OgreMkV
Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
"not threatening slaves" assumes one has slaves
please note (and do try to read the entire section) that this passage is how slaves are expected to behave.
Floyd, ever have a ham steak?
You're the one wasting time. Fine, I won't bring it up again. Let's get onto ID is science:
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
|
