Teachers take a stand against anti-evolution teaching order

[Alex]

INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT SCIENCE. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT BIOLOGY. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT AN ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

[Lincoln]

This fear factor is getting hilarious among people with a supposedly open scientific mind. This is the same mindset that ridiculed and despised Darwin when he proposed a new idea not yet accepted fully by "the scientific community". Now the shoe is on the other foot and these closed minded ideologues pretend that anything that threatens their world view is not scientific. ID (although the term is widely misused) has nothing to do with creationism. If these people were really concerned about the corruption of science they would stop misusing terms in order to mislead. Maybe they should burn all books on ID so they can protect the students from other interpretations of the evidence that points to design as opposed to blind materialism. Yeah, good science -- disallow the revelation of facts and different interpretations of evidence that oppose the main stream opinion. What a way to advance science....

[Dinner]

Lincoln, please stop trying to misrepresent the nonfundimentalist majority. Evolution has scientific evidence backing it up while creationism has nothing, zero, zip, zylch, nada. Opposition to teaching creationism in science classes has nothing to do with fear instead it has to do with the desire to teach children sound science and the methods behind it.

But you already knew even if you will not admite it. Instead, you and a few others here are trying to confuse the issue in an attempt to hide the fact that there is no scientific evidence for creationism thus it does not belong in a science class. If you wish to teach your children nonsense then feel free to do so but I draw the line when you try to teach my children this rubbish.

[Lincoln]

I guess you didn't read my post. Oh well...

[Alexander's Horse]

I would have thought "intelligent design" is not in conflict with evolution......

[Lincoln]

Many ID proponants do in fact believe in evolution. Here is a brief definition:

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion...

[Sava]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I guess you didn't read my post. Oh well...

oh he read it... Oerdin just didn't believe any of your babbling bull****.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Sig material

I already have the original. More to the point as well.

[Guynemer]

But here's the crucial part, Lincoln:

There is no proof for "Intelligent Design".

Science demands proof.

Ergo, "Intelligent Design" is not science.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Many ID proponants do in fact believe in evolution. Here is a brief definition:

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion...

Remove the bolded text and I agree with you completely.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Many ID proponants do in fact believe in evolution. Here is a brief definition:

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion...

But that isn't the central claim of evolution - Darwin was a protestant minister and a very religious man. He felt he was revealing the hand of God.

[Lincoln]

Some scientists refuse to follow an"illusion"... Richard Dawkins for example admits that there is apparent design in life but he calls it an illusion, but without knowing the origin of life to begin with one can not state that natural selection is not directed by the same of source of life. ID simply states that the implication of design is NOT an illusion. Why should we be forced to follow illusions in the name of science?

[Theben]

Because it's not an illusion. ID claiming that it is doesn't make it so, unless you subscribe to circular logic...

[Guynemer]

Because, oh Great Obtuse One, there is no proof of design. Zero. Nada. **** all.

It is therefore not a scientific theory, and it does not belong in a science course.

You want to teach it in philosophy or religion class, fine. But it is not science.

[Lincoln]

Actually science demands EVIDENCE. There is plenty of it for design. And yes Darwin was a theist (at least initially). His theory was not meant to challange intelligent design of life in its origin.