26 Apr 08
Originally posted by KellyJayThey could teach, sure - geography, computer science, you name it.
"Well, I don't know - will you give tenure to professors in geography who are flat earthers? What about geocentric astronomers? "
You believe if someone accepts ID that is like accepting the earth
is flat therefore they should not teach?
Kelly[/b]
Not biology, thought.
26 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by RetrovirusThe Irish christian bishop James Ussher thought that the Date of Creation was at the night preceding October 23, 4004 BC.
Well, if you mean that because of the "world existing 5768 years" thing - it's not an ID belief but rather a YEC (Young Earth Creationism) one.
Was he wrong?
26 Apr 08
3 edits
Originally posted by RetrovirusNot physical geography. That's practically geology.
They could teach, sure - geography, computer science, you name it.
Not biology, thought.
Intelligent design proponents say that although evidence pointing to the nature of an "intelligent cause or agent" may not be directly observable, its effects on nature can be detected. Dembski, in Signs of Intelligence, states: "Proponents of intelligent design regard it as a scientific research program that investigates the effects of intelligent causes ... not intelligent causes per se". In his view, one cannot test for the identity of influences exterior to a closed system from within, so questions concerning the identity of a designer fall outside the realm of the concept. In the 20 years since Intelligent Design was first formulated, no rigorous test that can identify these effects has yet been proposed.[31][32] No articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, nor has intelligent design been the subject of scientific research or testing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design[33]
It's just not science. Come on. Propose an ID experiment. Can you?
26 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt's just not science. Come on. Propose an ID experiment.
Not physical geography. That's practically geology.
Intelligent design proponents say that although evidence pointing to the nature of an "intelligent cause or agent" may not be directly observable, its effects on nature can be detected. Dembski, in Signs of Intelligence, states: "Proponents of intelligent design regard it as a scientific resea nt_design[33]
It's just not science. Come on. Propose an ID experiment. Can you?
Of course not, ID is not science. I'm just saying that I have no problem having some one who believe in Flat Earth teaching me Computer Science, for example.
Edit: Of course, I guess that all Flat Earthers are idiots ; I'm talking theoretically.
26 Apr 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungLets see, we could try to build something and see if we can create life.
Not physical geography. That's practically geology.
Intelligent design proponents say that although evidence pointing to the nature of an "intelligent cause or agent" may not be directly observable, its effects on nature can be detected. Dembski, in Signs of Intelligence, states: "Proponents of intelligent design regard it as a scientific resea ...[text shortened]... nt_design[33]
It's just not science. Come on. Propose an ID experiment. Can you?
Isn't that being done all the time?
Kelly
26 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by RetrovirusWhat was the name of that movie again, you know the one that says
[b]It's just not science. Come on. Propose an ID experiment.
Of course not, ID is not science. I'm just saying that I have no problem having some one who believe in Flat Earth teaching me Computer Science, for example.
Edit: Of course, I guess that all Flat Earthers are idiots ; I'm talking theoretically.[/b]
those that ask those questions get called names and belittled?
Kelly