RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (6) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Thread 2 for Kris< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,21:58   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,21:18)
Yet another glaring example of poor reading skills. I never said that I "don't think ID is correct". I didn't say that it's "correct" or that it isn't "correct". I only suggested that ID is possible and that science cannot prove that it's impossible, at least at this point in time. I also said that I think that the concept of ID or creation can be separated from religious beliefs.

Why is String Theory called String "Theory"? Why isn't it called String Speculation? Is String Theory science? Is String Theory testable with empirical evidence? Can anyone show me an actual "String"?

15 whole years? Wow, that's a looooooong time. How long did it take mankind to come up with the Theory of Evolution? How about The Big Bang Theory?

Virtually every day some scientist comes up with some new theory or hypothesis or speculation or inference about something and many of them are not testable with empirical evidence and are no more provable or falsifiable than ID or creation by an intelligent entity. Why aren't you guys bitching about those so-called theories, hypotheses, speculations, or inferences?

Just to let you know, it's not only Judeo-Christians who think there is or could be a creator and/or designer. Just ask some American Indians, for example.

No, String Theory should not be taught in any school as fact, and neither should ID or creation. However, if an instructor is asked about them by a student, the instructor should say that any of them are possible.


For ID to be possible you MUST have a designer.  There isn't any evidence of a designer that has ever been found.

Could it possibly be found in the future... maybe.  However, the people that need to be looking aren't.  They are too busy lying about science to do any science.

I totally disagree that ID can be separated from religion.  By definition, ID requires a deity like designer.  Further, since every ID proponent has publicly stated that the designer is the Judeo-Christian God and the stated goal of ID is nothing less than a theocratic country based on Judeo-Christian principles, then by definition, ID is religious.

If you think ID can be separated from religion, then let's figure out how.  It hasn't been done yet.  I maintain that it cannot be.

As far as String Theory.  It's a theory because the principles worked out by string theorists have been used to predict results of further mathematical explorations of String Theory.  Of course, like much of math, it could all be wanking, but it still is internally consistent (unlike ID), it is well defined (unlike ID), and it is sufficiently robust that there is a possibility of finding evidence of it (unlike ID).

As far as "Can anyone show me actual string?"  I invite you to show me actual stored bits in computer memory.  I invite you to show me a tau lepton.  You can't.  So does it actually exist?  Who knows?

String theory isn't the issue here though.  ID is.  ID doesn't even have as good a position as String Theory.  Heck, I'd argue that ID doesn't even have as good a position as loop quatum gravity does (and that requires naked singularities and magnetic monopoles).

Actually, 15 years is a lot of time.  Think about what we didn't have in 1995.  Of course, the other side of the coin is that, arguably, it's taken the entire life of the universe to come up with these principles.  (See, I can think about things in many different ways and am open to ideas.)

No, no, no, no.  Everyday scientists come up with notions.  Eventually some of those notions will become hypotheses.  Eventually some of those will be tested, etc. etc.

Kris, I need to listen very carefully because this is the ENTIRE POINT OF THIS ARGUMENT AND WEBSITE.

Why aren't you guys bitching about those so-called theories, hypotheses, speculations, or inferences?

Those other scientists are trying to push their notions, hypotheses, and theories into the high school curriculum, and attempting to change science so that astrology is considered a science.  Those people are not trying to put a very specific religious principle into the science classrooms.

Intelligent Design is.

It's that simple.

BTW: American Indians are not trying to push The Feathered Serpent into the science classroom.  ID is.

Further, you are wrong.  Intelligent Design is very specifically (as stated by the leaders of the movement) about the Judeo-Christian God.  They do not allow the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  They do not allow Odin.  They do not allow Cthullu.  They do not allow Shiva.  Only God.

If you think that the designer could be any of these, then I invite you to go over to Unintelligent Design and say so.  See if the comment even makes it past moderation.

As I have shown, using ID as the base, the designer MUST be a deity.  Unfortunately, according to ID proponents, it must be the God of the Christian Bible.  

As far as String Theory, I mentioned in my physics class because some students asked me about it.  I would never claim it as fact.  I defy you to find a high school in the US where String Theory is claimed as fact.  

On the other hand, as Kristine (or Robin) mentioned, if you say that special creation by an intelligent designer is possible, then you are breaking the law.

It is up to ID proponents to show that ID is possible.  SO far, everything that Behe has said about irreducible complexity has been wrong.  Everything that Demsbki has said about 'information' has been wrong.  

That's not a way to get information into the classroom.

Arguably, since we haven't seen the revolutionary war, there is no way we should teach it.  Arguably, we could say that time travelers from a future confederacy shot Lincoln.  We could say ANYTHING is possible.  

What we should do is teach kids to think instead of regurgitate and then they could figure it out on their own.  Unfortunately, we must teach to the lowest common denominator and we must be careful of offending people like you, so we can't correct misconceptions.

If you think we should say that ID is possible, then we're going to need a reason to say that.  To say it's possible because we haven't proved it impossible is a logical fallacy.  We haven't proven that the interior of the moon is not hollow, so should we say that it's possible.

So far, everything that ID has said has been shown to be wrong.  You want ID to be taught (and yes, that's not what you said, but if you say that it's possible, then you are implicitly endorsing it in class), then we're going to need a lot more than it's not impossible.

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

  174 replies since Jan. 21 2011,05:52 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (6) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]