Creation Science House Bill 3826

[Jollybear]

Probably the bigger question is why would any school teach ID creationism in the first place? By what standard would ID creationism be taught in science classes, but not geocentrism or astrology?

Standard is that ID has evidence for it.

 

[Jollybear]

Probably the bigger question is why would any school teach ID creationism in the first place? By what standard would ID creationism be taught in science classes, but not geocentrism or astrology?

Standard is that ID has evidence for it.

 

[Skwim]

When you say grounded in science, do you mean its grounded in reality or grounded in acceptance by the mainstream of science?

That through the application of the scientific method it has been found to be correct and accepted.

And why do you say ID is not science but religion?

It has not met the requirements of the science. I didn't say it was a religion, but a religious belief. It's creationism.

But spontaneous abiogenesis is science and not religion?

Well, I've never heard of the term "spontaneous abiogenesis," but rather think you've got two concepts mixed up, Spontaneous generation, and abiogenesis. Here, from Wikipedia:

Spontaneous generation refers to an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms. The theory of spontaneous generation held that living creatures could arise from nonliving matter and that such processes were commonplace and regular. For instance, it was hypothesized that certain forms such as fleas could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh.
​

So, while this is no longer a tenet of science, abiogenesis is; although, it doesn't have anything to do with evolution.

Abiogenesis. or informally the origin of life, is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.​

And how did you determine that?

No theory of creationism (ID) has ever been propounded. In science, a theory is "a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation."
Source: Dictionary.com

Ok, now you just confused me. First you said evolution is grounded in science, now you say naturalistic materialism is not a theory (or science)?
What do you mean?

If you note what I said, naturalistic materialism is a world view. Evolution is not a world view but a scientific conclusion explaining
the diversity of life.

Heres an exerpt from this article > Treasures of snow - creation.com

"But crystals are nothing like a living cell. Formed by the withdrawal of heat from water, they are dead structures that contain no more information than is in their component parts, the water molecules. Life forms, on the other hand, came into existence, evolutionists believe, through the addition of heat energy to some postulated primordial soup. Not only are these processes very different, but life requires the emergence of new information (a code) in order to take over the functions of organization and reproduction of a cell. There is therefore no analogy between snow crystals and the far, far greater complexity of living organisms."

As far as the snail and the flower go, they have DNA, the dreaded code of information that is your BIGGEST nightmare come true, lol.

Your point was "The data for design is overwhelming," to which I agreed, and then added "But it certainly doesn't suggest a need for a designer." So I fail to see how noting common knowledge, that "dead structures" are different from living ones, is of any relevance.

.

 

[Jollybear]

Have you not read about Kitzmiller v Dover.

You should do, as a matter of urgency, it's even on YouTube

Ive seen this video before years ago. I did watch it again though as a refresher.

Few things about it id like to point out.

1, they say newton did not propose a supernatural cause.

This is false, newton in fact believed in God and did propose that intelligence was behind the ordering of the universe.

2, they and the judge really went after the motives of the people, the funders of ID and the ID scientists. They went after the motives more rather then the evidence for design.

Finding the motivation behind a theory or organization is fine and dandy, but the evidence needs to be adressed on its own merits.

Also, and this is a fact! That any religion can adhere to ID, not just christianity, not just fundamentalism, but also jews, muslims and others. In fact, even those who believe aliens made us can and DO adhere to ID. Theres a guy name salvador who comes on this forum and he believes aliens made us. So, thats a form of intelligent cause. Thats NOT religion. Seeing evidence of a intelligent cause is not religion in and of itself. If that wer the case then your post and my post, which comes from us (which us is intelligence) would be religion. And of course, to propose that is rediculious. Likewise, the evidence for design shows intelligence, that needs to be adressed on its own two feet. Thats not religion. The motives of people may or may not be religious, but ID has scientific evidence. Period.

3, the issue of the word "creationism" and "intelligent design" they say is the same.

This is a thing of samantics. Who cares if its called creation, design or even engineering. The evidence is there.

 

[Jose Fly]

Standard is that ID has evidence for it.

Says who?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Please tell me it's not the Ken Ham type of creation 'science'.

What other type is there?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

This is a thing of samantics. Who cares if its called creation, design or even engineering. The evidence is there.

Argument from incredulity is not "evidence".

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Says who?

People who either don't understand ID, or don't understand evolution.

 

[Skwim]

2, they and the judge really went after the motives of the people, the funders of ID and the ID scientists. They went after the motives more rather then the evidence for design.

The court wasn't concerned with the "funders (?) of ID," or ID "scientists," but those intent in legitimizing ID as a part of their public school's curriculum. And if it could be shown they did this out of religious motivation they could be found guilty of violating the First Amendment. Which they were.

Finding the motivation behind a theory or organization is fine and dandy, but the evidence needs to be adressed on its own merits.

And as it turned out, the evidence showed that the motivation behind the ID movement was to replace the science of evolution with Christian creationism (note the part in the video about the Wedge document).

Also, and this is a fact! That any religion can adhere to ID, not just christianity, not just fundamentalism, but also jews, muslims and others. In fact, even those who believe aliens made us can and DO adhere to ID.

Try moving the goal posts all you want, but the fact is, the ID in question is Christian creationism.

The motives of people may or may not be religious, but ID has scientific evidence. Period.

I have no idea what you think their evidence is, but whatever it is it certainly hasn't reached the necessary level of science. And failing that it has no business in public schools

.

 

[Jollybear]

Says who?

Me and the evidence.

 

[Jollybear]

Argument from incredulity is not "evidence".

Its not incredulity. Its evidence of design and logical inference of actual design.

When are all you guys gonna tap out? I got ya all in a intellectual headlock here. You gotta tap. Lol

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Its not incredulity. Its evidence of design and logical inference of actual design.

When are all you guys gonna tap out? I got ya all in a intellectual headlock here. You gotta tap. Lol

No, it's argument from incredulitty. I.e. "This thing is really complicated, I can't believe it wasn't designed". That's not evidence.

 

[Jollybear]

No, it's argument from incredulitty. I.e. "This thing is really complicated, I can't believe it wasn't designed". That's not evidence.

No, your wrong. Order, complexity, parts, functionality, purpose, all that is evidence of design. So, we infer actual design.

Yes, it is evidence.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

No, your wrong. Order, complexity, parts, functionality, purpose, all that is evidence of design. So, we infer actual design.

Yes, it is evidence.

Here's a hint; pretty much every time you say "we infer actual design" that's an argument from incredulity, not evidence.

 

[Jollybear]

That through the application of the scientific method it has been found to be correct and accepted.

No, its through bias and the absolute WANT for a naturalistic explanation that an intelligent cause has been rejected. The scientific method does not show intelligence is not behind the universe.

It has not met the requirements of the science. I didn't say it was a religion, but a religious belief. It's creationism.

If you see words written on sand on the beach and infer intelligence did that, would you call that inference a religious belief?

Also, if ID is a religious belief, then so would the natural explanations as well because they make inferences as well.

Well, I've never heard of the term "spontaneous abiogenesis," but rather think you've got two concepts mixed up, Spontaneous generation, and abiogenesis. Here, from Wikipedia:

Spontaneous generation refers to an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms. The theory of spontaneous generation held that living creatures could arise from nonliving matter and that such processes were commonplace and regular. For instance, it was hypothesized that certain forms such as fleas could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh.
​

So, while this is no longer a tenet of science, abiogenesis is; although, it doesn't have anything to do with evolution.

Abiogenesis. or informally the origin of life, is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.​

​

Ya, how is abiogenesis not a belief, but ID is?

No theory of creationism (ID) has ever been propounded. In science, a theory is "a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation."

Lol, and ID has met that.

If you note what I said, naturalistic materialism is a world view. Evolution is not a world view but a scientific conclusion explaining
the diversity of life.

Let me clarify. I do believe evolution takes place, too an extent. But, evolution does not take into account information and design and order. So, this "scientific theory" is not a complete one. And its certainly not better then ID. If anything, ID completes it.

Your point was "The data for design is overwhelming," to which I agreed, and then added "But it certainly doesn't suggest a need for a designer." So I fail to see how noting common knowledge, that "dead structures" are different from living ones, is of any relevance.

.

Ok, there seams to be a disconnect here. You ADMIT there is design. So, when ID folk INFER actual design, thats a problem?

Snowflakes dont have DNA, like the snale and the flower do. DNA is a code of information. From what we know, information comes from minds (i.e. intelligence). This is not an argument from ignorence but an argument from what we know.

Also snowflakes form there design based on certain laws, the laws are DESIGNED.

 

[Jose Fly]

Me and the evidence.

So you think "because Jollybear at religiousforums.com says so" is justification for teaching something in science classes.

Then why isn't "because Jose Fly at religiousforums.com says not so" a reason to not teach something in science classes?

 

[Jollybear]

The court wasn't concerned with the "funders (?) of ID," or ID "scientists," but those intent in legitimizing ID as a part of their public school's curriculum. And if it could be shown they did this out of religious motivation they could be found guilty of violating the First Amendment. Which they were.

Heres the problem and i really believe its a naturalistic egenda, its a war on views, its not about TRUTH, it appears to be a war or egenda. They wanna attack the motives of IDers, well two can play that game, IDers can attack the motives of naturalists by saying 'well they just wanna progress there humanistic egenda within the world". And you see, all that is BS. What matters is the evidence, not motives. Because as i said before and im not just making it up, its a fact, there are different motives amongs all camps. Not all IDers are christians. Not all IDers have an egenda. Some IDers motives are PURELY the evidence of design. My goodness, wouldent the human race progress so much faster if they would but get past the BS and just address what matters.

The first ammendment does not say we have to IGNORE evidence.

And as it turned out, the evidence showed that the motivation behind the ID movement was to replace the science of evolution with Christian creationism (note the part in the video about the Wedge document).

And if youl note also the clarification from the IDer who explained the wedge document. It was not to force anyone to follow there ways. It was to teach and to do away with brainwashing kids.

Try moving the goal posts all you want, but the fact is, the ID in question is Christian creationism.

No, that's absolutely false and its a gross misrepresentation of NOVA. The goal post isnt moved, its right where it suppose to be. ID isnt a motivation, its a idea or logical inference based on what we abserve in the world. Again, two sides can play this game, naturalism isnt a science, its a motivation for the humanistic agenda. You see how a waste of time that is?

I have no idea what you think their evidence is, but whatever it is it certainly hasn't reached the necessary level of science. And failing that it has no business in public schools

.

It has reached it. Its not our problem that alot of scientists in the mainstream (although not all scientists) have strong naturalistic biases against ID.

 

[Jollybear]

Here's a hint; pretty much every time you say "we infer actual design" that's an argument from incredulity, not evidence.

Ok, so when naturalists infer DNA information did not come from intelligence and they infer the universe either came from nothing by chance and time or it was always existent, this is an argument from incredulity and not evidence too, yes, no?

 

[Jollybear]

So you think "because Jollybear at religiousforums.com says so" is justification for teaching something in science classes.

That plus the actual evidence of design is there. So, me and the evidence is justification to teach it in class.

Then why isn't "because Jose Fly at religiousforums.com says not so" a reason to not teach something in science classes?

Because jose Fly does not have the evidence on his side like jollybear does.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see that there is a problem of understanding the concept of evidence. There is no evidence for ID. That can be shown by this question:

"What reasonable test, based on something that is presently unknown or unaccounted for, could refuted ID?"

Now please note "observing a change of kind" would not do it since that is a creationist strawman of what evolution is. There is no change of kind in evolution. That fails the "reasonable" demand. And the reason that if one cannot come up with such a test that there is no evidence for ID is because scientific evidence is evidence that supports or refutes a scientific theory or hypothesis and the key trait of being a scientific theory or hypothesis is that it must be testable. It must be falsifiable. If not it falls into the worthless category of being "not even wrong". When a scientists realizes from a test the he is wrong he often has a clue as to how to find the right answer. ID cannot do that. Unless someone can come up with a way to falsify the concept.

Real scientists put their money where there mouth is. They try to refute their ideas and invite others to do the same. All ID has are ad hoc explanations. Those are neither scientific or of any value.