OgreMkV
Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
| Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 02 2009,15:00) | | Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 02 2009,13:39) | Haven't we done this already?
I guess ID as science doesn't have a prayer. I really wanted those questions answered too.
Can we have more fun with Floyd then?
Hey Floyd, ever eat pork (including pork chops, bacon, canadian bacon, hot dogs, or pigs ears)? That's literally forbidden in the bible... |
Actually it is not illegal to eat pork, in the sense that it applies to any Christian. As an example of the mistake you are making, sacrificing animals for sin atonement is commanded in the OT but it would be an abomination and the mother-of-all blasphemes in the NT. You have to remember that the seminal event in Christian history, the incarnation, substitutional death and resurrection of Christ, means there was a phase shift between the OT and the NT. Why people think that there was not a radical difference from before Christ arrived and after he achieved redemption is--to say the least--puzzling.
Not to mention that, in this case, the NT literally states that all food is lawful.
And, not that I am especially happy about agreeing with FL, and not that I even know that I am because I will not be bothered to go back and read the previous posts, but just for a point of argument, the New Testament does not, at all, condone slavery. |
I think the point is that if the bible is to be read literally, then there are significant problems with things that are OK in one context and not OK in another context.
If Floyd wants Genesis to be read as literal, then the entire OT must also be read as literal... which does include proscription against pork and taking of slaves.
He can't just pick and choose which part is to be taken literal and which part is not to be taken literal. Unless, he exlains in great detail, what allows one part to be taken literally and the other part not to and how to tell the difference when it not explicitlly mentioned elsewhere in the bible.
But, that's a digression. I agree.
Questions for you Floyd:
1) What is one hypothesis that ID proposes?
2) What is one prediction of ID that differs from evolutionary theory? (In other words, what predictions made using ID would differ from predictions made from evolution. PREDICTIONS, not statements like ‘live is designed’.)
3) Describe an experiment that could test this prediction (this test need not have been done yet).
4) What is one hypothesis of ID that has been tested and shown to be correct (this must have been tested)?
5) What is one piece of evidence that would falsify ID (in other words, what evidence proves ID to be incorrect)?
6) Dembski, Nelson, and Behe have both stated that ID as a scientific theory needs a lot of work and is not ready for the limelight. How do you respond to that statement from three of the largest figures of ID theory?**
Now, if you can’t or won’t answer questions 1-5, then ID is not science and must (by definition) be excluded from any science class. If can’t answer them correctly, ditto.
Please keep in mind that YOU want to argue SCIENCE, so you must argue using science’s rules. Changing the definition of science is not a valid response. Keep in mind that it has been tried, but those changes to science also allow the teaching of astrology and witchcraft in science classes (I don’t think you want that do you? I can teach Wiccan.).
As I’m sure you’re aware (since you think Texas has such a great science program), 40% of all class time for any science class in Texas public schools must be ‘laboratory’.
7) Please describe a lab that my students could do that would show ID in action and be able to show that ID works.
Finally, regardless of your ability to articulate a valid argument or not, there is at least one, non-scientific problem with ID in the classroom. At the present time, it is illegal. In Kitzmiller vs. Dover, Judge Jones, a federal judge, declared ID not to be science and including it in a classroom violated the establishment clause of the first amendment. Basically, it’s not only that it’s not science, but ID promotes a SPECIFIC religion and that is not allowed in public schools. You can’t teach Christianity in school any more than I can teach Wiccan in school.
**At a 2002 conference on Intelligent Design, leading ID scholar William Dembski said: “Because of ID’s outstanding success at gaining a cultural hearing, the scientific research part of ID is now lagging behind.” http://www.iscid.org/papers/Dembski_DisciplinedScience_102802.pdf
And
ID theoretician Paul Nelson wrote in Touchstone, a Christian magazine: “We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’ – but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.”
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/issue.php?id=76
And
“I quite agree that my argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof,” he [Behe] says… http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/MasterPlanned.html
--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
