Should Intelligent Design be taught in science class?

BEAKER · 09-18-2005

It's amazing how much intelligence is used in a disscussion like this, in an attempt to prove that no intelligence was necessary in the first place.

BEAKER · 09-18-2005

By the way - I vote "YES".

Strangely, that option seems to be missing from the selections.

It appears that intelligent design was not used in the creation of this poll.

C1ay · 09-18-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lolic

The "known creator" is generally termed an intelligent agent.

There is no "known creator"...

emessay · 09-18-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by C1ay

There is no "known creator"...

Yes, there is no "known creator" in life-origins reality, but let's urgently define ourselves : "Are we still being unknown as ourselves ?". It's better to tell to next 1000 yrs generation that there is still green forest fields like 'Eden Garden' on Earth, science would keep watch it. Tell them that they are still safe for next centuries, and we're still like Adam and Eve prototype, this is the main job of science, not maintaining evolution theory. Earth is still safe in next 10,000 yrs like 'Eden Garden', are we ???

Lolic · 09-18-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by C1ay

There is no "known creator"...

But science can distinguish between those things that occure by Chance, Natural Law, and Intelligent Design. We can deny that the technology and methods exist, but where does that get us? (then one looks like Michael Russe on TV... like a talking

) He want's to advocate science right up to the point that it advocates a position he doesn't personally agree with. How's that for an open minded approach that lets the facts speak for themselves.

What is someone who does this, an anti-scientist? (or in his case an anti-philosopher)

Fishteacher73 · 09-19-2005

Quote:

open minded approach that lets the facts speak for themselves

And what are (if any) the facts that support ID? There are plenty of facts that support evolution.

C1ay · 09-19-2005

There is zero conclusive evidence to support any claim that nature is assisted by any directed intelligence. Any hypotheses that make such a claim are not even testable and therefore, not science.

Dark Mind · 09-19-2005

Now wait just a minute... Before we get him going on just a single track again, I feel that question can be broadened.

What FACTS support a "higher being" at all? What FACTS support Creationism? What FACTS can support any type of religiously based belief?

Science has been able to provide facts that evolution could have occurred, there's no "hard evidence", but the facts that have been presented due to the unearthing of centuries old skeletal remains leans in great favor of evolution. There isn't anything except for a book someone wrote and a belief that has been passed for generations that can help support Creationism (Which seems to now be widely dismissed due to scientific evidence) or Intelligent Design (Which I think was started just because the religious society realized that it was something else they could believe in without needing any proof and not having to suffer the wrath the scientific community surely would have wrought if any belief they held were based in the present physical world).

There is no logic involved in religion, and there need not be... I realize this and I have accepted it, but when you try to argue in favor of religion on a science forum, be ready for these kinds of rebuttals. I like to call myself Agnostic, my definition of an Agnostic is: Someone who does not deny the possibility that there is a God, but also believes that there is insufficient data to prove (s)he exists.

...So until God reveals themself to the general public, I am inclined to decline any belief that is based on a God or many Gods.

emessay · 09-19-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by C1ay

There is zero conclusive evidence to support any claim that nature is assisted by any directed intelligence. Any hypotheses that make such a claim are not even testable and therefore, not science.

Agreed !!
But it is not our time-table to extend evolution theory that life would evolve everywhere, ironically earth is still remained 'ONE piece of bread'.