Expelled

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by madhatter85

No, Schools are to teach facts, If they want to teach evolution they should recognize that it is only a theory and not proven.

You have just illustrated for us that you have no idea what you are talking about. First, evolution is both a fact, and a theory. Second, evolution is a theory in the scientific sense, like gravity, helio-centrism and relativity. It is a theory in the exact same sense in which the round-earth is a theory, and as as much evidence to support it. Third, nothing in science is proven, ever. It is either supported by the evidence or it isn't. Evolution is. Period.

You will do a better job of advocating for your point of view if you learn the first thing about it. Little tip for you.

ID is not a theory. It is an unsupported hypothesis. That is why it is not taught as science; it isn't.

and if they want to teach theories, they should provide unbias arguments for all theories on the subject

Are you familiar with the evidence that supports the Theory of Evolution (ToE)? Would you like me to lay it out for you? Or do you prefer to remain ignorant?

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by madhatter85

CSC - Top Questions

you seem to think that intelligent design has to do with religion when it does not. It merely reconized that neo-darwinism cannot explain the actual beginning of life, It only attempts to explain how life changes.

Man, you really are ignorant, aren't you. Does that bother you?
1. What the heck is neo-Darwinism?
2. ToE does not explain, does not try to explain, and is not about, the actual beginning of life. Nor does it address atomic fusion or baroque architecture. It's not about that.

Seriously, madhatter, do you want to learn what ToE is and why it forms the basis for modern Biology, or do you prefer to keep making a fool of yourself?

[madhatter85]

Originally Posted by Women_Of_Reason

Than why do proponents of ID want to introduce creationist textbooks in class if it's not religious.

the real proponents of ID do not teach creationism, That is separate and only based in judeo-christian text

[madhatter85]

Originally Posted by mball1297

Well, thank goodness you finally understand that about the theory. Please keep that in mind.

Now, ID is inherently religious. God is the subject of religion, and that's exactly what an intelligent designer is.

Wrong, ID could explain that proteins are inherently intelligent with the capacity to form increasingly more complex cells and therefore create life.

you are still trying to place God into a theory that does not require God.

[madhatter85]

Originally Posted by Seyorni

And you imply here that ID does explain the origin of life. It does not. It merely asserts that there was an agent responsible.

"God did it" is neither a theory, nor an explanation, nor, for that matter, science.
Science is about mechanism. ID proposes no mechanism, only agency. It has no place in a science classroom.

see my above Post, ID is about exploring fields of science and looking for intelligent behavior in any organism or construct in nature.

[madhatter85]

Originally Posted by The Voice of Reason

So, in an effort to legitimize your willful ignorance, you are now linking us to a site run by Bruce Chapman. Chapman is a social conservative that is running this website that is tied to the religious right.

From Wikipedia:
The Discovery Institute is a conservative public policy U.S.think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design and its Teach the Controversy campaign to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high schoolscience courses.[2][3][4][5][6] A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis", through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.[7][8][9] In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions",[10] and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy, describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".[11][12]

If you wish to swaddle yourself in ignorance, that's not a problem. Not surprisingly, you seem to be unaware that citing a person that is equally delusional doesn't really provide credibility to your laughably hollow argument.

For what it's worth, I have to say that your statement that intelligent design has nothing to do with religion is a jewel. Of course, you'll have to pay attention to whom you cite as a reference from now on. Your use of Bruce Chapman wasn't very well thought out, but at this point, with no credibility left, it really isn't that big a problem for you - is it.

It is funny how you think that Wikipedia is the ultimate source of truth and knowledge. (considering anyone can edit any page)

True proponents of Intelligent design do not teach creationism. That is all there is about it.

people try to throw them in together when it's ridiculous to do so.

[Autodidact]

You are mistaken, madhatter. ID is creationism in a lab coat. Kitzmiller v Dover. I recommend that you read it.

[The Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

Or do you prefer to remain ignorant?

Objection, your Honor!!!

Asked and answered!!