST ONE!


Correct, it's not there, although to Declaration of Indepence does refer to a creator.


The freedom of Religion automatically infers the Freedom FROM religion...


Not correct, the first amendment merely states that congress shall "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech". This just means that our various gonvermental levels are prohibitied from federal, state or municipal establishment of an official religion or other preference for one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion. Freedom FROM religion would imply a violation of freedom of speech, also protected under the first amendment.

Souter's majority opinion on one of the relevant cases sums it up well - "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."

Be well.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Even if religion is completely removed from the theory of intelligent design it still has no experimental evidence to back up the theory with. Until we can run an experiment that provides repeatable testable experimental evidence for the theory of intelligent design then there is no point in teaching it as an alternative theory in the Science classroom.

Find that evidence good sir/ma'am and prove to the world that intelligent design is probable! It is up to you to run an experiment and prove it. We could use more alternative theories backed with experimental evidence. The Big bang model fits the pieces together pretty well but IMO is horrible because it stops at the big bang.

I find the Big Bang model horrid but that is not to say that it does not fit the clues together in the best possible arrangement so far. All intelligent design is doing is saying

"Everything that you scientists just said is true, but tack on "An Intelligence did it" onto the end".

With our current model we do not NEED to tack an intelligence onto the end. It works WITHOUT an intelligence. Create an experiment that provides evidence to show that an intelligence did it and then the theory of intelligent design will be a good theory.





edit on 21-4-2011 by idonotcollectstamps because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by seraphnb
You can believe in Intelligent Design whatever your orientation.

Yes, one could choose to believe in it. But that's all it would be... a belief.


It is the stuff that private schools are teaching nowadays.

All private schools? Or just theistic private schools in the United States?


It says that there is a God and that he created the universe using scientific principles (the Big Bang, evolution).

And there's no scientific proof of a creator, regardless of the identity of that creator, so it has no place in a science class.


Plus. it can be taught to any religious audience.

Key word here is "religious".


Whether they believe in YHWH, the Word, Allah, Brahman, the Yin-Yang, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (which was, quite incidentally, formed as a protest to the ID idea), the students can be taught Intelligent Design without problem.

Regardless of the identity of the creator, it's still ultimately religion and has no place in a science classroom.


A common mistake is that some people- yes, ATS, you are guilty of this, too- think that creationism and Intelligent Design are synonymous. In fact, the opposite is true.

The Intelligent Design movement as put forth by the Discovery Institute, which is the vanguard organization for the ID movement, is nothing more than a rebranding of creationism. Look into how the word "creationism" and "creationist" were replaced with "intelligent design" and "design proponent" in the book Of Pandas and People without changing any of the other text for an example. If you don't think ID and creationism are synonymous, you're deluding yourself.


While teaching Catholic creationism in public schools would certainly violate the First Amendment, Intelligent Design fits very nicely through a little-seen loophole.

Better tell that to Judge Jones from the Kitzmiller case. In his decision for the case he wrote:


It is notable that not one defense expert was able to explain how the supernatural action suggested by ID could be anything other than an inherently religious proposition. Accordingly, we find that ID’s religious nature would be further evident to our objective observer because it directly involves a supernatural designer.

And a few lines later, in the same decision:


The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.

It doesn't get much simpler or more direct than that.


The First Amendment only states that the government can not make a law about what religion the people practice. However, belief in a God is repeatedly referenced throughout the Declaration of Independance- and, heck, "In God We Trust" is on the dollar bill.

The Supreme Court has found, repeatedly, that teaching creationism in a public school as part of a science curriculum violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. In the Kitzmiller case, the presiding judge found that Intelligent Design and creationism are synonymous. Sorry, but there is no loophole by which you can introduce an inherently nonscientific, religion-based subject into a public school science class. If schools wanted to discuss creationism or creationism v2.0 in a comparative religions class, I would applaud it.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by idonotcollectstamps
 


And yet, circumstantial evidence showing that certain events or items had an intelligent design or intent are allowed in court cases, archeology, and the SETI program, among other things...

Most curious indeed - just tossing some devil's advocation your way, my friend.


Has anyone come up with rebuttals to that general argument as yet? It does seem valid - if so, I'd like to hear them so I can see how well they fit.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by seraphnb
 


What you're doing is "stating your personal belief". You didn't back up anything with objective evidence, so it's nothing but "preaching"


And ID is just another word for creationism, the base premise is just as flawed...



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by seraphnb
You can believe in Intelligent Design whatever your orientation.


Actually, you can't. Particularly if you're an agnostic or an athiest.


It is the stuff that private schools are teaching nowadays. It says that there is a God and that he created the universe using scientific principles (the Big Bang, evolution).


Only SOME private (religious) schools.


Plus. it can be taught to any religious audience. Whether they believe in YHWH, the Word, Allah, Brahman, the Yin-Yang, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (which was, quite incidentally, formed as a protest to the ID idea), the students can be taught Intelligent Design without problem.


That's a simplification, and isn't acceptable to (say) college students in a physics class or astronomy class. And not many professors or journals are going to accept a complex math equation, followed by "and then a miracle occurs" and an answer that suddenly shows up.


Intelligent Design fits very nicely through a little-seen loophole. The First Amendment only states that the government can not make a law about what religion the people practice. However, belief in a God is repeatedly referenced throughout the Declaration of Independance-


Uhm... not really. Two mentions:
www.archives.gov...


and, heck, "In God We Trust" is on the dollar bill.


That was added as the US motto considerably after the founding of the nation (1956), and not after consulting with people of any religion outside Christianity.
en.wikipedia.org...

And whatever's on money really shouldn't have anything to do as an argument for science.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by spyder550
 


The first and only documented truth you need to recognize is this: Life comes from life...it's called bio-genesis, and you see the miracle of it around you every day. To believe that life came from non-life, or abio-genesis, shifts the burden squarely on you to provide evidence.
To quote DMS Watson, "The only reason we believe in evolution is not because it can be proven by science, but rather the only alternative is special creation, and that is incredible."

Peace



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by painterdude
 


Just fyi, scientists admit they DON'T KNOW how life started. There's a few hypotheses, but no conclusive claims backed up by objective evidence.

The difference is, scientists admit to not knowing...religious people claim to have the answers when they're really just as clueless as the rest. It's called "god of the gaps"


"Scientists can't explain that...ergo god did it!" is a laughable argument. In ancient times people claimed comets were a sign of god because they didn't have the knowledge to explain them...they were wrong. The same goes for the Genesis account, global floods, people living in whales, talking snakes, the entire Jews vs Egypt thing, and a ton of other stuff. The track record of "god did is" is beyond awful given nothing has ever been proven to be caused by divine intervention

edit on 21-4-2011 by MrXYZ because: damn after work Guinness, can't type tonight




posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Intellegent design is just a hybrid of science(which is true) and religion(which has no factual backing) in my opinion i think its just the religions of the world adapting to the times, if they didn't they would lose followers.
edit on 21-4-2011 by GoldenGolem because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by seraphnb
 


Hey look, it's ignorance.

I'll take the points in reverse:

The Declaration of Independence is not a governing document and 'in god we trust' was only added on most money in the middle of the 20th century. It's still unconstitutional because it endorses monotheism over polytheism, non-theism, pantheism, and deism.

Now...intelligent design shouldn't be taught because it is unsupported by evidence. And it is creationism, it's just the most nebulous form of creationism. And ID was already legally defined as creationism in the Dover case...so...yeah. It's a purely religious position.

And it's just wrong.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Intelligent Design is NOT and will NEVER be accepted because its rubbish. All it does is use scientific words and tries to blag its way from there.

Its also interesting, that in a court case, the orginial authors of Intelligent Design would not swear on the Bible that its different from creationism....



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Horza2002
Intelligent Design is NOT and will NEVER be accepted because its rubbish. All it does is use scientific words and tries to blag its way from there.

Its also interesting, that in a court case, the orginial authors of Intelligent Design would not swear on the Bible that its different from creationism....


Of course they won't!!

A few dozen years ago, a lot of people believed in talking snakes, or that Noah's flood really happened, or that humans just popped up in their current form without evolution. Science has demonstrated that those claims are complete and utter nonsense...

If they still insisted those things are true, when in reality they are demonstrably not, people would make fun of them. Hell, there's still a tiny majority making such claims, and imo they're a bit of a joke. So as a defence, they are now pretending it's all a metaphor and trying to claim quantum theory and other stuff fully backs up their twisted interpretation of the bible. At the same time, a lot of them refuse to fully admit the literal interpretation is complete and utter nonsense. Why? Because they've been brainwashed since childhood. And admitting they're simply wrong, that their belief is demonstrably wrong, would be admitting they believed in fairy tales (which they obviously do). No one likes to be wrong, so it's only natural they now try to find a way to make it still "fit" their scripture. That's true not only for the bible, but for most religions.

Imagine this: You are 45yrs old, and since childhood, went to church every single sunday for 1-2hrs. That means you spent approximately 146days (!!!) of your entire life. Time you could have spent playing with your kids, learning a language, doing community work, just enjoying life and watching the game. I obviously think the going to church option is nonsense, and yes, I would kick myself for having done that once I realized it was based on an illogical belief. HOWEVER, I think it's even worse to continue to delude yourself just to evade having to admit you were wrong. Hell, if you turn 80, you'll have spent another 146 days sitting on a bench listening to stuff that isn't backed up by objective evidence. I think this ignorance is a lot worse than admitting you were wrong. I don't even think admitting you were wrong is a bad thing, it's awesome imo and shows great character. I know a few guys on here have gone through that, and I take my hat of to them. It takes a great man to admit you were wrong, and accepting reality isn't always easy, so high 5 to them

edit on 5-5-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


By the way, when I say 146 days, that's assuming you're awake for 24hrs/day...if you assume regular sleep cycles, you actually wasted around a year


Again, nothing wrong with admitting you were wrong...but deluding yourself in and effort to protect a house of cards is ignorant and yes...incredibly stupid!



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join