Intelligent Design

[Doubting Thomas]

Today at 10:58 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #20



Intellegent design is not required to be tought in the schools. Evolution is required to be tought. So they should be required to teach theistic evolution along side of non theistic evolution.

Good idea.  We should also require the teaching of theistic thermodynamics, theistic chemical bonding, theistic plate tectonics, theistic gravity, and theistic relativity since those subjects are currently taught with a decidedly non-theistic slant. 

 

I mean, fair's fair, right?

 

[wblastyn]

Intellegent design is not required to be tought in the schools. Evolution is required to be tought. So they should be required to teach theistic evolution along side of non theistic evolution.

They just teach evolution, they don't say if it's theistic or non-theistic, there is no difference except theists believe God works through evolution, but that's really a matter of faith since God cannot be proven/disproven.

 

[Arikay]

John, you do know the difference between theistic and non theistic evolution right?

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 06:10 PM Doubting Thomas said this in Post #21 

I mean, fair's fair, right?

Sounds right to me, If someone has proposed the theory, teach it, tell you can prove it to be wrong.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 06:12 PM Arikay said this in Post #23

John, you do know the difference between theistic and non theistic evolution right?

Enlighten me, what is the difference?

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 06:11 PM wblastyn said this in Post #22
there is no difference except theists believe God works through evolution, but that's really a matter of faith since God cannot be proven/disproven.

It takes just as much faith if not more to say there was no guiding force behind evolution. That is it a random process of chance.

 

[Arikay]

As far as science is concerned, there is no difference.

So the schools do teach both.

Today at 03:40 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #25



Enlighten me, what is the difference?

 

[Doubting Thomas II]

Yesterday at 11:41 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #26



It takes just as much faith if not more to say there was no guiding force behind evolution. That is it a random process of chance.

John, John...you've hung around the creation/evolution debates long enough to know that natural selection and sexual selection are non-random processes. Don't make me have you write it on the board one-hundred times!

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Catchy rhetoric never dies, regardless of how asinine.

 

[Cantuar]

So they should be required to teach theistic evolution along side of non theistic evolution.

Why should they? The schools don't exist so that people can push religion. Evolution is no more nontheistic than any other science. Just as it would be inappropriate for science teachers to say that God did this or God didn't do that or clearly God doesn't exist when talking about evolution, it would be equally inappropriate fot the teacher to refer to God doing this or that or existing or not existing when talking about infectious diseases or the Earth's magnetic field. Science isn't about whether God exists.

 

[Cantuar]

It takes just as much faith if not more to say there was no guiding force behind evolution.

Science teachers shouldn't be saying that either. Science teachers should be leaving alone the entire subject of supernatural intervention because it's outside the parameters of science. You seem to be saying that if science teachers don't explicitly say that God, as in Jesus, did this and that, then they're saying that God didn't do it. That isn't true. They aren't saying anything one way or the other. Just as they aren't saying that God sent plagues or hurricanes or holds the planets in their orbits. It isn't science when you get into what God did or didn't do.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 06:28 AM Cantuar said this in Post #30




Why should they? The schools don't exist so that people can push religion. Evolution is no more nontheistic than any other science. 

You sure do want your cake and to eat it to. You want evolution taught, but only the evolution theory that you subscribe to. You only want your version of evolution theory taught. You do not want anyone else's evolution theory taught.

You are in violation of the law, the law requires that evolution theory be taught in the schools. If your version of evolution is required to be taught, than my version of the evolution theory should be taught also.

Go ahead, "falsify" theist evolution. If you can not "falsify" it, then it must be true, and it should be tought. Forget intelligent design vs. Evoluion. It's now my version of evolution theory, vs your version of evolution theory.

My version is "Goddidit".

 

[notto]

Today at 07:21 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #32

Go ahead, "falsify" theist evolution. If you can not "falsify" it, then it must be true, and it should be tought.

What evidence would falsify theist evolution vs naturalistic evolution? Theistic evolution, at least the supernatural parts, is not falsifiable, and therefore, is not scientific.

Not being fasifiable and not being falsified are not the same thing.

If this is your theory, you should be able to present a list of evidence that, if found, would falsfy your theory.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 06:33 AM Cantuar said this in Post #31

Science teachers shouldn't be saying that either. Science teachers should be leaving alone the entire subject of supernatural intervention because it's outside the parameters of science. 

That is your theory of evolution, not our theory of evolution. What makes you think your so special that your theory should be given preferance over our theory? Everyone is to get equal representation in America. God is the driving force behind Science. Evolution just shows HOW God created what He created.

Evolution is just another creation theory.

 

[Douglaangu]

What makes you think your so special that your theory should be given preferance over our theory?

Firstly: 'Ours' has proof.
Secondly: Yours is primaryly religious in nature, and you refuse to accept any data that could ever contradict it.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 08:25 AM notto said this in Post #33


What evidence would falsify theist evolution vs naturalistic evolution? Theistic evolution, at least the supernatural parts, is not falsifiable, and therefore, is not scientific. 

If you can not "falsify" it, then it must be true. Why is something that must be true, not science?

Just what is, in your opinion the difference between theistic evolution and naturalistic evolution?

Theistic: Goddidit, Nontheistic: God did not do it, so it must have happened all by itself. If that is the choice, then I vote theistic.

We do not trust in self, we trust in God. You maybe a self made man, but I am a child of God.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 08:31 AM Douglaangu said this in Post #35

Firstly: 'Ours' has proof.

By all means, show us your proof.

Secondly: Yours is primaryly religious in nature, and you refuse to accept any data that could ever contradict it. [/B]

No, theistic evolution is not a religion. You do not have to believe it to learn the theory. You are not required to pray or worship the God of evolution. You do not even have to make any virgin sacrifices. It just does not qualify as a religion.

 

[notto]

Today at 07:34 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #36


If you can not "falsify" it, then it must be true. Why is something that must be true, not science?

By that logic, I must have an invisible yellow dragon living under my bed. Your statement is not valid and shows a lack of understanding of how the ability to falsify theories makes them scientific.

Just what is, in your opinion the difference between theistic evolution and naturalistic evolution?

My personal opinion is one of theistic evolution but that is a belief based on faith, not one that can be scientifically studies or proven. As far as differences between theistic evolution and naturalistic evolution, the mechanisms are the same. From an observational point of view (one that science can study) there is no difference. Evolution can be falsified based on physical evidence and data. This has not been done. If "naturalistic" evolution was falsified, so would theistic evolution because the criteria for falsification is the same. What cannot be falsified is supernatural intervention in the process.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Yesterday at 04:58 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #20



Intellegent design is not required to be tought in the schools. Evolution is required to be tought. So they should be required to teach theistic evolution along side of non theistic evolution.

First, we should start teaching theistic geometry next to the nontheistic geometry that dominates math classes in our schools today.

Except that there is no mathematical difference. Just like there is no scientific difference between theistic and nontheistic evolution.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

John,

Let me illustrate the difference through an analogous example. In 1993, major flooding plagued the Midwest. Some people attributed it to Divine Wrath while others attributed to ordinary meteorological forces. The first could be considered a theistic interpretation of history while the second is a nontheistic interpretation. They agree about what happened, the history, but differ over why. In the same way, theistic evolution and nontheistic evolution are different interpretations of a scientific theory.