Intelligent Design in Schools

[David Floyd]

That's actually who I was hoping would show up to chat when I posted this. I'm just curious if he's going to respond differently than other IDers I've used these arguments with.

[SlowwHand]

If your opponent is even mildly intellectually honest - which is in many cases not true - you can usually pin them into a corner here and get them to admit that there is no affirmitive scientific evidence for creationist theory.

Do you realize how dumbass this is, David?

[David Floyd]

I don't know, you tell me. Better yet, respond to the challenge and tell me what the affirmitive scientific evidence that supports ID actually is.

[SlowwHand]

Why would a creationist feel compelled to offer scientific theory to creation? Put the shoe on the other foot.

[David Floyd]

Well, for one thing, because I'm legitimately asking. Typically, creationists are Christians, and Christians are commanded to share the Word.

Additionally, creationists should feel compelled to offer scientific evidence if they want/expect their position to be taken seriously in the academic community. You want creationism taught alongside evolution - basic fair play, to paraphrase Strawbow? Fine, then offer up the evidence that ID belongs in science classes/serious academic discourse.

[SlowwHand]

Hebrews 11:1 Says "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".
That doesn't beg scientific backing.

[David Floyd]

It does if you expect creationism to be taught in a science course. The term "science course" sort of implies that you will be teaching science, which in turn requires things like scientific evidence, the scientific theory, etc.

Otherwise, if you are making a faith-based argument, or a philosophical argument, shouldn't you logically be in favor of teaching creationism in a philosophy or religion class, instead?

Additionally, using the Bible to justify a position derived from the Bible - ie, using self-referential "evidence" - is fine, if everyone agrees with the Bible. However, assuming you are trying to convince someone who does not necessarily agree with your presuppositions, don't you think that it would behoove your argument to find something external from the Bible to justify your position?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Why would a creationist feel compelled to offer scientific theory to creation? Put the shoe on the other foot.

If there are creationists who demand that ID be taught in science classes, then yes, it's fair to press them to provide so-called scientific evidence for ID.

[SlowwHand]

Then mandate that scientists refer to creationism?
I'm sitting out this dance.

[David Floyd]

Sorry? You want the government to mandate creationism, without providing scientific evidence for it?

Also, don't sit out, I'm not trying to attack you or anyone else. I am just legitimately baffled and want to know why you support creationism and the teaching of ID in schools, and what evidence you have for your position.

[MrFun]

Why the **** should science teachers be compelled to refer to creationism in a SCIENCE course if intelligent design is NOT scientifically-based??

If intelligent design has to be included in academic cirricula, then let's place it in an English literature course where fictitious works are read and discussed.

[David Floyd]

MrFun, I think that attitude/response is what turns off people who fervently believe in creationism/ID. They feel that their belief system is being ridiculed when it is refered to as a work of fiction.

My point is, I'm willing to a)stipulate ID is true for the purposes of argument, because I can't disprove a Creator even if I wanted to, and b)argue that ID can be taught in schools, because there are some decent philosophical arguments for it, as long as it is kept to philosophy or religion courses. What I'm asking for is either an argument against what I just said, or evidence that ID should be placed in our science curriculum.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd
MrFun, I think that attitude/response is what turns off people who fervently believe in creationism/ID. They feel that their belief system is being ridiculed when it is refered to as a work of fiction.

My point is, I'm willing to a)stipulate ID is true for the purposes of argument, because I can't disprove a Creator even if I wanted to, and b)argue that ID can be taught in schools, because there are some decent philosophical arguments for it, as long as it is kept to philosophy or religion courses. What I'm asking for is either an argument against what I just said, or evidence that ID should be placed in our science curriculum.

Well, you're being more forgiving with creationists than I am.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Theben
2+2=5.

I have FAITH it is so.

It is, for very large values of 2.

2.49 + 2.49 = 4.98.

Round them to the nearest whole number, and get 2 + 2 = 5.

Also, 2 + 2 = 3 for very small values of 2:

1.5 + 1.5 = 3

Indeed, with margins of error, one can have lots of fun:

(2.0 ± 2.0) + (2.0 ± 2.0) = (4.0 ± 4.0), or the set of all numbers between {0, 8}.

[David Floyd]

Well, you're being more forgiving with creationists than I am.

No, I just find that calling people stupid is a poor way to get them to debate you, and also sort of undermines your own position. Besides, sometimes, just sometimes, people give you even more rope when they open their mouths