God Made The World In Seven Days

[EternalDragon]

Well, you want I.D. to be treated as science, it's going to be scrutinized just like every other scientific theory.

I.D., of course, is dead on arrival. It does not qualify as science right from the start.

Scientists make predictions and look at the evidence just like anyone else. Why isn't it science?

Certain scientists do not hold a monopoly on the evidence and procedures.

 

[lasthero]

Scientists make predictions and look at the evidence just like anyone else. Why isn't it science?

What predictions have creationists actually made? And keep in mind - I'm talking about actual predictions. Not an ad hoc rationalization - an actual prediction that the ID model made, which was later found and verified to be true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scientists make predictions and look at the evidence just like anyone else. Why isn't it science?

Certain scientists do not hold a monopoly on the evidence and procedures.

That's easy. Because they did not follow the scientific method.

And they did not merely look at the evidence. They looked at the evidence and tried to squeeze it into a myth. That was only one of their failures.

 

[stan1953]

You should look into the history of "Intelligent Design". If you watch the PBS show on the Dover trial you will see that the original widespread use of that term was merely an attempt to sneak creationism into public schools.
When an idea starts on a falsehood it tends to get hammered for that.

ID failed because it is RELIGIOUS in nature and judge Jones said it had to be treated the same as YEC was. He didn't say it was wrong, just not allowed in schools. With an institutionalized bias like that in the U.S., it is not wonder many families now send their kids the schools OUTSIDE of the public school sector. Those that screamed the loudest, were unbelievers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ID failed because it is RELIGIOUS in nature and judge Jones said it had to be treated the same as YEC was. He didn't say it was wrong, just not allowed in schools. With an institutionalized bias like that in the U.S., it is not wonder many families now send their kids the schools OUTSIDE of the public school sector. Those that screamed the loudest, were unbelievers.

No, Seipai was right. If you followed the trial you would have seen how it was proven to be creationism in sheep's clothing.

PBS has a very good video on it. If you like I could try to find a shortened version of how they were found to be lying.

ETA: And there is no bias in the public school system, at least when it comes to science. What the judge was doing was removing bias.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is the PBS episode covering the trial:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2xyrel-2vI

There are also other videos with Eugenie Scott where she covers how they felt when they found the evidence that showed how ID was merely creationism.

 

[EternalDragon]

That's easy. Because they did not follow the scientific method.

And they did not merely look at the evidence. They looked at the evidence and tried to squeeze it into a myth. That was only one of their failures.

That completely untrue. The ID is not identified nor need it be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That completely untrue. The ID is not identified nor need it be.

Yes, ID has changed since it first came out.

When ID first came out, as we all know, it wad merely creationism in sheep's clothing.

Now ID is not even defined. That is because once defined it is easily debunked. So in a very small sense you are correct. Of course you are wrong when you say that ID need not be identified. If it is not defined then it is worthless as an idea since by those qualifications even Darwinian evolution could be called I.D..

 

[EternalDragon]

Yes, ID has changed since it first came out.

When ID first came out, as we all know, it wad merely creationism in sheep's clothing.

Now ID is not even defined. That is because once defined it is easily debunked. So in a very small sense you are correct. Of course you are wrong when you say that ID need not be identified. If it is not defined then it is worthless as an idea since by those qualifications even Darwinian evolution could be called I.D..

So then evolution is worthless since abiogenesis is not explained or known?

 

[lasthero]

So then evolution is worthless since abiogenesis is not explained or known?

Evolution isn't dependent on abiogenesis, so...no.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So then evolution is worthless since abiogenesis is not explained or known?

No. Abiogenesis is not part of evolution. Whether life appeared naturally or came from an alien, or even was created by God, it would have evolved after that first cell appeared. Abiogenesis and evolution are different subjects.

By the way, by moving the goal posts back to abiogenesis you have just admitted that evolution is real.

Thank you.

 

[stan1953]

No, Seipai was right. If you followed the trial you would have seen how it was proven to be creationism in sheep's clothing.
PBS has a very good video on it. If you like I could try to find a shortened version of how they were found to be lying.
ETA: And there is no bias in the public school system, at least when it comes to science. What the judge was doing was removing bias.

NOT what Judge Jones said, so I'll take his word for it.
Of course there is bias if nothing religious is allowed. Excluding anything religious is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

[Subduction Zone]

NOT what Judge Jones said, so I'll take his word for it.
Of course there is bias if nothing religious is allowed. Excluding anything religious is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

How do you know what Judge Jones said or why if you won't look at the same evidence that he did?

It looks like you are trying to run away from the evidence.

 

[stan1953]

How do you know what Judge Jones said or why if you won't look at the same evidence that he did?

It looks like you are trying to run away from the evidence.

In December 2005, federal Judge John E. Jones III ruled that ID must meet the same fate that creationism met in 1987 when the Supreme Court ruled religious doctrines can't be promoted in secular institutions because they violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Judge Jones wrote in his decision regarding a policy of the Dover, Pennsylvania, school district that added ID to the school's biology program:

intelligent design - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way, I was just reading part of Judge Jones decision. He said very clearly, and in context:

ID is not science.

Here is some more of the quote:

We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

Kitzmiller v. Dover: Decision of the Court, Part 2

 

[stan1953]

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

So why exactly is evolution still in the classroom if it is being preferred over religious views?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why didn't you want to watch the video where they reenacted key parts of the trial. That ID was shown to be creationism was key in Brown's decision.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

So why exactly is evolution still in the classroom if it is being preferred over religious views?

Because evolution is not religion. It is a science based idea. It was found using the scientific method. You can no more make the teaching of the theory of evolution illegal than you could make the teaching of the theories of gravity illegal.

On the other hand the Dover trial showed ID to be creationism or a religious view. That is why Judge Jones found against them.

 

[stan1953]

By the way, I was just reading part of Judge Jones decision. He said very clearly, and in context:
Here is some more of the quote:
Kitzmiller v. Dover: Decision of the Court, Part 2

Yes, based on EVIDENCE presented. Pretty sure the government and whoever else responded on this case had much deeper pockets than those few in Dover. The POINT is it was considered the SAME as YEC. As a matter of fact teaching on aliens being real would have no problem getting into the curriculum of public schools in the U.S. even though it has far less credibility than ID.

 

[stan1953]

Because evolution is not religion. It is a science based idea. It was found using the scientific method. You can no more make the teaching of the theory of evolution illegal than you could make the teaching of the theories of gravity illegal.

On the other hand the Dover trial showed ID to be creationism or a religious view. That is why Judge Jones found against them.

Guess you didn't actually read what I underlined?