Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What you do is tie Creationism and ID together with an inseparable rope.
They are not the same.
Creationism is that God did it and admittedly that is what I believe.
ID means 'something' else did it and it could be numerous things.
Yeah, sure, "something", wink wink. That's why the political groups funded by right wing Christians were so hot to get this sort of thing forced into classrooms to oppose evolution. The supernatural designer/creator could be anything, but it's certainly not a way to sneak the Protestant Christian God into public school classrooms (wink, wink). I'm sure the Discovery Institute and their ilk were just doing it out of fairness, right?
Concrete evidence disproving your claim has been presented in courts, and judges found it convincing. You're not fooling anyone.
Quote:
Are you absolutely, 100% sure that Earth isn't some alien experiment and you'd be unwilling to believe otherwise regardless of the evidence placed in front of you? If you aren't, then you at least are open to ID. Being open to ID doesn't make you a theist, much less a Christian.
I'm open to scientific ideas that are, you know, actually scientific. Ones that explain current facts, predict new discoveries, and produce a useful model of the world around us.
ID/Creationism fail in these respects, so there's no reason to keep it around just in case we happen to be wrong about the theory of evolution. It's not an alternative because ID/Creationism has been investigated and found sorely lacking as a scientific theory. In the sense that it makes any predictions at all, it's been proven wrong over and over.
Is it a lack of open-mindedness to not teach about the ether? A lack of open mindedness not to teach alchemy? Not to teach phrenology? Not to teach astrology? If not, why teach your particular pet pseudo-science but not all of the others?
I'll keep repeating the point that ID/Creationism isn't some default alternative that wins if you find any sort of insignificant hole in the theory of evolution. Whatever replaces the ToE (if a replacement is necessary) will have to be another better scientific theory. Rejecting a non-scientific religious explanation for the diversity of life isn't closed-mindedness, any more than refusing to use a sledge-hammer to unscrew a bolt is closed minded. The sledge hammer, just like the religious faith, isn't the right tool for the job.
Quote:
The two are separate things. So indeed, I was not changing the subject and avoiding questions as much as I was trying to address Creationism and ID from someone who obviously can't make the distinction between the two.
Look, the books ID proponents wanted to teach from are just books on Creationism with God replaced with "designer". It's not fooling anyone. If a bunch of republican-appointed lawyers and judges can figure out that it's not science but instead thinly veiled conservative Protestant Christianity, it's pretty painfully transparent what ID supporters were trying to pull. I'll give them credit for trying, but it failed (after costing several school districts a lot of money, no less). Move on.
Yeah, sure, "something", wink wink. That's why the political groups funded by right wing Christians were so hot to get this sort of thing forced into classrooms to oppose evolution. The supernatural designer/creator could be anything, but it's certainly not a way to sneak the Protestant Christian God into public school classrooms (wink, wink). I'm sure the Discovery Institute and their ilk were just doing it out of fairness, right?
Concrete evidence disproving your claim has been presented in courts, and judges found it convincing. You're not fooling anyone.
I'm open to scientific ideas that are, you know, actually scientific. Ones that explain current facts, predict new discoveries, and produce a useful model of the world around us.
ID/Creationism fail in these respects, so there's no reason to keep it around just in case we happen to be wrong about the theory of evolution. It's not an alternative because ID/Creationism has been investigated and found sorely lacking as a scientific theory. In the sense that it makes any predictions at all, it's been proven wrong over and over.
Is it a lack of open-mindedness to not teach about the ether? A lack of open mindedness not to teach alchemy? Not to teach phrenology? Not to teach astrology? If not, why teach your particular pet pseudo-science but not all of the others?
I'll keep repeating the point that ID/Creationism isn't some default alternative that wins if you find some sort of hole in the theory of evolution. Whatever replaces the ToE (if a replacement is necessary) will have to be another better scientific theory. Rejecting a non-scientific religious explanation for the diversity of life isn't closed-mindedness, any more than refusing to use a sledge-hammer to unscrew a bolt is closed minded. The sledge hammer, just like the religious faith, isn't the right tool for the job.
Look, the books ID proponents wanted to teach from are just books on Creationism with God replaced with "designer". It's not fooling anyone. If a bunch of republican-appointed lawyers and judges can figure out that it's not science but instead thinly veiled conservative Protestant Christianity, it's pretty painfully transparent what ID supporters were trying to pull. I'll give them credit for trying, but it failed (after costing several school districts a lot of money, no less). Move on.
Just to add to this really good post, heres an example of what KC means:
Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34: “Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.” Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.” Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.” Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.” Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.”
Yeah, sure, "something", wink wink. That's why the political groups funded by right wing Christians were so hot to get this sort of thing forced into classrooms to oppose evolution. The supernatural designer/creator could be anything, but it's certainly not a way to sneak the Protestant Christian God into public school classrooms (wink, wink). I'm sure the Discovery Institute and their ilk were just doing it out of fairness, right?
Concrete evidence disproving your claim has been presented in courts, and judges found it convincing. You're not fooling anyone.
I'm open to scientific ideas that are, you know, actually scientific. Ones that explain current facts, predict new discoveries, and produce a useful model of the world around us.
ID/Creationism fail in these respects, so there's no reason to keep it around just in case we happen to be wrong about the theory of evolution. It's not an alternative because ID/Creationism has been investigated and found sorely lacking as a scientific theory. In the sense that it makes any predictions at all, it's been proven wrong over and over.
Is it a lack of open-mindedness to not teach about the ether? A lack of open mindedness not to teach alchemy? Not to teach phrenology? Not to teach astrology? If not, why teach your particular pet pseudo-science but not all of the others?
I'll keep repeating the point that ID/Creationism isn't some default alternative that wins if you find any sort of insignificant hole in the theory of evolution. Whatever replaces the ToE (if a replacement is necessary) will have to be another better scientific theory. Rejecting a non-scientific religious explanation for the diversity of life isn't closed-mindedness, any more than refusing to use a sledge-hammer to unscrew a bolt is closed minded. The sledge hammer, just like the religious faith, isn't the right tool for the job.
Look, the books ID proponents wanted to teach from are just books on Creationism with God replaced with "designer". It's not fooling anyone. If a bunch of republican-appointed lawyers and judges can figure out that it's not science but instead thinly veiled conservative Protestant Christianity, it's pretty painfully transparent what ID supporters were trying to pull. I'll give them credit for trying, but it failed (after costing several school districts a lot of money, no less). Move on.
In other words, "My mind is made. up. Any thing's possible but THAT! lalalalalal"
Got it. You've made your point. wink wink
What part of 'is it possible Earth could be an alien experiment', is religious?
And by the way, I'm not trying to 'fool' anyone. I'm just trying to hold a conversation. Thanks for your attempt at participating.
In other words, "My mind is made. up. Any thing's possible but THAT! lalalalalal"
I mentioned several things that are not possible, simply because they contradict reality, so your understanding of what I've written is lacking. Maybe you should re-read what I've written and try to understand it?
To be clear Creationism/ID is just one of many ideas that have been carefully considered and discarded because they are found to be false. I don't consider rejecting things that disagree with reality as closed minded, I consider it a smart and practical way to get through life.
Quote:
What part of 'is it possible Earth could be an alien experiment', is religious?
None. It's only religious if the "aliens" are the Protestant Christian god, as is the case with ID/Creationism.
But the alien experiment thing is a weak theory at best. It's not needed to explain the evidence, it doesn't add anything to our knowledge without knowing the methods and capabilities of the aliens in question, and it just pushes the question back a bit from "how did we get here" to "how did the aliens that put us here come about". It's not impossible, but there are lots of non-impossible things that don't warrant much consideration until there's a least a reason to consider them.
It goes back to the point that ID/creationism isn't some sort of default that automatically wins if evolution isn't 100% understood. ID/creationism has to make some sort of positive case on its own merits, and so far it has failed miserably at that. As I mentioned before, if you can't even fool a bunch of amateurs (lawyers in this case) into thinking that your claims are science, you're off to a pretty bad start.
Quote:
And by the way, I'm not trying to 'fool' anyone. I'm just trying to hold a conversation. Thanks for your attempt at participating.
Feel free to start addressing any of the points I've made at your convenience. Avoiding them isn't really helping you to make your case.
It's not impossible, but there are lots of non-impossible things that don't warrant much consideration until there's a least a reason to consider them.
I'll address points worth addressing, your posts come across more like rants than anything else.
Anyway, above is a point worth addressing.
Who gets to decide what does and doesn't warrant 'much consideration'?
If I decide that since we haven't seen anything else besides small mutations, adaptations, and changes due to natural selection in animals, then speciation diversity is from something else beside Darwinism, does that make it worthy to receive 'not much consideration'?
Or since that fits nicely into a preconceived box, does that get to stay?
Are Darwin's finches still finches?
Are you following any of the other ID/Darwinism threads or do I need to post some that info here?
Alpha, even though I know it has branched off to a number of new ideas, I just wanted to say, thank you for posting this thread and the information on the movie.
As you know, I do believe in evolution, love science and am shaky on the exact mechanism of the world's "beginnings", but what I got out of the trailer is that the movie is more about the irony of ID believers and/or creationists getting blacklisted, losing their jobs, becoming the laughingstock of academia, etc. when back in the day, it was a lack of belief in diety-driven origins that caused people's lives to be ruined in these ways.
I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know whether that is actually the primary focus of it or whether the trailer was just slanted that way, but I personally feel, as I mentioned earlier, that no matter how forward-thinking we may be, we're still medieval if we're still so terrified of an alternate view, no matter what it is, that we need to fire people and ruin their lives over it.
Sorry to interject...I just wanted to let you know that this "non-Bible believer" still thinks there could be a lot of merit to at least watching the movie. My beliefs are still my beliefs, and I'm not threatened by an alternate view. I think no matter what, we should always keep an open mind. Isn't exploring new possibilities what science is all about?
Alpha, even though I know it has branched off to a number of new ideas, I just wanted to say, thank you for posting this thread and the information on the movie.
As you know, I do believe in evolution, love science and am shaky on the exact mechanism of the world's "beginnings", but what I got out of the trailer is that the movie is more about the irony of ID believers and/or creationists getting blacklisted, losing their jobs, becoming the laughingstock of academia, etc. when back in the day, it was a lack of belief in diety-driven origins that caused people's lives to be ruined in these ways.
I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know whether that is actually the primary focus of it or whether the trailer was just slanted that way, but I personally feel, as I mentioned earlier, that no matter how forward-thinking we may be, we're still medieval if we're still so terrified of an alternate view, no matter what it is, that we need to fire people and ruin their lives over it.
Sorry to interject...I just wanted to let you know that this "non-Bible believer" still thinks there could be a lot of merit to at least watching the movie. My beliefs are still my beliefs, and I'm not threatened by an alternate view. I think no matter what, we should always keep an open mind. Isn't exploring new possibilities what science is all about?
I think if I were moderating this thread rather than posting in it, that would be the perfect post to end it on. (But I do love the discourse this thread has produced, so I hope we can continue to talk!)
You get it, JerZ. And the beautiful thing is that you do get it and we do have different world views.
Thanks for that post, I can always count on you.
Last edited by Alpha8207; 03-20-2008 at 03:42 PM..
Reason: adjustment---adios for a few days!
Location: Georgia, on the Florida line, right above Tallahassee
10,471 posts, read 15,831,906 times
Reputation: 6438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha8207
Hmmm. I know I read somewhere about scientists creating a synthetic genome, but not a full blown bacterium. I'd like to see your source on this. I'm always open to new science and what it teaches us.
And no, your sarcastic insult about bowing to scientists doesn't happen, don't let your eyes roll out of your head. k?
And for your last sentence, you again just perpetuate the inability to read my posts and grasp what I am saying. So in light of that sentence, here's a simple question that I trust doesn't distract you from your lab for too long:
Since Microbiology 101 demonstrates evolution in bacteria in about a week, you must mean that that evolution (which I have embraced throughout this thread) somehow solidifies and proves Darwinism. As such, please provide me with the evidence that the bacteria evolved into something other than bacteria.
Thanks, doc!
I'm sensing a running theme here. If they agree with you, they understand you. If they don't agree with you, they don't understand you?
I'm sensing a running theme here. If they agree with you, they understand you. If they don't agree with you, they don't understand you?
Did JerZ and Alpha agree? I read it differently.
Personally, I am dead-set against ID in science classes, but I will absolutely see the movie. Also, I value open-mindedness more than almost everything.
ID as an idea itself isn't so bad - I think it's perfectly healthy for children to learn how to think about all kinds of things including religion, just not in their science classes. If it makes all the religious folks feel better - I have nothing against taking "The Origin of Species" out of Biology classes. Put it in Literature class alongside the Torah if you want. I have no problem with that.
Anyway, even if he is a right-wing jerk, I like Ben Stein (I've had that opinion since I learned that he was a speech writer for R. Nixon - long before this issue). I loved him in The Wonder Years and "Win Ben Stein's Money" was one of the better game shows. He's very entertaining so the movie will be a pleasure no matter what. And the irony in the trailer that JerZ points out is a fascinating one. So, I'll be watching. Let's talk after.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
