|
Post by pinchbeck on Nov 23, 2011 12:00:39 GMT
Absolutely it should. No matter how furious the materialists get, it should be taught in science classes. If you don't agree with it, tough.
|
|
|
Post by veks on Nov 23, 2011 12:09:05 GMT
It doesn't belong in a science classroom since there is nothing scientific about it. Would you want your child taught Astrology alongside Astronomy? How about Alchemy alongside Chemistry? Perhaps a Magic and Physics 101 class?
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Nov 23, 2011 17:54:27 GMT
Positively yes. We should teach in our science classes how Odin Vile and Ve slew Ymir and shaped the earth from his body.
Astronomy should also explore the biological oddities of the elephants that the disk of the world is sitting on.
(that last is a reference to Hindu cosmology, not to Discworld, but we're referencing the same thing)
|
|
|
Post by dawnus on Nov 23, 2011 18:56:56 GMT
Maybe there is a place for it in a philosophy class, but definitely NOT in science a class!
|
|
|
Post by spraidor on Nov 24, 2011 11:39:55 GMT
I wish atheists would accept that intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.
|
|
B
Junior Member
Expect Us
Posts: 74
|
Post by B on Nov 24, 2011 20:37:19 GMT
I wish that certain theists could actually comprehend science and the basics of the language in which they try to argue against science in.
As per the OP, no, Creationism is silly and full of shit. Why not teach how Yggdrasil came to be and created life? Or any other religious-driven pseudo-scientific subject that isn't christian?
|
|
|
Post by cuckingfunt on Nov 25, 2011 0:05:36 GMT
Shut up.
|
|
|
Post by veks on Nov 25, 2011 2:05:48 GMT
I wish atheists would accept that intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory. Creationism (Intelligent Design) is not a valid scientific theory. If anything it's philosophy, not science. What does ID scientifically bring to the table? I'm serious. What does it offer up other than "God might have done all this." That isn't science. You can't use ID to explain the natural world at all. Give me one example of a discovery or study that has been beneficial to humanity through the use of ID theory. spraidor, what does ID tell you about nature? Does it tell you what the designer did to create nature? No. Does it tell you how the designer created it? No. Does it tell you what the designer used to design it? No. Does it tell you what purpose the designer had for designing it? No. Does it tell you when the designer did it? No. Does it even tell you why? No. So it doesn't explain any of these things. ID isn't a science, it rests in the realm of philosophy because it's nothing more than the question "Did God do this? Yeah, God might have done it."
|
|
|
Post by spraidor on Nov 25, 2011 11:29:27 GMT
By the same token I could ask you :
Do you know why the big bang happened? Do you know what caused it?
Intelligent design demonstrates that the universe is a creation. It doesn't belong in the realm of philosophy no matter how much you disagree with it. The scientific establishment (yes, that is precisely what it is) makes it its business to censor that which goes against current thinking. But the fact is that science must move forward, and that, unfortunately for you, means that new theories are always going to emerge, including intelligent design.
Also ID is not creationism.
|
|
|
Post by veks on Nov 25, 2011 21:16:12 GMT
By the same token I could ask you : Do you know why the big bang happened? Do you know what caused it? We're talking about evolution and creationism, not the beginnings of the universe. Intelligent design demonstrates that the universe is a creation. Explain to me how. Also ID is not creationism. ID is without a doubt relabeled creationism (aka creation science). After the Edwards v. Aguillard case in '87, creation science was repackaged as intelligent design and replaced "God" with "designer" as a means to escape the known unconstitutional advancement of a particular religion (Christianity). Are you familiar with "Of Pandas and People"? For the Kitzmiller vs Dover case, Dr. Barbara Forrest had to wade through all the drafts (roughly 7,000 pages) for that book prior to publication. She stumbled upon two specific drafts, one post and one prior to the Edwards v. Aguillard case. Here's an excerpt from prior to the case: "Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent Creator with their distinctive features already intact--fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."And here's the revised draft after the case: "Intelligent Design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact--fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."I'm not exaggerating when I say it is the exact same thing just relabeled. Dr. Forrest also found hasty revisions where the editors of the Pandas book attempted to copy/paste over the word " creationists" and replace it with " design proponents". The outcome: " cdesign proponentsists". So please don't tell me that it isn't the same thing. spraidor, we both know full well that science requires testable hypotheses. Since that's the case, how can you consider ID science? As I've said before, "A designer could have made all this" is not a testable hypothesis, it's a philosophical thought. And since ID is so against evolution theory, what is ID's main competing theory for biological design?
|
|
B
Junior Member
Expect Us
Posts: 74
|
Post by B on Nov 26, 2011 11:46:55 GMT
By the same token I could ask you : Do you know why the big bang happened? Do you know what caused it? Nope. Right now, all speculation baby. Why is "I don't know for now" worse than "MYGODDIDIT!!!"?
|
|
|
Post by xXx_[SSJ] St. Drizzt_xXx on Nov 26, 2011 18:39:58 GMT
Absolutely it should. No matter how furious the materialists get, it should be taught in science classes. If you don't agree with it, tough. You're an idiot.
|
|
|
Post by Ambrose Yarwood on Nov 26, 2011 21:08:48 GMT
Absolutely it should. No matter how furious the materialists get, it should be taught in science classes. If you don't agree with it, tough. You're an idiot. Please do not resort to personal insults. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by xXx_[SSJ] St. Drizzt_xXx on Nov 26, 2011 21:19:35 GMT
Please do not resort to personal insults. Thank you. Request denied.
|
|
|
Post by Ambrose Yarwood on Nov 26, 2011 21:23:57 GMT
Please do not resort to personal insults. Thank you. Request denied. Denial noted. You are suspended for 7 days.
|
|