Specifically, who is flaming you GG?

__________________
Put me on wheels and I'll turn tricks.

Clever? Nah, I ran out of that years ago. But if you find this, let me know, k?
"The road goes ever on..." ~ Tolkien

In memory of my friend skip...
Go then, there are other worlds than these

this is just a philosophical debate, not a congressional session. nothing is going to get pushed, shoved or hammered down anyones throat or even made into law.



i had thought my understanding of intelligent design was kinda accurate--that although the are more than a few zealots attached to the idea, there are several objective scientists who do have a hunch and would like to explore it in a scientific manner and see where it leads them. i’m getting the idea there's a few folks who think it’s all zealots and psuedo-science. here’s where I got my info, and I tell you why I think it was fairly….um fair….i was listening to the local npr station do a piece on intelligent design--if i had known i would need them here, i would have paid more attention to the names-- part of the show was history, part was investigative and another part devoted time to outlining intelligent design, with the help of two well spoken scientists who never descended into the least bit of emotional debate even though they held opposing views. nor was any specific religion’s god menioned...perhaps carefully so, i don't know, but there was only the brief mention the possibility that the designer is so far advanced of us as to be considered god-like. but still, that doesn't quite jive with me as any christian fundamentalist trying to force their religion into science class. for a couple reasons: one, without actually linking his ideas with any religion, in fact going out of his way to distance himself from it, i was left with more of an imression that the guy beleived that (a true god) to be the least likely of all possible 'intelligent designers'. and two, i may be stereo-typing too much here, but i don't think the npr host would have given the man the same respect and time she gave the woman debating him had she (the host) believed him to be from the christian right.

he said the science he was interested in was something along the lines of reverse engineering. i think he called it design recognition. and i am of the opinion that if one is using scientific methods to uncover data, as opposed to just saying it must be so, it must be considered science, no matter how green and wet behind the ears and weird.

what’s the harm of a mention somewhere during the theorized history of evolution section of h/s earth sciences? perhaps even an entire class offered at the university level? oh oppression! how you stalk my every thought!

i see it as a natural byproduct of the idea itself that compells religious organizations support this science. it would after all, put a very capital G at the beginning of god if god was proved real. different denominations have been accused of suppressing knowledge for ages, not the least of the accused being the catholic church and the city of rome, and a lot of those accusations are true--an example: it took over 1800 years for it to be acknowledged that aristarchus was right and we do actually revolve around the sun, in the beginning because of fear and ignorance and at the end because of outright censorship—so is it tit for tat, then? how does anything ever get learned when we were all too busy plugging our ears and mentally planning our verbal rejection of the idea we refuse to listen to.

__________________
Trees give peace to the souls of men * Nora Waln

The forest would be very quiet if no other birds sang than those who sing the best * Henry van Dyke

some fairly sordid tales, rambles, and anecdotes
Hypothetically Speaking * Something More * Cammy Interrupted * An Experimental Vacation * Masked * so..damn..hot * Thank You * My toy, his idea * no.19 Maple Lane * I Have A Surprise For You * Yesterday * In a Quiet Kitchen * help me decide * untitled prose * more untitled prose

wyndhy,

In support of some, and hopefully without enraging others, I’d like to revisit two sticking points in this debate.

The first is that I am under the impression that school boards have directed teachers to present Intelligent Design and Creationism as scientific theories. The second is that the Theory of Evolution, as initially popularized by Charles Darwin, is “only” a theory.

I get a general sense from the other posts in the thread, that here at Pixies people generally support the presentation of as wide a range of views as possible. Another post alluded to the context issue. I’m pretty comfortable that everyone would agree that it would be silly to present theories of fluid dynamics in a Poetry course. No one would think of introducing the principles of the calculus in a History class. It is foolish to suggest that a discussion on optics lends value to a Physical Education curriculum. Why then present “alternative theories” which are not scientific in a Science class? Permit me to emphasize that I have no problem with – indeed, I think it useful to pursue for the reasons you list – a discussion of the subject. But I also suggest that the domain lies outside of that of Science.

The noun “theory”, when used to describe the measurable phenomena using formal scientific techniques, is a pretty robust word. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution has withstood a great deal of careful scrutiny for more than a hundred years. This isn’t “jseal’s personal belief about Evolution”, nor is it “osuche’s private musings about Evolution”. There is a large amount of corroborating evidence to support the principles.

Keep in mind that the base descriptions of Physics, from the largest, Einstein’s Special and General Relativity Theories, down to the smallest, Quantum Theory, all contain the same word. These theories predict unintuitive phenomena, from the trivial time dilation of Special Relativity, through the singularities of Black Holes, and the spontaneous creation (and destruction) of matter predicted by Quantum Mechanics. Interestingly, these theories are granted legitimacy not extended to Evolution.

jseal, my apologies but i am having trouble recalling where i ever referred to it as a theory. i even thought i had taken pains to avoid the use and clarify i believed it to be more of an idea of fantastical proportions being evaluated by some in a scientific manner.

furthermore, if i am to keep a totally open mind, i can even see a way that evolution(a thoery, btw i would definitely agree has abundant and compelling evidence to support it)and intelligent design could be synergistic, or tributaries that feed a single end. and after all, how has so much evidence been collected in the quest for proof of evolution? it was denied, suppressed, re-thunk, slowly studied, accepted by some and then accepted by many.

__________________
Trees give peace to the souls of men * Nora Waln

The forest would be very quiet if no other birds sang than those who sing the best * Henry van Dyke

some fairly sordid tales, rambles, and anecdotes
Hypothetically Speaking * Something More * Cammy Interrupted * An Experimental Vacation * Masked * so..damn..hot * Thank You * My toy, his idea * no.19 Maple Lane * I Have A Surprise For You * Yesterday * In a Quiet Kitchen * help me decide * untitled prose * more untitled prose

Already answered.

__________________
On the kinkometer, my kink measures as a sine wave.

wyndhy,

Your criticism that those who agree with the tenets of modern science are not wholly open minded is not only reasonable, but correct.

Science is a domain with limits. Modern science seeks to explain the universe in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Quantum Mechanics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Particles – mesons for example – are accepted into the theory only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. Because they must fit within the existing framework of physics, new particles can not have arbitrary properties.

To be scientific, theories must be falsifiable.

Due to the enormous success that the scientific method has had, I find the limits it imposes a reasonable trade off.

__________________
Eudaimonia

Perhaps I can throw a little cold water on this.

Creationism, ID and the Dreamtime are all attempts to explain how the Universe came to be, because we simply do not know for sure.

Creationism carries with it an act of faith of a pre-existing God and a plan. The existence of the Universe is taken as evidence of the existence of God. Faith is not arguable.

ID is as above, but substitute Intelligent Designer for God. The Designer is a God of complexity.

The Evolutionists haven't the faintest idea where the Universe came from. Anything evolved requires a prior state, so again we are in a recursive which recedes beyond our ability to know.

Where philosophies become required teaching, be they Christian, Muslim, BaH'ai or Marxism, you need to teach them all or it's just an exercise in indoctrination.

Finally, it's OK for people to have different beliefs.

__________________
Calm, quiet, smooth, devastating

If evolution is a proven theory, please explain to me who found the "Missing Link" in human devolopment.

__________________

No one in this forum showed you or your ideas any disrespect and I expect you to respond in kind GG.

__________________

The practice of putting women on pedestals began to die out when it was discovered that they could give orders better from there.~ Betty Grable

If I wanted your opinion, I'd remove the duct tape and ask you for it.~ Me
<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
One man's dream is another man's nightmare~~~~> §¤ Lilith ¤§
~>My Scribbles<~
==>Gone Shopping<== ~Just a Quickie~ *~A Celebration Vacation~* ~Surprises~ Sleeping With the Window Open
What Did You Do Today? Self Defense Class ~Short Sweet Snippets~ § Summer Spin § Story Challenge Submission Pajamas

/me stirs the pot once more.

If we can't agree on what to teach...... (wait for it!!)

Why not just OMIT any teaching of evolution, intelligent design, creationism, or ANYTHING about how the world began from our curriculum.*

Kids can learn about this stuff at home. or on Wikipedia. Since we can't agree, why not just avoid the topic altogether? What do we gain....except heartache and debate???




































* osuche does not advocate this position....she's just being devil's advocate. Carry on.

__________________
Life is too short not to love and be loved....preferably multiple times in one night.

I think men talk to women so they can sleep with them and women sleep with men so they can talk to them. ~ Jay McInerney

I could accept the possibility of an intelligent designer of the earth, solar system, humans, etc - eg, aliens - but not of the whole universe.

Have any ID-ers put forward anything like this?

__________________
I want to know everything
I want to be everywhere
I want to fuck everyone in the world
I want to do something that matters

Belial

Have you read "Ringworld"?

__________________
Calm, quiet, smooth, devastating

I think I'll stick to the Flying Spagetti Monster theory myself.....

Going to become a Pastafarian. At least I can wear some neat accessories.

Attached Images

pastafarian.jpg (23.9 KB, 161 views)

Now that's scary.

__________________
Calm, quiet, smooth, devastating

I’m a Frisbeterian.

We worship the frisbee and believe that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and stays there forever. The weather and number of pigeons that visit you is determined by how good you were.

We don’t get to wear neat stuff like that, so I may have to rethink possibly becoming a Pastafarian. (there’ll be two of us then :grin: )

__________________