Creation/Evolution Non-Participant Commentary & InvitationsComment on existent debates, invite or challenge members to debates, and plan your debates here!
one on one about whether ID can be science, and whether or not it is "creationism in a cheap tuxedo"
I think there is a lot of ignorance about the real story on these forums it seems everyone just parrots whatever the NCSE or wikipedia says. I am somewhat IDish, and I don't see any debates on this topic so far, so I think I'll challenge that.
ok one on one, and one post to one counter post as long as it goes, the posts can obviously be edited, so no need to make extra posts. When we are done we should have exactly the same number of posts, or one of us should have only one more.
Also for both of us, no insulting the other debator.
one on one about whether ID can be science, and whether or not it is "creationism in a cheap tuxedo"
I think there is a lot of ignorance about the real story on these forums it seems everyone just parrots whatever the NCSE or wikipedia says. I am somewhat IDish, and I don't see any debates on this topic so far, so I think I'll challenge that.
ok one on one, and one post to one counter post as long as it goes, the posts can obviously be edited, so no need to make extra posts. When we are done we should have exactly the same number of posts, or one of us should have only one more.
Also for both of us, no insulting the other debator.
Any takers?
The problem is that any zany idea COULD BE science. I think it is better to ask if ID, as it is currently formulated, IS science. ID is not being pushed on schoolboards because it COULD BE science. It is being pushed because people claim it IS science. They also claim that there is controversy as to the origin of species which means that there is currently a competing theory.
If you want to debate whether or not ID is science then I might be interested, but I don't see how one could argue about might be's in the future.
__________________ "Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise
The problem is that any zany idea COULD BE science. I think it is better to ask if ID, as it is currently formulated, IS science. ID is not being pushed on schoolboards because it COULD BE science. It is being pushed because people claim it IS science. They also claim that there is controversy as to the origin of species which means that there is currently a competing theory.
If you want to debate whether or not ID is science then I might be interested, but I don't see how one could argue about might be's in the future.
There's a problem then. I am not sure I would go that far. Would you care to debate about whether it is a religious conspiracy or is currently an attempt at a scientific enterprise?
There's a problem then. I am not sure I would go that far. Would you care to debate about whether it is a religious conspiracy or is currently an attempt at a scientific enterprise?
In the case of the Dover, PA schoolboard it was plainly a case of religious conspiracy. In the case of the Kansas schoolboard it was plainly a case of religious organizations lobbying to change the definition of science so that ID could be considered science. In the case of the recent Florida schoolboard it was plainly a case of religious factions pushing for evolution to either be removed or balanced with "other theories" (wink, wink). I don't know of a single non-religious group trying to push ID into the high school science class. I don't know of a single respectable science foundation that is pushing for the inclusion of ID in the high school science classroom, but I can sure find quite a few scientific foundations that quite clearly state that ID should not be in the science classroom.
But none of this matters for a very specific reason. Nowhere in the scientific peer reviewed literature can I find ID papers. As far as science is concerned it doesn't exist. That is probably the biggest piece of evidence right there. The only reason that ID is being brought up is because of religious or philosophical reasons, not scientific ones.
__________________ "Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise
In the case of the Dover, PA schoolboard it was plainly a case of religious conspiracy. In the case of the Kansas schoolboard it was plainly a case of religious organizations lobbying to change the definition of science so that ID could be considered science. In the case of the recent Florida schoolboard it was plainly a case of religious factions pushing for evolution to either be removed or balanced with "other theories" (wink, wink). I don't know of a single non-religious group trying to push ID into the high school science class. I don't know of a single respectable science foundation that is pushing for the inclusion of ID in the high school science classroom, but I can sure find quite a few scientific foundations that quite clearly state that ID should not be in the science classroom.
But none of this matters for a very specific reason. Nowhere in the scientific peer reviewed literature can I find ID papers. As far as science is concerned it doesn't exist. That is probably the biggest piece of evidence right there. The only reason that ID is being brought up is because of religious or philosophical reasons, not scientific ones.
So do you accept my proposal then to defend the position that "ID is a religious conspiracy" in a formal debate?
So do you accept my proposal then to defend the position that "ID is a religious conspiracy" in a formal debate?
If you would pick a specific incident I would discuss it.
__________________ "Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise
I would say that ID is mostly a combination of theological and scientific ignorance. Sure with the wedge document there is some conspiratorial aspects to it, but for most of the followers, it is just ignorance.
I was really aiming for the ID movement as a whole, whether it is a religious conspiracy or not. I am sure we will discuss specific incidents.
It's ok, I am sure someone else will take me up on it if you do not want to.
It's much too vague to debate. I bet I could find someone in the Watergate Scandal who acted without Nixon's best interests at heart, but this doesn't change the fact that it was a conspiracy based in Nixon's Whitehouse.
__________________ "Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise
It's much too vague to debate. I bet I could find someone in the Watergate Scandal who acted without Nixon's best interests at heart, but this doesn't change the fact that it was a conspiracy based in Nixon's Whitehouse.
Its a specific thesis. I do not think it is vague at all. That Intelligent Design is disguised creationism attempting to get into public schools.
It is very specific. But oh well. Anyone else want to debate?
Linear Mode
