General Science NewsNews about discoveries, trends, politics, and topics which do not fall within the other categories.
Advertisement (please log in or register to remove this ad)
Notices
Welcome to the Hypography Science Forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, take quizzes, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
I don't believe I have ever called you delusional. I do think you have a difficult time distinguishing your beliefs from your knowledge, but I'm not ready to imply you are delusional. Others might.
Generally, I think you have formed your beliefs around what you have been taught, and it has become part of your identity. To reject the idea of god at this point for you is to reject part of who you've become - a part of yourself that you are comfortable with and enjoy. It doesn't make any sense to you whatsoever to reject, and ultimately betray, this fundamental aspect of your persona.
To me, this means your're simply set in your beliefs. And because your belief in god is so ingrained and feels so right, you percieve it as a sense of knowing.
But knowing requires more than just perception. So what you are left with, is simply a belief.
As to the topic of this thread, the foundation of Intelligent Design is also just a belief, which is why it belongs in the realm of philosophy or religion, not science, which is geared around attempting to know something by examining empirical evidence.
Do you see the difference?
__________________ When what you believe is refuted by evidence, you are faced with a choice.
Re: Intelligent Design Should Not be Taught as Science
Quote:
Originally Posted by REASON
I don't believe I have ever called you delusional. I do think you have a difficult time distinguishing your beliefs from your knowledge, but I'm not ready to imply you are delusional. Others might.
Generally, I think you have formed your beliefs around what you have been taught, and it has become part of your identity. To reject the idea of god at this point for you is to reject part of who you've become - a part of yourself that you are comfortable with and enjoy. It doesn't make any sense to you whatsoever to reject, and ultimately betray, this fundamental aspect of your persona.
To me, this means your're simply set in your beliefs. And because your belief in god is so ingrained and feels so right, you percieve it as a sense of knowing.
But knowing requires more than just perception. So what you are left with, is simply a belief.
As to the topic of this thread, the foundation of Intelligent Design is also just a belief, which is why it belongs in the realm of philosophy or religion, not science, which is geared around attempting to know something by examining empirical evidence.
Do you see the difference?
You are right.
I never meant that you called me delusional. I have realized tonight that I need to get a grasp on this thread thing a little better. I started in one thread and I tried expanding out and then I was getting all these emails from a ton of people who were responding to my post...then somebody told me to move my thread so I did...then somebody sent me a pm telling me to post here and I got lost in the madness and all I am left with is a whole bunch of jargon in a whole bunch of places. I feel like I just got jumped by a gang. Wait, maybe I was. Anyways here is the link I was referring to the delusional reference from my favorite stalker Infinatenow.
He was calling me a liar (he does that quite often and I am 1 for 1) for not saying I admitted I had not scientific proof and I was simply posting that I had admitted earlier to not having it for him.
Re: Intelligent Design Should Not be Taught as Science
Grains,
Reason said a lot of things in his post. Can you please elaborate? Saying "You are right" seems a bit of a cop-out, and is disrespectful to the readers here who are trying to figure out where you stand on this issue.
Re: Intelligent Design Should Not be Taught as Science
Quote:
Originally Posted by InfiniteNow
Grains,
Reason said a lot of things in his post. Can you please elaborate? Saying "You are right" seems a bit of a cop-out, and is disrespectful to the readers here who are trying to figure out where you stand on this issue.
I am sorry if it is disrespectful. For a second I thought it was disrespectful that I had an unfamiliar opinion to this forum. I think it would be more beneficial for the group of you to decipher what I have said into your words and post my opinion for me. I would feel better about that.
Re: Intelligent Design Should Not be Taught as Science
Back on topic,
Intelligent Design should NOT be taught in public schools. It is a big lie, and it damages children too much. Children should have access to the most valid concepts and the most robust explanations. Teaching them lies is not only detrimental to them, but also to our collective future, as well as our ability to solve the problems our culture and our species face on this planet.
Recognizes its limits - Science only works with phenomena that can be independently verified by observations or empirical tests. This is a practical approach to the study of the natural world that has proven to be extremely conducive to the advancement of scientific knowledge. Since this approach does not rule out the existence of non-verifiable phenomena, any claims about the existence or non-existence of such phenomena are not scientific.
Enriches our understanding of the universe - Science enhances our appreciation of ourselves and of the world around us. It does not attempt to supplant or displace other ways of knowing, such as philosophy, religion, or ethics. Knowledge gained through scientific investigation is transferable to other contexts, but science does not invalidate other modes of human inquiry.
Approximates reality - Science is not an attempt to prove hypotheses, but rather an attempt to falsify them. The purpose of a scientific model is to provide a conceptual framework that guides and directs future research. Although all foundational scientific models have been extensively tested, no scientific model should ever be viewed as absolute truth. All scientific models are tentative and subject to potential modification as new empirical evidence becomes available.
Leads to new knowledge - Science is a systematic approach to developing physical, mathematical, and conceptual models for understanding the natural world. The best scientific models are those that have both explanatory and predictive power. In other words, scientific models should not only explain what is currently known, they should routinely generate new hypotheses for further research.
Everyone in this debate wants a better world, and we can all benefit from the knowledge gained through the application of the scientific method. When it comes to science education, our goal should be to teach our children to understand and appreciate the scientific method so that it can be utilized for the benefit of all humanity. Consequently, we must not allow the quality of science education in our public schools to be compromised by the current culture war concerning who holds "the Truth."
We have an obligation to our children to pursue only the best available science. We should accept nothing less than REAL science in our public school science classrooms.
Re: Intelligent Design Should Not be Taught as Science
Quote:
Originally Posted by InfiniteNow
Back on topic,
Intelligent Design should NOT be taught in public schools. It is a big lie, and it damages children too much. Children should have access to the most valid concepts and the most robust explanations. Teaching them lies is not only detrimental to them, but also to our collective futured, as well as our ability to solve the problems our culture and our species face on this planet.
I agree, now can you give me an educated perspective on the role of religion in society.
__________________
I do not know what I seem to the world, but to myself I appear to have been like a boy playing upon the seashore and diverting myself by now and then finding a smoother pebble or prettier shell than ordinary, while the great ocean of truth lay before me all undiscovered. - Sir Isaac Newton
*Don't be turned-off by the thread title. The discussion goes both ways.
__________________ Hypography Science Forums Moderator
--- "There are no passengers on Spaceship Earth. We are all crew." - Marshall McLuhan
"We must not forget that when radium was discovered no one knew that it would prove useful in hospitals. The work was one of pure science. And this is a proof that scientific work must not be considered from the point of view of the direct usefulness of it." - Marie Curie
Astronomical instruments needed to answer crucial questions, such as the search for Earth-like planets or the way the Universe expands, have come a step closer with the first demonstration at the telescope of a new calibration system for precise spectrographs. The method uses a Nobel Prize-winning technology called a 'laser frequency comb', and is published in this week's issue of Science. Read » | 0 comments
Stanford computer scientists have developed an artificial intelligence system that enables robotic helicopters to teach themselves to fly difficult stunts by watching other helicopters perform the same maneuvers. The result is an autonomous helicopter than can perform a complete airshow of complex tricks on its own. Read » | 0 comments
