Do you believe that Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools (considered, examples)

[Bhaalspawn]

Intelligent Design Theory is fundamentally flawed because it fails to explain the origin of the intelligent designer. Where did the intelligent designer come from? How did the intelligent designer come into being? Did it evolve?

It's basically a form of passing the buck of trying to explain where life came from. Instead of using a scientific explanation as an answer, it just creates more questions. It's like a cop-out or passing the buck. "An intelligent designer created all life on Earth, but we can't explain where the intelligent designer came from."

[katzpaw]

Creationists/ID'ers believe that humans are the center of the universe and God created everything to test humans' belief in him. Science however shows that we are a small planet in an insignificant solar system on the spiral arm of one of a billion galaxies. Ancient self centered superstitious religious beliefs do not have equal standing with science.

[sickofnyc]

Originally Posted by Spudcommando

Yeah sure why not? We're already falling behind on education, why not go all the way and make it final? Time to pass to the torch to the Chinese and Indians.

My thoughts exactly. We'll just stay right below Turkey, which ranks #1 in nations surveyed for a majority population that buys into Creationism. Shameful...isn't it?

The only country included in the study where adults were more likely than Americans to reject evolution was Turkey.

Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries, Study Finds

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

Clearly you will not answer my simple question, and I knew you wouldn't. It would expose you and your ilk as the frauds you are.

I believe I asked you a question first. However perhaps you want to rephrase what you thought you asked me?

Secondly ... you apparently aren't a whiz kid when it comes to the English language and definition of terms, so I'd refrain from questioning other's command of the language, if I were you. For your information, "secular" means something that has no religious or spiritual basis, which is the exact opposite of what you were trying to attribute to by position. Science is Secular, or it is supposed to be ... though the modern day physical matter science is at least as dogmatic and reliant on deception and myth as any religion in history.

Secular also means 'lay person'

Thirdly, those hostile to the theory of Intelligent Design do not get to dismiss it by claiming it lacks the qualities to call itself a theory. That would be extremely convenient I'm sure, but "I don't thin so lucy". (this is one of my favorite little humor items for you evolutionists ... you do get it dunt you lucy?)

What qualities does ID have that qualifies it as a theory?

Sent from my Nexus 4

[dv1033]

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

Oh, a different tactic ... how refreshing compared to the worn out "you obviously don't understand what evolution is" which is NEVER followed by an explanation correcting my misunderstanding. So Darwin is so ... yesterday, huh? Tell me what are the major differences between Darwinian Evolution and Modernized 2013 Evolution? Please do enlighten me, so that I can free myself from this antiquated nonsense ... maybe your version of evolution will make more sense to me.

Advances in genetics. Such as unlocking the genomes of several thousand different species from bacteria and viruses to fruit bats and humans.

No .. my whole argument is extremely simple, and straight forward. Creation theory suggests that God created life. Intelligent design suggests that the complexity of a living cell and DNA shows clear signs of intelligent design, without actually attempting to identify any specific designer. Evolutionists claim that both theories are myths and have been disproved by evolution (the darwinian version or any other you might care to embrace).

What does that have to do with the theory of evolution which is simply a biological mechanism?

My point is, evolutionists are either deceptive little double talkers, or they are as dumb as a box of rocks, because you can't disprove the origin of life with a theory that doesn't even address it.

Or perhaps those putting words in these "evolutionists" mouths (I believe they actually prefer to be called biologists, molecular biologists, biochemists, etc.) are just afraid of what they don't understand.

A very simple point of pure logic ... yet still none of you are willing to admit that evolution does not disprove either creation or intelligent design. You just do what you always do, tap dance and distort.

Of course it doesn't. How can you disprove a deity? Do you you think all biologists are agnostic or atheist? Not every biologist aka "evolutionist" has an issue rectifying their faith with the theory of evolution.

[Old Gringo]

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

Then let me also make it easier for you .... if that is true, then how can evolution possibly disprove intelligent design or creation if it doesn't address the origin of life, which is the PRIMARY POINT of creation??

Come on ... let's hear it!

Evolution doesn't have to do anything to "disprove" religious legends.

Science deals with nature, not fables.

Those who want to put their stock in middle eastern mythology are free to do so.

Just don't act so disappointed that your favorite story doesn't stand up to the light. You can keep believing it as long as you choose to. But you'll never prove anything by it, because it offers no proof; only faith. It seems you equate the two.

those hostile to the theory of Intelligent Design do not get to dismiss it by claiming it lacks the qualities to call itself a theory.

What falsifiable predictions does intelligent design make? None. It's not a scientific theory because it lacks the fundamental characteristics of what makes something a scientific theory. It explains nothing, is not testable, is supported by precisely zero evidence, has zero predictive power, and is not falsifiable. That makes it not only not a scientific theory, but not even a scientific hypothesis.

[GuyNTexas]

Originally Posted by Bhaalspawn

Intelligent Design Theory is fundamentally flawed because it fails to explain the origin of the intelligent designer. Where did the intelligent designer come from? How did the intelligent designer come into being? Did it evolve?

It's basically a form of passing the buck of trying to explain where life came from. Instead of using a scientific explanation as an answer, it just creates more questions. It's like a cop-out or passing the buck. "An intelligent designer created all life on Earth, but we can't explain where the intelligent designer came from."

The irony here is dripping wet. What you claim are flaws in Intelligent Design are precisely the flaws in evolution theory. Evolution theory insists that the evolutionary mechanisms of genetic mutation and natural selection explains the entire biological existence for every life form that has every existed on the planet, EXCEPT for the first one to wit all others evolved from. Where did that first one come from? Evolution says, doesn't matter .. that's a separate topic.

But ... it gets worse, oh yes it does ... should anyone come along and suggest an origin for that first life form, evolutionists claim that such ideas are disproved by evolution. But how can such a claim be made with a straight face? To refuse to even address the origin of life, but then turn right around and claim to be certain of how it didn't come into existence is not very scientific, or even rational.

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by JasonF

What falsifiable predictions does intelligent design make? None. It's not a scientific theory because it lacks the fundamental characteristics of what makes something a scientific theory. It explains nothing, is not testable, is supported by precisely zero evidence, has zero predictive power, and is not falsifiable. That makes it not only not a scientific theory, but not even a scientific hypothesis.

Guys like Jason F Just don't understand that

Sent from my Nexus 4

[BigCityDreamer]

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

As I keep saying, but apparently falls on deaf ears ... I'm not a creationist

Hmm... So, you're saying you're not a creationist, and yet you believe that God created life and humans?