socialist Posted March 26, 2015 Report Posted March 26, 2015 On my journey as a life long learner, I continue to tackle subjects that I need to learn more about. I am an evolutionist, but is it possible that ID could also be plausible? I'm sure many members here don't think ID is possible. So let me ask: Is it fair to say that ID is not a part of science? Quote Thankful to have become a free thinker.
The_Squid Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 If you have to ask that question, then you are for sure not a teacher, or are the dumbest teacher in the world. Quote
Mighty AC Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 Is it fair to say that ID is not a part of science? In a nutshell ID argues that lifeforms are complex and appear designed and we don't understand how this could happen therefor God. Does that seem valid to you? ID proponents find a gap in scientific knowledge then propose that a supernatural being is the answer. This could be valid if evidence of interfering supernatural beings existed or even evidence of a super nature. That's not the case, it's not scientific and it's just lazy to make up a ridiculous answer rather than actually solving a problem. I wonder if students at Liberty University can just use God as an answer to any test question. Why did the Germans wait until Sep 1, 1939 to invade Poland? God. What is the force of attraction between two objects? God. Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
socialist Posted March 27, 2015 Author Report Posted March 27, 2015 In a nutshell ID argues that lifeforms are complex and appear designed and we don't understand how this could happen therefor God. Does that seem valid to you? ID proponents find a gap in scientific knowledge then propose that a supernatural being is the answer. This could be valid if evidence of interfering supernatural beings existed or even evidence of a super nature. That's not the case, it's not scientific and it's just lazy to make up a ridiculous answer rather than actually solving a problem. I wonder if students at Liberty University can just use God as an answer to any test question. Why did the Germans wait until Sep 1, 1939 to invade Poland? God. What is the force of attraction between two objects? God. Thanks Mighty AC. You are very knowledgeable, and even though I've given you a hard time in the past, I respect your opinions. So would you basically characterize ID as a pseudo science? Quote Thankful to have become a free thinker.
Mighty AC Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 So would you basically characterize ID as a pseudo science? No. It's an orchestrated and deceitful attempt to pass off ridiculous creationist beliefs as science in an attempt to push them into schools. Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
socialist Posted March 27, 2015 Author Report Posted March 27, 2015 No. It's an orchestrated and deceitful attempt to pass off ridiculous creationist beliefs as science in an attempt to push them into schools. Do you feel ID is religion masquerading as a science? Quote Thankful to have become a free thinker.
On Guard for Thee Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 Do you feel ID is religion masquerading as a science? Didnt he just express that... Quote
GostHacked Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 We've been down this road a couple times on this board. ID is religion, not science. That is all. Quote
BubberMiley Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 Appropriate that ID would be the topic of a thread masquerading as a serious discussion. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
socialist Posted March 27, 2015 Author Report Posted March 27, 2015 Appropriate that ID would be the topic of a thread masquerading as a serious discussion. Are you a scientist? Quote Thankful to have become a free thinker.
socialist Posted March 27, 2015 Author Report Posted March 27, 2015 We've been down this road a couple times on this board. ID is religion, not science. That is all. GH, are you a scientist. Quote Thankful to have become a free thinker.
GostHacked Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 GH, are you a scientist. I am not a scientist, and you are not a teacher. Unless you are teaching Trolling 101. Not sure. Quote
socialist Posted March 29, 2015 Author Report Posted March 29, 2015 I am not a scientist, and you are not a teacher. Unless you are teaching Trolling 101. Not sure. I am not a scientist, and you are not a teacher. Unless you are teaching Trolling 101. Not sure. Do you feel you are qualified to assess whether something is or is not properly a part of science? Quote Thankful to have become a free thinker.
GostHacked Posted March 30, 2015 Report Posted March 30, 2015 Do you feel you are qualified to assess whether something is or is not properly a part of science? If you know anything about the scientific method and how it works, you would not be asking this question, 'Mr, Educator'. Quote
socialist Posted March 30, 2015 Author Report Posted March 30, 2015 If you know anything about the scientific method and how it works, you would not be asking this question, 'Mr, Educator'. I'm trying to learn from you, GH. Do you think that by simply understanding the scientific method that you are qualified to assess whether something is or isn't properly part of science? Quote Thankful to have become a free thinker.
GostHacked Posted March 30, 2015 Report Posted March 30, 2015 I'm trying to learn from you, GH. Do you think that by simply understanding the scientific method that you are qualified to assess whether something is or isn't properly part of science? Yes. Quote
Ash74 Posted March 30, 2015 Report Posted March 30, 2015 Do you feel you are qualified to assess whether something is or is not properly a part of science? He has as much right to call himself a scientist as you do to call yourself a teacher. Fair is fair. Intelligent design is just an explanation that thumpers are using too justify how fictional the bible is. But that is just my opinion and I am entitled to it. Just as they believe the Earth is only 6000 years old and was created on a Thursday. Too each their own. I have no right to question a persons religious beliefs. I think that is called tolerance. Quote “Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.”― Winston S. Churchill There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him. –Robert Heinlein
Mighty AC Posted March 30, 2015 Report Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) I have no right to question a persons religious beliefs. I think that is called tolerance. Sure you do. Just as you have a right to question somebody's belief in a living Elvis, homeopathy or that the moon landings actually took place on a Hollywood sound stage. When people seek to use beliefs as the grounds for public policy decisions we are obliged to question them. Most of us don't really care if a friend or acquaintance believes that positioning their bed so they sleep in the path of good energy will improve their lives. However, when organizations of millions try to enshrine crackpot ideas in law or have them forced on public school kids we have to fight back. Edited March 30, 2015 by Mighty AC Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
socialist Posted March 30, 2015 Author Report Posted March 30, 2015 Sure you do. Just as you have a right to question somebody's belief in a living Elvis, homeopathy or that the moon landings actually took place on a Hollywood sound stage. When people seek to use beliefs as the grounds for public policy decisions we are obliged to question them. Most of us don't really care if a friend or acquaintance believes that positioning their bed so they sleep in the path of good energy will improve their lives. However, when organizations of millions try to enshrine crackpot ideas in law or have them forced on public school kids we have to fight back. Mighty AC< which books on the history and philosophy of science have you read? Quote Thankful to have become a free thinker.
BubberMiley Posted March 30, 2015 Report Posted March 30, 2015 It follows that if one were a pretend teacher, he would pretend to teach pretend science. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
overthere Posted March 30, 2015 Report Posted March 30, 2015 On my journey as a life long learner, I continue to tackle subjects that I need to learn more about. I am an evolutionist, but is it possible that ID could also be plausible? I'm sure many members here don't think ID is possible. So let me ask: Is it fair to say that ID is not a part of science? You can look this up on a smartphone. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
GostHacked Posted March 30, 2015 Report Posted March 30, 2015 You can look this up on a smartphone. I agree, Socialist should be using his touted 'discovery method' of learning and apply that to applying the scientific process to ID. Quote
overthere Posted March 30, 2015 Report Posted March 30, 2015 No. It's an orchestrated and deceitful attempt to pass off ridiculous creationist beliefs as science in an attempt to push them into schools. Nicely summarized. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 30, 2015 Report Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) Egads ! Far better to pass off the Big Bang singularity for the origin of the universe as scientific fact. At least that led to the most popular television program in Canada. Edited March 31, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
socialist Posted March 31, 2015 Author Report Posted March 31, 2015 I agree, Socialist should be using his touted 'discovery method' of learning and apply that to applying the scientific process to ID. So would you agree that in the history of science, ideas that started out as pseudoscientific may eventually become properly scientific such as the transformation of alchemy into chemistry? Quote Thankful to have become a free thinker.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.