Total Posts:120|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Are Creationism and ID synonymous?

Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2015 10:11:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This thread isn't about whether Creation or Evolution is true. Rather, it's about the question of whether or not Creationism and Intelligent Design (ID) are synonymous. That is, is Intelligent Design always the same thing as Young Earth Creationism?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 12:16:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/7/2015 10:11:50 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
This thread isn't about whether Creation or Evolution is true. Rather, it's about the question of whether or not Creationism and Intelligent Design (ID) are synonymous. That is, is Intelligent Design always the same thing as Young Earth Creationism?

Nope. ID (as far as I am aware) does not require a young Earth (although I suppose it could allow for it).
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
dee-em
Posts: 6,472
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 3:00:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/7/2015 10:11:50 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
This thread isn't about whether Creation or Evolution is true. Rather, it's about the question of whether or not Creationism and Intelligent Design (ID) are synonymous. That is, is Intelligent Design always the same thing as Young Earth Creationism?

They don't have to be, but there is no doubt that ID began as a front for creationism.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Despite insisting that intelligent design is not a form of creationism, the Discovery Institute chose to use an image of Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam, depicting God reaching out to impart life from his finger into Adam.[28]

In reality, it is still a front for creationism despite the denials. It's always fundamental Christians pushing it. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 11:29:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/7/2015 10:11:50 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
This thread isn't about whether Creation or Evolution is true. Rather, it's about the question of whether or not Creationism and Intelligent Design (ID) are synonymous. That is, is Intelligent Design always the same thing as Young Earth Creationism?

Some of your more strident atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris will tell you that ID is merely Creationism dressed-up as science. In an attempt to throw a bone to all the folks who rightfully believe in the irrefutable biological and anthropological evidence supporting Evolution.

Maybe.

I would not go quite that far. I am a firm believer in Evolution (see my "mice inherit fear" post!) but I am not so sure it is as totally random and blind as Darwinians believe. And Dawkinists too. There is a school of thought called "teleology" which proposes that there is some sort of "guiding hand" in the Evolutionary Process. I find this notion intriguing.

So I guess I would have to say I am Agnostic on the idea of ID, so long as that idea fully embraces a four billion y.o. Earth and the methodology of the Evolutionary process.

But the biblical Creation mythos? Like in Genesis? (of which there are actually TWO tales--both equally preposterous). And the even more absurd notion of a 6000 y.o. Earth? I would need a frontal lobotomy to even begin entertaining a modicum of belief in that.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 12:08:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 3:00:51 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/7/2015 10:11:50 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
This thread isn't about whether Creation or Evolution is true. Rather, it's about the question of whether or not Creationism and Intelligent Design (ID) are synonymous. That is, is Intelligent Design always the same thing as Young Earth Creationism?

They don't have to be, but there is no doubt that ID began as a front for creationism.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Despite insisting that intelligent design is not a form of creationism, the Discovery Institute chose to use an image of Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam, depicting God reaching out to impart life from his finger into Adam.[28]

In reality, it is still a front for creationism despite the denials. It's always fundamental Christians pushing it. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

If I may add my two cents, intelligent design in that form isn't really a violation of the first amendment.
In ID form, it simply posits that life on Earth was crafted by a higher power. That higher power could be anything (that is, the god of any religion, a deistic entity, or extraterrestrials). ID does not establish a religion, nor does it have to establish religion in general.
For instance, an atheist named Sir Fred Boyle did not believe in a God, but he believed that humans were designed by a higher power.
Many ID advocates are Creationists, but their subtle religious intent does not make ID in itself a violation of church and state anymore than an atheist teaching evolution in the hopes that it promotes atheism is.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 12:11:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Thus, regardless of ID's validity, it is technically not a violation of the first amendment for ID to be taught in schools.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 3:17:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 12:11:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Thus, regardless of ID's validity, it is technically not a violation of the first amendment for ID to be taught in schools.

I disagree.

ID postulates a Creator. A divine one.

A god.

Therefore it violates the rule stipulating separation of Church and State.

Sorry. There is too much factual and science-based stuff for kids to learn. Oh...perhaps in a charter school, or private school, ID would be OK. But not in an institution funded by Federal dollars. The church/state thing, doncha see.

Don't get me wrong: personally I love to debate that stuff. But I also like to talk about Morphic Resonance and the Noosphere and ghosts and demons, too.

But I feel that those subjects are not fitting either for public school curriculum.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 3:20:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Oh...I want to add something.

Even though you and I do not agree on everything I still would like to say that it is good to see a young man such as yourself take an interest in these things, as most kids your age have no time or interest for matters metaphysical or theological. Or science-based, for that matter. Keep it up!
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 4:12:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 12:11:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

That higher power could be anything (that is, the god of any religion, a deistic entity, or extraterrestrials).

Thus, regardless of ID's validity, it is technically not a violation of the first amendment for ID to be taught in schools.

Okay, so once a teacher gets to the point of teaching students that ID "could be anything", what left is there to teach? Anything?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 4:33:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 4:12:21 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/8/2015 12:11:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

That higher power could be anything (that is, the god of any religion, a deistic entity, or extraterrestrials).

Thus, regardless of ID's validity, it is technically not a violation of the first amendment for ID to be taught in schools.

Okay, so once a teacher gets to the point of teaching students that ID "could be anything", what left is there to teach? Anything?

What do you mean?
The question of what that designer is would be one that students would decide for themselves on.
As for more to teach, of course there is.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 4:35:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 3:17:45 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/8/2015 12:11:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Thus, regardless of ID's validity, it is technically not a violation of the first amendment for ID to be taught in schools.

I disagree.

ID postulates a Creator. A divine one.

Not necessarily.

A god.

Not necessarily.

Therefore it violates the rule stipulating separation of Church and State.

No it does not.

Sorry. There is too much factual and science-based stuff for kids to learn. Oh...perhaps in a charter school, or private school, ID would be OK. But not in an institution funded by Federal dollars. The church/state thing, doncha see.

It doesn't violate the first amendment.

Don't get me wrong: personally I love to debate that stuff. But I also like to talk about Morphic Resonance and the Noosphere and ghosts and demons, too.

But I feel that those subjects are not fitting either for public school curriculum.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 4:45:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Besides, the idea of a God in general does not establish any specific church. It's not like all theists and deists adhere to a single faith called Godism.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 5:11:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 4:45:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Besides, the idea of a God in general does not establish any specific church. It's not like all theists and deists adhere to a single faith called Godism.

True.

While the 1st Amendment to the The Constitution forbids government sponsorship and compulsion of religious exercise by individual citizens, you are correct in saying does not require hermetic "separation""implying exclusion"of religion and religious persons from public affairs of state.

So...I stand corrected. Teaching ID in schools would not technically be at odds with the 1st Amendment.

But I still disagree with teaching it. Or maybe I'll just take the easy way out on this--like many politicians do--and say that the issue should be left up to the individual states!
LOL
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 5:31:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 4:12:21 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/8/2015 12:11:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

That higher power could be anything (that is, the god of any religion, a deistic entity, or extraterrestrials).

Thus, regardless of ID's validity, it is technically not a violation of the first amendment for ID to be taught in schools.

Okay, so once a teacher gets to the point of teaching students that ID "could be anything", what left is there to teach? Anything?

I think that all the teacher could hope to teach would be that there is a possible "third viewpoint" or perhaps a sort of "compromise opinion" between the "Book of Genesis-as-literal-scientific-history" folks and the hardline "No god or Deity of ANY SORT" Evolutionary Biologist view of a Richard Dawkins or a Dan Dennett.

They could teach that some believe that a Deity could have used Evolution as the tool, the methodology, as a part of his Creation.

It is simply a matter of introducing another option for the students to consider.

You know...like I always try to exhort: "keep an open mind."

Somethin' like that.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 5:33:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What I speak of above could be construed as a sort of "Theistic Evolution."

Here's more!

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 6:37:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 4:33:47 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 6/8/2015 4:12:21 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/8/2015 12:11:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

That higher power could be anything (that is, the god of any religion, a deistic entity, or extraterrestrials).

Thus, regardless of ID's validity, it is technically not a violation of the first amendment for ID to be taught in schools.

Okay, so once a teacher gets to the point of teaching students that ID "could be anything", what left is there to teach? Anything?

What do you mean?

I mean that beyond that one statement, there is nothing else to teach.

The question of what that designer is would be one that students would decide for themselves on.

LOL. Then there's no point of going to school to learn things, they can just pick up a bible and fantasize anything they want.

As for more to teach, of course there is.

Such as?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 6:40:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 5:31:48 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/8/2015 4:12:21 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/8/2015 12:11:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

That higher power could be anything (that is, the god of any religion, a deistic entity, or extraterrestrials).

Thus, regardless of ID's validity, it is technically not a violation of the first amendment for ID to be taught in schools.

Okay, so once a teacher gets to the point of teaching students that ID "could be anything", what left is there to teach? Anything?



I think that all the teacher could hope to teach would be that there is a possible "third viewpoint" or perhaps a sort of "compromise opinion" between the "Book of Genesis-as-literal-scientific-history" folks and the hardline "No god or Deity of ANY SORT" Evolutionary Biologist view of a Richard Dawkins or a Dan Dennett.

They could teach that some believe that a Deity could have used Evolution as the tool, the methodology, as a part of his Creation.

It is simply a matter of introducing another option for the students to consider.

You know...like I always try to exhort: "keep an open mind."

Somethin' like that.

And, the students have learned what exactly? An alternative assertion? Gee, that's real helpful.

Don't let your brains fall out from keeping your mind too open.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 6:42:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 5:33:38 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
What I speak of above could be construed as a sort of "Theistic Evolution."

Here's more!

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks for that, from your link:

" Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory,"
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 6:45:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Exactly.

An alternative assertion.

The cornerstone of rhetoric and debate.

Politics. Philosophy. Theology.

It's called part of the learning process in a Democracy.

Don't let your brain get squeezed to tightly from being so narrow-minded.

(I'll come right back at you all day long, friendo. In spades. As we used to say in the Military: "Be advised.")
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 6:49:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 6:42:29 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/8/2015 5:33:38 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
What I speak of above could be construed as a sort of "Theistic Evolution."

Here's more!

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks for that, from your link:

" Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory,"

Man..you can be maddeningly dense at times.

So what it is not a scientific theory. Who ever said it was?

Moot.

Arts. Humanities. Sociology. Hell...ALL of the Liberal and Fine Arts = "not a scientifc theory."

And yet they are taught. It's called an education. What a concept.

Read up on the precursor to ALL education systems: Socrates' old Academies.

If you want pure science or techno and no Arts or humanities, go to a frikkin' trade school, Trog.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 8:06:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 6:49:12 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/8/2015 6:42:29 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/8/2015 5:33:38 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
What I speak of above could be construed as a sort of "Theistic Evolution."

Here's more!

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks for that, from your link:

" Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory,"


Man..you can be maddeningly dense at times.

So what it is not a scientific theory. Who ever said it was?

Moot.

Arts. Humanities. Sociology. Hell...ALL of the Liberal and Fine Arts = "not a scientifc theory."

And yet they are taught. It's called an education. What a concept.

Read up on the precursor to ALL education systems: Socrates' old Academies.

If you want pure science or techno and no Arts or humanities, go to a frikkin' trade school, Trog.

And which subject should ID be taught in?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 8:14:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 6:37:24 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/8/2015 4:33:47 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 6/8/2015 4:12:21 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/8/2015 12:11:18 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

That higher power could be anything (that is, the god of any religion, a deistic entity, or extraterrestrials).

Thus, regardless of ID's validity, it is technically not a violation of the first amendment for ID to be taught in schools.

Okay, so once a teacher gets to the point of teaching students that ID "could be anything", what left is there to teach? Anything?

What do you mean?

I mean that beyond that one statement, there is nothing else to teach.

I fail to understand why that is. Why's it different in that respect from teaching that humans evolved?

The question of what that designer is would be one that students would decide for themselves on.

LOL. Then there's no point of going to school to learn things, they can just pick up a bible and fantasize anything they want.

...You're ridiculous.

As for more to teach, of course there is.

Such as?

Biology, chemistry, archaeology, math, physics, computer programming, history, political science, social studies, foreign languages, art, etc.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 8:18:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 8:06:29 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/8/2015 6:49:12 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/8/2015 6:42:29 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/8/2015 5:33:38 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
What I speak of above could be construed as a sort of "Theistic Evolution."

Here's more!

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks for that, from your link:

" Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory,"


Man..you can be maddeningly dense at times.

So what it is not a scientific theory. Who ever said it was?

Moot.

Arts. Humanities. Sociology. Hell...ALL of the Liberal and Fine Arts = "not a scientifc theory."

And yet they are taught. It's called an education. What a concept.

Read up on the precursor to ALL education systems: Socrates' old Academies.

If you want pure science or techno and no Arts or humanities, go to a frikkin' trade school, Trog.

And which subject should ID be taught in?

Umm..you might want to re-read my OP on this subject. LOL
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
dee-em
Posts: 6,472
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 8:19:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 12:08:10 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:00:51 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/7/2015 10:11:50 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
This thread isn't about whether Creation or Evolution is true. Rather, it's about the question of whether or not Creationism and Intelligent Design (ID) are synonymous. That is, is Intelligent Design always the same thing as Young Earth Creationism?

They don't have to be, but there is no doubt that ID began as a front for creationism.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Despite insisting that intelligent design is not a form of creationism, the Discovery Institute chose to use an image of Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam, depicting God reaching out to impart life from his finger into Adam.[28]

In reality, it is still a front for creationism despite the denials. It's always fundamental Christians pushing it. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

If I may add my two cents, intelligent design in that form isn't really a violation of the first amendment.

When it's a facade over creationism, it is. That is what the courts found and it is now law.

In ID form, it simply posits that life on Earth was crafted by a higher power. That higher power could be anything (that is, the god of any religion, a deistic entity, or extraterrestrials). ID does not establish a religion, nor does it have to establish religion in general.

As I said, the people behind ID are fundamental Christians. They have an agenda which was exposed with the publication of the Wedge document.

For instance, an atheist named Sir Fred Boyle did not believe in a God, but he believed that humans were designed by a higher power.
Many ID advocates are Creationists, but their subtle religious intent does not make ID in itself a violation of church and state anymore than an atheist teaching evolution in the hopes that it promotes atheism is.

Not so subtle, as ruled by the courts.

Atheist teaching of evolution? Are you kidding? It is secular teaching of science. Atheism has nothing to do with it. Your own bias is showing.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 8:21:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 8:18:28 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/8/2015 8:06:29 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/8/2015 6:49:12 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/8/2015 6:42:29 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/8/2015 5:33:38 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
What I speak of above could be construed as a sort of "Theistic Evolution."

Here's more!

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks for that, from your link:

" Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory,"


Man..you can be maddeningly dense at times.

So what it is not a scientific theory. Who ever said it was?

Moot.

Arts. Humanities. Sociology. Hell...ALL of the Liberal and Fine Arts = "not a scientifc theory."

And yet they are taught. It's called an education. What a concept.

Read up on the precursor to ALL education systems: Socrates' old Academies.

If you want pure science or techno and no Arts or humanities, go to a frikkin' trade school, Trog.

And which subject should ID be taught in?

Umm..you might want to re-read my OP on this subject. LOL

It wasn't in your OP, but it was a few posts down.

So you don't think ID or your idea of theistic evolution should be taught in school?
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 8:43:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
My original stance on this subject.....

Sorry. There is too much factual and science-based stuff for kids to learn. Oh...perhaps in a charter school, or private school, ID would be OK. But not in an institution funded by Federal dollars. The church/state thing, doncha see.

Don't get me wrong: personally I love to debate that stuff. But I also like to talk about Morphic Resonance and the Noosphere and ghosts and demons, too.

But I feel that those subjects are not fitting either for public school curriculum.


From an earlier retort to Vox.

But ya know what? I recant. Or rather, want to tweak my final opinion on the matter.

As far as the Creationist/Genesis tale being taught in public schools? No. Never. First Amendment/separation of Church & State, and all that.

Theistic Evolution? Or ID? Hmm...sure. OK. Briefly, so as to pose a third option to the students--other than the Creationist of hardline "no God need apply" Darwinian/Dawkinsian Evolution. I would say it would be covered in Biology, or whatever class the kids are taking which covers the Origin of Mankind and the Earth.

It should probably be left up to the individual states, as well. But since a specific religion is NOT being supported with ID it does not violate the Constitution.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 8:44:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 8:19:52 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/8/2015 12:08:10 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 6/8/2015 3:00:51 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/7/2015 10:11:50 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
This thread isn't about whether Creation or Evolution is true. Rather, it's about the question of whether or not Creationism and Intelligent Design (ID) are synonymous. That is, is Intelligent Design always the same thing as Young Earth Creationism?

They don't have to be, but there is no doubt that ID began as a front for creationism.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Despite insisting that intelligent design is not a form of creationism, the Discovery Institute chose to use an image of Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam, depicting God reaching out to impart life from his finger into Adam.[28]

In reality, it is still a front for creationism despite the denials. It's always fundamental Christians pushing it. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

If I may add my two cents, intelligent design in that form isn't really a violation of the first amendment.

When it's a facade over creationism, it is. That is what the courts found and it is now law.

Well the courts are wrong then, and their decision ought to be disobeyed.

In ID form, it simply posits that life on Earth was crafted by a higher power. That higher power could be anything (that is, the god of any religion, a deistic entity, or extraterrestrials). ID does not establish a religion, nor does it have to establish religion in general.

As I said, the people behind ID are fundamental Christians. They have an agenda which was exposed with the publication of the Wedge document.

It doesn't matter what their bias is. It doesn't make what their ulterior motive is. That literally doesn't matter at all. ID is not in itself a violation of the first amendment.

For instance, an atheist named Sir Fred Boyle did not believe in a God, but he believed that humans were designed by a higher power.
Many ID advocates are Creationists, but their subtle religious intent does not make ID in itself a violation of church and state anymore than an atheist teaching evolution in the hopes that it promotes atheism is.

Not so subtle, as ruled by the courts.

Atheist teaching of evolution? Are you kidding? It is secular teaching of science. Atheism has nothing to do with it. Your own bias is showing.

Evolution teaches that God did not create life on Earth. "Secular" in this usage is code for anti-theist, atheism has absolutely everything to do with it, and I'd appreciate it if you stopped lying now.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
dee-em
Posts: 6,472
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 8:49:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 4:45:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Besides, the idea of a God in general does not establish any specific church. It's not like all theists and deists adhere to a single faith called Godism.

You people just can't seem to understand a simple concept. Evolution is taught as science (specifically biology). ID is not a scientific theory. Therefore it has no place in a science classroom. If you want this stuff to be taught, there is a perfect place for it. It is called a church. Yet this is not enough for you. You have to try and encroach on the teaching of science in schools because of your ridiculous superstitious beliefs. And then you wonder why atheists get upset with religion and its followers. Keep your nonsense in your churches where it belongs.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2015 8:58:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/8/2015 8:49:04 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/8/2015 4:45:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Besides, the idea of a God in general does not establish any specific church. It's not like all theists and deists adhere to a single faith called Godism.

You people just can't seem to understand a simple concept. Evolution is taught as science (specifically biology). ID is not a scientific theory. Therefore it has no place in a science classroom. If you want this stuff to be taught, there is a perfect place for it. It is called a church. Yet this is not enough for you. You have to try and encroach on the teaching of science in schools because of your ridiculous superstitious beliefs. And then you wonder why atheists get upset with religion and its followers. Keep your nonsense in your churches where it belongs.

Okay, sir, I am beginning to get mad. First of all, you are going by the assumption that evolution is true and that ID is false. Because you assume this and will continue to assume this, this conversation is going nowhere, and I will not indulge you further here.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid