Originally posted by SuzianneWhy not teach what the scientist are actually doing? They are doing experiments to investigate irreducible complexity and intelligent design. The students should be made aware of it as well as all the faults with the theory of evolution and evilution in my opinion. That is what science is all about. How else can we really find out what the facts are and come to the understanding of the truth?
Or insisting that it be taught in our schools alongside real science.
The Instructor
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
26 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindswhat experiment involving irreducible complexity? can you tell us about one?
Why not teach what the scientist are actually doing? They are doing experiments to investigate irreducible complexity and intelligent design. The students should be made aware of it as well as all the faults with the theory of evolution and evilution in my opinion. That is what science is all about. How else can we really find out what the facts are and come to the understanding of the truth?
The Instructor
Originally posted by Proper KnobA New Theory of Evolution: Cellular Genetic Engineering
That's what we expect though from a grown man who wilfully chooses to remain ignorant on the topic at hand.
Evolutionary Programming is Organized Top-Down, not Bottom-Up
The Evolutionary Algorithm is Intentional - and That's a Testable hypothesis
Evolution as a Highly Optimized Calculation, Not a Random Walk
A good theory that needs perfecting to eliminate the billions and millions of years among other things.
The Instructor
27 Jul 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIn other words, no, you can't provide evidence on your own.
I am essentially non confrontational, i rarely enjoy battling against dogma, its tiresome, never the less, i am sure thats Hinds posted some details, Behe himself had a blog i don't know if he continues it.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by googlefudgeLooks to me like you are the one throwing a silly temper tantrum. RJ quoted Dawkin's words about his thoughts on something which could be construed to support ID, and you throw a tantrum that he is dishonest ?Intelligent Design is true science too....
What? are you 8 yrs old?
You're like a little kid on the school playground stamping your foot and
throwing a tantrum.
Things are not true because you, or anyone else, asserts them.
Belief is not knowledge.
It doesn't matter how much you believe something, wishing something
was tru at.
And this poses you a problem, because science does not support your position.
At all.
That's stupid.
ID in the hands a number of scientists I have seen may have theological or philosophical implications. But any other science theory just as much has theological or philosophical implications.
Eugenia Scott hosted a talk on defining ID. And Eugenia Scott is dead set against allowing creationism to be taught in public schools in the US as far as I can see. Yet she moderated this debate (whatever her personal attitude towards ID might be.)
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 Jul 13
Originally posted by sonshipActually I was responding to the line I quoted (crazy I know) where hinds
Looks to me like you are the one throwing a silly temper tantrum. RJ quoted Dawkin's words about his thoughts on something which could be construed to support ID, and you throw a tantrum that he is dishonest ?
That's stupid.
ID in the hands a number of scientists I have seen may have theological or philosophical implications. But any other science ...[text shortened]... r her personal attitude towards ID might be.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmMVgOTCukQ
responds to people informing him (correctly and yet again) that ID is not
science, and that the discovery institute is not doing science and neither
is it a peer reviewed scientific publisher ect ect.... With this...
Intelligent Design is true science too....
Which struck me rather strongly as being an 8 year old kid in the school
playground responding "it is so too!" to someone disagreeing with them.
I realise that that's not the only way of reading it but that's how it struck
me at the time.
I had already dealt with Hinds' twisting and taking out of context the words
of Richard Dawkins in an earlier post (the second one in this thread actually).
So perhaps you might want to try reading posts, and what they're responding
to a little more carefully.
28 Jul 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeI did not twist or take the words of Dawkins out of context. It is on the video for all to listen to. He just speculates that the intelligent designer might be an alien from another world, because the God of the Holy Bible is unacceptable to him.
Actually I was responding to the line I quoted (crazy I know) where hinds
responds to people informing him (correctly and yet again) that ID is not
science, and that the discovery institute is not doing science and neither
is it a peer reviewed scientific publisher ect ect.... With this...
[quote]Intelligent Design is true science too....[/quote ...[text shortened]... might want to try reading posts, and what they're responding
to a little more carefully.
The Instructor
30 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsThe idea of the 'Intelligent Designer' cannot ever be science, because it cannot be falsified. Just like any other supernatural event, if you can't falsify it it is not science. If you cannot, even in principle, prove something wrong, it is in the realm of religion or metaphysics.
I did not twist or take the words of Dawkins out of context. It is on the video for all to listen to. He just speculates that the intelligent designer might be an alien from another world, because the God of the Holy Bible is unacceptable to him.
The Instructor