Judge rules against ‘intelligent design’

[david_x]

You are being fed lies probably by some pastor who struggled with basic algebra.

yeah that would be the bias i was pointing out.

Also when does lying support Christ. And that's what many Creationist groups do. When they put about false information knowingly then they are liars.

more generalizing!

you are doing an excellent job of proving my point.

 

[The Lady Kate]

yeah that would be the bias i was pointing out.



more generalizing!

you are doing an excellent job of proving my point.

Merely speaking from experience, david. Even the respectable Creationist organizations, such as AiG and ICR, admit that the "Darwin Recanted!" story is false... but someone fed it to you, and you fell for it.

 

[david_x]

Worse, he's using "Creationism/ID" and "Christ" more or less interchangably... that reeks of idolatry.

your right God would be the direct member affected here. Whats worse your saying God is not an intelligent designer. I realize the creationists scientists are not using God as their inteligent source some of the time.

 

[david_x]

Merely speaking from experience, david. Even the respectable Creationist organizations, such as AiG and ICR, admit that the "Darwin Recanted!" story is false... but someone fed it to you, and you fell for it.

i wasn't discussing that and i had never heard it before!

 

[KerrMetric]

yeah that would be the bias i was pointing out.

The bias is with the pastor. When someone rails against something yet cannot even begin to perform the thing being attacked then you have to doubt the chances they have a clue.

more generalizing!

you are doing an excellent job of proving my point.

And deservedly so. You mentioned yourself a well known lie Creationists use - the Darwin recanting myth. Now a few Creationist groups admit this but many go ahead and continue to use it even though they have been told many times it is a lie.

 

[david_x]

And deservedly so. You mentioned yourself a well known lie Creationists use - the Darwin recanting myth. Now a few Creationist groups admit this but many go ahead and continue to use it even though they have been told many times it is a lie.

I am not those "Christians" I do not try to lie with the facts i say, merely checking them so to speak. (1:45) gota go

 

[Critias]

Since a few have said the ACLU is a great organization, I am curious, do you agree with them and their legal fight that men should be able to have sex with boys?

Do you also agree with the ACLU that live sex acts ought to be allowed in Oregon? How about the legalization of prostitution, do you also agree with them on this?


Is the support of sexual immorality the sign of a great organization?


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172032,00.html

 

[shernren]

Go easy with david_x on the darwin thing. He was just responding to gluadys quoting another member who said darwin recanted. Now I know that from david's position it would be something he'd very much like to be true, but that doesn't amount to him standing up and saying "Guys, Darwin rejected his own theory, should we believe in it today?" ...

I agree with Critias that (at least from a non-American's perspective) the ACLU leans heavily towards the atheistic materialist-humanist aspect of doing things. One thing my moral lecturer told me is that "often times human 'rights' turns into human wrongs!" and I think that is the case with a lot of ACLU actions / decisions, at least the ones publicised here.

Again, the evidence for creation is the same evidence evolution has. We don't have a different set of fossiles, a different set of bones, or a different set of earth. We have a different theory on this same evidence which is simply ignored. It's like going into courst. Both sides have the same evidence, but our witness isn't allowed to take the stand. If evolution really has all the answers it should welcome the weak little arguments of the lies of creationism so it can disprove it. Instead, it takes on the persona of a dictator that just stomps all opposition.

http://www.teachinghearts.org/dre09creationnotes.html

The good old "same evidence - different interpretation" argument is one of those classic creation science statements that like "ID should be taught in the classroom" sound really sound and practical, but simply don't hold water when tested in the current and real environment of experimental science.

I would like to examine an example which I will draw allusions to. It is (another evolutionist favourite) gravity. As you all know, the two dominant theories of gravity up to now have been Newtonian gravity as a force field described by Newton's Law of Gravitation, and Einsteinian gravity as spacetime curvature described by GR-SR.
Newtonian gravity explains well things like why gravitational acceleration is roughly constant at the surface of the earth, why it varies according to inverse-square laws. But there are things it doesn't explain that Einsteinian gravity does.
Einsteinian gravity explains well things like the precession of Mercury's orbit, gravitational time dilation, black holes, gravitational lensing, etc. In addition, it explains well everything that Newtonian gravity explains.
Let's put up this schematic to see what evidence Newtonian gravity (Ng) and Einsteinian gravity (Eg) explain:

Mercury's precession
time dilation
black holes
gravitational lensing

Inverse-square field
Constant gravitational acceleration on Earth's surface

There's no way that anyone can say "Newtonian gravity and Einsteinian gravity are two equally valid interpretations of all our evidence concerning gravity" - since there is a lot Newton can't explain that Einstein can.

Now, when a creation science proponent says "It's all the same evidence - there's just the two differing interpretations", we get the picture that whatever an evolutionist puts up to defend his views, the creationist can argue back with an equally valid scientific interpretation. There are three major problems with this.

The first is a semantic issue: why do creationists act as if they are the only ones with the valid interpretation until they aren't? What I mean is that it seems to me that often the "my interpretation is as valid as yours - only different" card is played only when the creationist cannot (or does not want to) refute the evolutionist scientifically. Up to then the creationist tries to assume that the evolutionist interpretation is not, in fact, equally valid, and tries to prove so. But I am overgeneralizing in making such statements and so this is not something I would press.

The second is the issue of scientificity, or scientific-ness. Are creationist alternative explanations really scientific? (And by whose definition of scientific?) If they are, this presents a problem, because a truly scientific interpretation must be one that excludes any supernaturalistic intervention (which is different from direction, as even creationists must acknowledge in studying history and the predestination-free will paradox). If they aren't ... well then the creationist alternative explanation isn't an equally valid scientific interpretation.

The third is that ... it is simply ... wrong.

In my creationist education I never heard a single word of doubt from creation science proponents. Zilch zip nada. Maybe it was just my gullibility but I always got the feeling that there were no holes left in the rational argument against evolution. Plug this, this and that into the conversation, and bam! evolution falls flat. This evidence shows that radiometric dating doesn't work, that case study shows that fossil formation is consistent with a worldwide flood, this set of equations shows that you can get 13.5 billion years of universe-time in 6,000 years of Earth-time. Not even a whisper of dissent. Everybody who disagreed was either stupid, indoctrinated - "deceived" - or hadn't heard it taught competently. (In a way, this has to do with the first problem I have: that evolution is not taken seriously until it has to be taken seriously.)

Then when I came into these forums, out popped the holes and the flaws and the counterarguments. No, the bombardier beetle is not irreducibly complex. When I first heard ideas like burrows, ERVs, double nested hierarchies, varves, and isochron dating, I suddenly realized that there was a lot creation science wasn't telling me. All of a sudden the picture looked like this:

Burrows
ERVs
Doubly nested hierarchies
Isochron dating
Varves

Flood fossilization
Dating inconsistencies
Etc.

In words: there were a lot of creationist points evolutionists were willing to argue, but there were a lot of evolutionist points creationists weren't willing to talk about openly. Now, perhaps you might argue that I wasn't really a good creation science proponent, but hey - did I have to be to be educated on those points? After all, isn't creation science supposed to be equally valid and scientific? If they really have creation science answers to these tough questions (which they should know evolutionists will ask!) why don't they give them?

Remember the gravity picture? It's the same here. Since there's a lot evolution can explain that creation science doesn't ... guess who wins.

 

[TwinCrier]

But your witness did take the stand. That's what the trial was about. ID put forth evidence and it was found wanting. In fact, even your leading ID expert said more research needed to be done.

Currently, you're arguing that teaching Holocaust denial or moon landing hoax would be fine, too. I mean, if the Holocaust did happen or if we did land on the moon, those theories should be able to stand the lies of the other side.

I really don't see what is so hard to understand. This is exactly want you wanted. It was a fair day in court to determine if ID was scientific. The Judge was a conservative judge, who was Christian, and he wasn't versed at all in the debate. It turns out, having liars on the ID side really hurt their case.

Again, we have the same evidence. Evolution scientist also say more research needs to be done. Hopefully there always will be more research. How rude to call people with a different theory liars. Until we stand before God none of us will really know the truth. In the end, I'm sure it will be the sciene book and not the bible that will be discarded.

 

[notto]

If evolution really has all the answers it should welcome the weak little arguments of the lies of creationism so it can disprove it.

The consensus of science isn't determined in high school biology classes. It is determined in research institutes, labs, and with field work.

ID has not produced anything of value by following the methodology that any other scientific theory does. Instead, its proponents try to get it taught in high school and bypass the rigourous scientific method.

As far as the arguments of creationism, most of them have been falsified for over a hundred years. There is no real dispute of any scientific value. It is all religiously motivated and unconvincing.

 

[notto]

Again, we have the same evidence. Evolution scientist also say more research needs to be done. Hopefully there always will be more research. How rude to call people with a different theory liars. Until we stand before God none of us will really know the truth. In the end, I'm sure it will be the sciene book and not the bible that will be discarded.

The people involved with this case did lie and the judge called them on it. Nothing rude about it.

 

[The Lady Kate]

your right God would be the direct member affected here. Whats worse your saying God is not an intelligent designer. I realize the creationists scientists are not using God as their inteligent source some of the time.

But that's just it... We all believe that God is the intelligent designer... including the proponents of ID.

Those same proponents got up in front of a judge and said with a straight face that their "theory" says God is not the intelligent designer.

They lied,and the judge saw through it.

 

[The Lady Kate]

i wasn't discussing that and i had never heard it before!

Post #35. You seemed to buy the lie.

 

[dclem9834]

i havent been following the thread but i just have to put in my 2 cents, thank God that ID is not taught as anything scientific, it is something that belongs in philosophy or humanities courses. it has no base in science. oh and anyone who says well evolution is just a THEOREY, let me hold a bowlign ball above there head and ask if he would like to test the THEORY of gravity. oh and if ayone says there is no evidence of evolution at all ask the flightless cormarant what happened to his wings

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

Ok, I haven't followed the thread all the way either, and I will throw my two cents in too.

I don't know exactly what is defined as Intelligent Design. I don't care one way or another as to what is taught, because this is more or less a political/civil matter. If one is incapable of believing something despite what government says, then they have problems. And civil matters don't mean much to me, when dealing with God.

What puzzles me, and maybe I don't get where people are saying, is where do you place sin? Was the garden of Eden a fake story to you? Was the flood false? God made gravity, so thus it was "intelligently designed". Since we can say God made gravity, we can say Jesus made Gravity. We can also say Jesus made the universe. We can also say the Holy Spirit made the universe.

I don't know if the term "intelligent" is the best word to use, but the government won't use "God designed". I agree that we don't understand everything. I also don't know how long everything took. But I do believe Adam and Eve were created as stated in the Bible. We didn't come from monkeys.

So do I trust Creationists? Not all the time.
So do I trust Evolutionists? No.
I do realize that I must listen to both sides, because it is almost like listening to trial lawyers. And I don't trust either lawyer.

So I wonder. Hypothetically, If a child answers a question in school, "where did man come from?", should he get a wrong answer for telling the Truth, since heathens don't recognize God? Either way, I wouldn't care if my son was given a "F" on a test because of that. Frankly, I would be proud of him.

 

[TheBeginningSeasons]

Ok, I haven't followed the thread all the way either, and I will throw my two cents in too.

I don't know exactly what is defined as Intelligent Design. I don't care one way or another as to what is taught, because this is more or less a political/civil matter. If one is incapable of believing something despite what government says, then they have problems. And civil matters don't mean much to me, when dealing with God.

What puzzles me, and maybe I don't get where people are saying, is where do you place sin? Was the garden of Eden a fake story to you? Was the flood false? God made gravity, so thus it was "intelligently designed". Since we can say God made gravity, we can say Jesus made Gravity. We can also say Jesus made the universe. We can also say the Holy Spirit made the universe.

I don't know if the term "intelligent" is the best word to use, but the government won't use "God designed". I agree that we don't understand everything. I also don't know how long everything took. But I do believe Adam and Eve were created as stated in the Bible. We didn't come from monkeys.

So do I trust Creationists? Not all the time.
So do I trust Evolutionists? No.
I do realize that I must listen to both sides, because it is almost like listening to trial lawyers. And I don't trust either lawyer.

So I wonder. Hypothetically, If a child answers a question in school, "where did man come from?", should he get a wrong answer for telling the Truth, since heathens don't recognize God? Either way, I wouldn't care if my son was given a "F" on a test because of that. Frankly, I would be proud of him.

You hit it the nail right on the head!!! How can a person who says they are a Christian believe anything but what the Bible states?!?!?! If you say creation isn't real, then Jesus could be written off too! Things like this, giving up on God's ability to do amazing things, that allows people to trash Christianity and everything that it is and should be! Granted I don't know if Darwin did really say "he was wrong, and he believed in God." But if you say God didn't make the earth how His word says He did and it is just some sort of analogy or something then the whole Bible could be twisted and turned into anything man wants to make it. That is what is happening today! And believing in anything but creation is pegan to the utmost! How can anyone say that it isn't?! That is like saying, "Hey God I believe in you and everything, but come on you didn't really make all of this in 6 days right?" Come on, if you think like that then how do you believe the rest of the Bible at all? Science should bow to Scripture not the other way around!

 

[TheBeginningSeasons]

Ok, I haven't followed the thread all the way either, and I will throw my two cents in too.

I don't know exactly what is defined as Intelligent Design. I don't care one way or another as to what is taught, because this is more or less a political/civil matter. If one is incapable of believing something despite what government says, then they have problems. And civil matters don't mean much to me, when dealing with God.

What puzzles me, and maybe I don't get where people are saying, is where do you place sin? Was the garden of Eden a fake story to you? Was the flood false? God made gravity, so thus it was "intelligently designed". Since we can say God made gravity, we can say Jesus made Gravity. We can also say Jesus made the universe. We can also say the Holy Spirit made the universe.

I don't know if the term "intelligent" is the best word to use, but the government won't use "God designed". I agree that we don't understand everything. I also don't know how long everything took. But I do believe Adam and Eve were created as stated in the Bible. We didn't come from monkeys.

So I wonder. Hypothetically, If a child answers a question in school, "where did man come from?", should he get a wrong answer for telling the Truth, since heathens don't recognize God? Either way, I wouldn't care if my son was given a "F" on a test because of that. Frankly, I would be proud of him.

You hit the nail on the head with that one!! How can people just give in so easily to what is excepted by society?! There are so many things that disprove every single theory that Science has come up with for the creation of the universe and the planet for that matter. If you can't believe in the Scripture God gave us to explain how, why, and what to do. Then how do you call yourself a Christian? You might as well ask God,"I believe in everything but the first Chapter, how could You really make everything in 6 days?" People who believe in evolution ;anything else besides the Bible for that matter, are pretty much discrediting their own faith! Believing in God's greatness and love starts with the foundation that He made us, He created earth, the universe, everything!!! I may be wrong about the whole Darwin thing, but what does that matter?!?!!?! HE WAS WRONG!!!! He was just a man, God is the ALMIGHTY!!! If you know how an ecosystem works then how can you believe that it took billions of years to become just right to support life? "Chance" is nothing, it is a word (more like an excuse). Did people used to say "Thank you God" when something good happened for them?! YES, today they say,"Wow what were the odds;I didn't think I had a chance; I must just have good luck." None of that has anything to do with anything. So luck, chance, odds had nothing to do with God making the earth: HE SPOKE IT INTO EXISITANCE. If you don't believe God created the earth, how can you believe in miracles? How can you believe the rest of the Bible?!

 

[notto]

None of that has anything to do with anything. So luck, chance, odds had nothing to do with God making the earth: HE SPOKE IT INTO EXISITANCE. If you don't believe God created the earth, how can you believe in miracles? How can you believe the rest of the Bible?!

None of this has anything to do with the validity of evolution as a scientific theory. The claims made by ID that they want to have taught in the biology classroom are not science. Evolution says nothing about God creating or not creating the earth.

Evolution is not equal to atheism. The scientific theory of evolution is accepted by a great deal of Christians.

Why is evolution taught in the biology classes of major Christian universities and Intelligent Design is not? It is because evolution is recognized as a scientific theory and pursuit that provides value in understanding biology. Intelligent Design does not.

You should be careful about supporting ID because even the proponents of it at its highest levels are not young earth creationists. They recognize common ancestry and that the earth is old. They would disagree with your assessement of their Christian beliefs.

 

[notto]

Since a few have said the ACLU is a great organization, I am curious, do you agree with them and their legal fight that men should be able to have sex with boys?

This is a complete misrepresentation of their position. Lying doesn't help your argument. Nowhere do they represent men in their legal fight to have sex with boys. What they do support is the legal rights of free speech that all enjoy even if that speech is unpopular.

 

[david_x]

Until we stand before God none of us will really know the truth.

Yes, unless you ask the Holy Spirit now! Or you could get a group together and invite the spirit of God.

I would like to make sure no one confuses fact with truth.
Fact: a statement that has the overwelming possibility of being true.
Truth: a statement that has no posibility of being wrong.

Therfore, God is truth and Science is fact.