Scientific experiments have been around for hundreds of years. As a result, scientists have established a set of parameters used to guide the process of scientific discovery. Since this includes the results to be testable, the concept of Intelligent Design is not recognized. This concept is also known as creationism and relies on the Bible as a source document. These ideas, while crucial to Christians, are based on faith and not testable in the modern realm of science. While I believe in Intelligent Design, it does not necessarily warrant it to be included next to secular science. In fact, the parents of the student should present it to them through themselves or a religious institution. This will give the student two different thought processes of how the world came into existence and will enable them empower the critical thinking process and construct their own theory
I agree with the idea of teaching Intelligent Design / Creationism in religious institutions, not in a public school science class.
The people who say that Intelligent Design / Creationism belongs in the classroom are wrong and are un-American. They talk about values yet ignore American values. They want to turn a perfectly fine democracy into a theocracy.
I actually disagree. I believe that there is a secular method to teaching creationism, revolving around the idea that every effect has a cause. ( http://www.progressiveu.org/033833-god-and-logic-oedipus-im-calling-you-out ) The problem with intelligent design is that it's tied to closely with mythology (mythology being specific stories not based on fact and religion being the morals directed towards individual autonomy), so learning about intelligent design at a religious institution means learning that God created blah blah blah, none of which is tied in with fact, science, or logic.
--Mike
Creationism states that someone created us and everything around us. How do we know it is one person or if it was a group of people? And which class will this be taught in? Not science, I hope. If I wanted it taught, it would be taught along with how people believed the world was flat and that everything revolved around the Earth, which is most likely Social Studies.
But I do understand the idea that every effect has a cause. Why do we humans have tail bones? It is because our ancestors used to have tails. How come no humans have a 100 arms? It is because our gene pool has not mutated enough over time for such a phenomena to occur and/or the gene(s) that cause this to occur were removed because the person with 100 arms was unable to survive and died without propagating his 100 arms gene(s). How come there are no businesses operating today that spend all their profits on raises for their employees? It is because other business would drive it out of business by putting most of their profits back into the company, thereby eliminating a mentally weaker business. What is the point of this paragraph? To show you how cause and effect tie into all aspects of evolution, a secular method of teaching how species developed and continue to develop over time, which ties in with fact, science, and logic.
The problem, as I see it, is that people believe that creationism flies in the face of evolutionism. I don't see it that way. I believe creationism as the mere belief that everything was created by something outside the confines of time and space (God). However, I do definitely subscribe to the theory of evolution.
--Mike
The way I see it is that creationism says that everything was created the way it is by God. This is an arbitrary viewpoint originally made by people who did not know as much as what we know now and propagated through religious indoctrination starting from day one. In contrast, evolution says that we devloped from earlier lifeforms and has evidence to back it up.
Crap! I meant to use the word Intelligent Design! Regardless, we need a new term that doesn't have the stigma of mythology but is concerned with the fact that if every effect has a cause, there must have been some prime "causer" that is independent of time and space. That's what I define as God.
--Mike
Saying you meant to say Intelligent Design instead of creationism is like saying you meant to say tomato instead of red tomato-like vegetable. They are essentially the same things.
By saying we need a new term, you are saying that you should teach what is essentially creationism in a new way. But that was what intelligent design was supposed to be. No matter how you package it, people will see it for what it is.
The only way I see your "causer" creationism theory being accepted like evolution is thru legitimate scientific research supporting your claims, much like what has been accomplished for evolution.
The problem there is that there is no way to prove the existence of anything before time or outside of space. The only means to prove that is through continental philosophy style logic. Our scientific theory has backed up the big bang theory, but has yet to identify the initial cause. That would be impossible because it would be before time and space existed. The prime causer would be labelled God. Mind, it might not be some intelligent being. It could just as well be some force outside of the physics upon which our universe works. Regardless, I would still label this God because it seems an apt description.
--Mike
Just because it may seem impossible to identify the cause or an event does not mean we can jump to conclusions that are likely to be incorrect.
So if the Big Bang was started by accident by a homosexual retard, would you still refer to him (or her) as God? I mean, you did say that you would label any outside force as God, right?
Why not? My idea of God is a being (or force) independent of time and/or space. However, even the word being is inept because being implies existence which implies time and space. In the highly unlikely event that a homosexual retard managed/manages to transcend time and space to give dawn to the universe, then he/she would, in effect, be God.
Not all creationists subscribe to a religion, so your attempt to fluster me with anti-bible babble has, in effect, failed.
--Mike
Fluster you? I did not intend to fluster you. In fact, nobody should be flustered while blogging. Think of the environment you blog in. Nobody is breathing down your neck or yelling at you. You have almost all the time in the world to figure out what you are going to say and you can reread what you typed so you know you are saying what you want to say. This is not like a traditional debate where you look bad by trying to think of an answer. There is no penalty for taking your time to craft a good rebuttal.
I just wanted to know if you would believe in God no matter who this person is. Why would I want to know this? Because, if this was to be true, that the universe was created by the mistake of a homosexual retard, this would make practically most religions hypocritical. If this was found to be true, what would you do? Of course, you may never have to answer this question, for the idea of God maybe completely false and the creation of man.
Sorry, I assumed that you had assumed that I ascribed to a religion (specifically Christianity, which tends to be the most vocal on this issue), and thereby intended to get me to say that God couldn't possibly be a homosexual retard because that would negate the bible or whatever. I don't really ascribe to any religion (I've created my own, I'm still working on the text, which I have called "The Diatribe") which sort of makes me an agnostic (as Stephen Colbert put it, "an atheist without balls").
--Mike