Do we? We really see this over and over again? Could you please give several examples of this so we know what you mean?JustMyPOV said:Well, we've seen this occur over and over again throughout history. A new (or old) theory is brought up and all the scientists gather and automatically debunk the work because it doesn't jive with what they think they know.
Just a moment here. We are talking about science here, right? In Science, a "Theory," a SCIENTIFIC THEORY is a very specific thing. It is the end result of the exploration of a subject through the application of the Scientific Method. Until it has been all the way through the Scientific Method, it is not a Scientific Theory at all. You knew this, right?I'm not suggesting that I believe or disbelieve the theory of intelligent design,
"Where we come from"? What do you mean? Do you at all know what the Scientific Theory of Evolution is?but what I am saying is that there is nothing wrong with exposing children to whatever different theories there are about where we came from.
How is it "silencing" to ask for actual evidence before inflicting faith on kids? That seems a bizarre claim that you are expressing here.To work hard to silence a theory because you don't agree with it is ridiculous.
yes, such as 2+2=5. Well, it COULD be. It's a new idea, after all.Places of learning should be open to new ideas, not shun them because they don't agree with the current belief system.
So you say, insulting numerous school kinds who have to think A LOT in school. But I can agree that we need to teach more Science in school, so that should make the kids think more. After all, we end up with kids graduating with no clue about what the Scientific Theory of Evolution actually is, and carry about misconceptions that makes them laughingstocks when they open their mouth about it, per the bizarre and silly misconceptions they are shown to hold.One of the problems with schools in general is that they don't encourage the kids to really think.
Really? You think this is what happens in Science Class? When were you last in a Science Class?They simply have kids memorize and regurgitate data and then hope that they can retain most of it. Why not instead present various theories, discuss them, and let the kids actually think about it?
Ah, but ID is not even relevant itself. After all, an idea based on "I just can't IMAGINE it happened any other way" is not rally relevant to anybody other than those who hold such unsubstantiated, unproven faith. No evidence, no data, no predictive ability. It doesn't meet any requirement for being science in even the slightest way. It is right up there with the raven helping the people out of the clamshell.To sum up, I suggest that intelligent design should be taught in the schools along with any other relevant theories that exist. What do you think?
JustMyPOV said:Well, we've seen this occur over and over again throughout history. A new (or old) theory is brought up and all the scientists gather and automatically debunk the work because it doesn't jive with what they think they know.
I'm not suggesting that I believe or disbelieve the theory of intelligent design, but what I am saying is that there is nothing wrong with exposing children to whatever different theories there are about where we came from. To work hard to silence a theory because you don't agree with it is ridiculous. Places of learning should be open to new ideas, not shun them because they don't agree with the current belief system.
One of the problems with schools in general is that they don't encourage the kids to really think. They simply have kids memorize and regurgitate data and then hope that they can retain most of it. Why not instead present various theories, discuss them, and let the kids actually think about it?
To sum up, I suggest that intelligent design should be taught in the schools along with any other relevant theories that exist. What do you think?
Fundies trying to get their religious views to be as reputable as science by calling their views science???? If you can't explain how something happened it must have been god???? A half cooked dead end "theory" given the same weight as a tried and tested scientific theory??????JustMyPOV said:Well, we've seen this occur over and over again throughout history. A new (or old) theory is brought up and all the scientists gather and automatically debunk the work because it doesn't jive with what they think they know.
I'm not suggesting that I believe or disbelieve the theory of intelligent design, but what I am saying is that there is nothing wrong with exposing children to whatever different theories there are about where we came from. To work hard to silence a theory because you don't agree with it is ridiculous. Places of learning should be open to new ideas, not shun them because they don't agree with the current belief system.
One of the problems with schools in general is that they don't encourage the kids to really think. They simply have kids memorize and regurgitate data and then hope that they can retain most of it. Why not instead present various theories, discuss them, and let the kids actually think about it?
To sum up, I suggest that intelligent design should be taught in the schools along with any other relevant theories that exist. What do you think?
JustMyPOV said:To sum up, I suggest that intelligent design should be taught in the schools along with any other relevant theories that exist. What do you think?
McWilliamson said:I'm a Junior in High School, and I have no interest in learning what anyone thinks about the beginning of the world. I do not want to discuss religion or things that have more depth than sin(x) or the chemical formula for Hydrochloric Acid with those I'm forced to go to school with. Call me a cynic.
I must almost disagree with it even being a hypothesis. For this to be true, it would have to be falsifiable etc:tecoyah said:Key Words.....Relevant...and.... Theories
ID seems to be Neither....it is not in any way a theory, rather a Hypothesis. As Data is accumulated to back up this hypothesis it can graduate into theory.
Shoey said:If you leave out Darwins approach as to where man originated from I'm OK with that. After all these years evolutionists cannot scientifically proove where man originated from.
Well, Darwin’s writings were 150 years ago. That would be like relying on the Wright Brothers in doing Space Shuttle design. So are you objecting to modern scientific evidence? And what is this focus exclusively on "man"? Are you saying that all other Evolution is OK, but you won't accept that "man" evolved? That would be an asinine claim.Shoey said:If you leave out Darwins approach as to where man originated from I'm OK with that.
We can show a lot about it. Look in the other tread. Certainly, your talking about "Lucy" shows that you are rather clueless about the current science.After all these years evolutionists cannot scientifically proove where man originated from.
Iriemon said:Evolution, whether it is "proved" or not, is a widely accepted theory as a natural explanation for how species evolved.
If not evolution, what other natural theory do you propose to explain how life is like it is, and the dinosaur bones?
steen said:Well, Darwin’s writings were 150 years ago. That would be like relying on the Wright Brothers in doing Space Shuttle design. So are you objecting to modern scientific evidence? And what is this focus exclusively on "man"? Are you saying that all other Evolution is OK, but you won't accept that "man" evolved? That would be an asinine claim.
We can show a lot about it. Look in the other tread. Certainly, your talking about "Lucy" shows that you are rather clueless about the current science.
Originally Posted by Iriemon
Evolution, whether it is "proved" or not, is a widely accepted theory as a natural explanation for how species evolved.
If not evolution, what other natural theory do you propose to explain how life is like it is, and the dinosaur bones?
Shoey said:You can find the answers in the book of Genesis. God is the creator of all things and that includes human life and Dinosaurs.
Ah, but there is no natural explanation there, in Genesis which still is not a Science textbook, but merely a "why" for the relevance of God's message.Shoey said:You can find the answers in the book of Genesis. God is the creator of all things and that includes human life and Dinosaurs.
The moment you actually explain what you mean in a way that makes sense. What do you mean with "man"? What do you mean with "originate"?Shoey said:When(if ever) are you going to provide scientific proof where man originated from???
And your display of ignorance leaves me assured that you and your family will never threaten mine in the competition for good education and good jobs in the real world. Willfull ignorance of creationists is great for the rest of us in that sense.Your "Mayberry" shows keep me in stitches.
Shoey said:You can find the answers in the book of Genesis. God is the creator of all things and that includes human life and Dinosaurs.
What theory? No evidence = No theory.JustmyPOV said:To sum up, I suggest that intelligent design should be taught in the schools along with any other relevant theories that exist. What do you think?
Yes, there are several threads about the this same subject.steen said:Do we? We really see this over and over again? Could you please give several examples of this so we know what you mean?
But comparing apples in terms of oranges... apples simply have no supporting evidenceThat tends to happen when you bring up supernatual explanations for natural phenonema. Science deals with natural explanation for natural phenonema. You can't compare apples and oranges.
No one can. Creationist or Evolutionist.Shoey said:After all these years evolutionists cannot scientifically proove where man originated from.
What gives?Shoey said:You can find the answers in the book of Genesis. God is the creator of all things and that includes human life and Dinosaurs.
What is your scientific proof for the Bible, or creation, or the origin of man?Shoey said:When(if ever) are you going to provide scientific proof where man originated from???
-Demosthenes- said:What theory? No evidence = No theory.
Mikkel said:As a side note:
Science often comes up with theories that contradict each other and are both accepted as valid. For instance, Einstein's theory of a space-time continuum and relativity contradicts many other theories that physicists apply everyday to the real world, but it is still an accepted theory because there is evidence to support it.
My point is that the theory of evolution may sculpt a different picture of early earth than the 'theory' of intelligent design. Evolution cannot debunk creationism, nor can creationism debunk evolution. They are potentially compatible theories. The reason intelligent design shouldn't be tought in the classroom is because it isn't grounded in science, and therefore cannot be qualified as an accepted scientific theory.
I think you are getting things mixed up here. Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY (meaning it was explored through the Scientific Method. ID and creationism are claims that the science is wrong, nothign else. Creation is not the same as Creationism. Creation in its allegorical form is compatible with Evolution. Creationism, on the other hand, is a process of deception, misdirection and outright lies. That is not compatible with anything.Mikkel said:My point is that the theory of evolution may sculpt a different picture of early earth than the 'theory' of intelligent design. Evolution cannot debunk creationism, nor can creationism debunk evolution. They are potentially compatible theories.
Agreed. It goes beyond that, though, to the point of actually not having any evidence, being made up purely of wild speculation.The reason intelligent design shouldn't be tought in the classroom is because it isn't grounded in science, and therefore cannot be qualified as an accepted scientific theory.
Shoey said:You can find the answers in the book of Genesis. God is the creator of all things and that includes human life and Dinosaurs.
MrFungus420 said:Only a valid line of reasoning if you believe that the Bible is true. In other words, it is nothing more than a religious story with no evidence other than the book in which it appears.
Using the Bible to prove itself is circular reasoning, nothing else.
And show me where in the Bible it says anything about "dinosaurs".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?