|
|
#191
11-27-2005, 10:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: ID has NO place in schools
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I think MANY people would object to ID being taught even if it's not in the science room. [/ QUOTE ] Not true. It's going to be taught at Kansas University next year in a religious studies course called "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies." The only people objecting are the IDists who insist that ID isn't a religious mythology. LINK. [/ QUOTE ] nh 
|
|
#192
11-28-2005, 12:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The arguement that recently convinced me of god\'s existence
I haven't read any of the replys, but this argument essentially seems to be the same as William Paley's design argument for why God exists. In short, this argument is a valid one, but it's an inductive argument that can only argue for God's existence with probability. It fails to prove that God must exist or has necessary existence.
|
|
#193
11-28-2005, 02:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Wrong!
[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that you are putting an unreasonable burden on the scientist evaluating design. You are saying that unless we can describe HOW life was designed that ANY NOTION or ANY CONSIDERATION of the possiblility of design is unscientific. [/ QUOTE ] No, the problem is that it's not falsifiable. It's not a legit theory.
|
|
#194
11-28-2005, 02:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Wrong!
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a scientist, though I do believe in ID... ...I have no objection to teaching biology, etc., that is established as science. What CAN'T be established by science is that evolution occurred by chance. [/ QUOTE ] Why are you an expert on what's established or not established as science if you're not a scientist? (that sounded harsher than I mean it)
|
|
#195
11-28-2005, 02:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NotReady is Not Ready
[ QUOTE ]
If you can't then random mutation is UNSCIENTIFIC, and should not be taught in public schools. [/ QUOTE ] Again, selection is not random, only the initial variability is (due to the random mutation).
|
|
#197
11-28-2005, 02:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NotReady is Not Ready
[ QUOTE ]
Again, selection is not random, only the initial variability is (due to the random mutation). [/ QUOTE ] But selection doesn't decide what the variability will be, it's just a euphemism for the best variable will survive - big deal. You still haven't predicted what the variability will be nor have you proved that chance exists - i.e., unscientific.
|
|
#199
11-28-2005, 02:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Wrong!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] No, the problem is that it's not falsifiable. It's not a legit theory. [/ QUOTE ] I don't see how evolution is any more falsifiable than ID. Or perhaps they are both equally falsifiable. [/ QUOTE ] I think it was Gould that said that finding the fossil of a modern rabbit in the precambrian strata would crush evolution.
|
|
#200
11-28-2005, 02:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NotReady is Not Ready
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Again, selection is not random, only the initial variability is (due to the random mutation). [/ QUOTE ] But selection doesn't decide what the variability will be, it's just a euphemism for the best variable will survive - big deal. You still haven't predicted what the variability will be nor have you proved that chance exists - i.e., unscientific. [/ QUOTE ] You can't predict what the variability will be, it's random. I don't see how you are saying that this is unscientific. Evolution by natural selection is basically just a mathematical statement. Where it gets the muscle behind it scientifically is the observed evidence of descent from common ancestors.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
