Intelligent Design Should Not be Taught as Science

[Grains]

Science was created as humans became more intelligent and sought ways to describe and understand the world around them. Certain approaches, like religion, posited answers that were not provable, and also often wrong. Those who posited suggestions which could be tested allowed themselves to change and to adapt to new information, and through a reductionist approach, became more skilled at accurately describing the universe. Hence, science was born, and become the more appropriate approach to understanding, learning, and knowledge.

 

Also, since the big bang as presented today sprang both space and time into existence, the concept of "before the big band" is without meaning, since time itself did not yet exist.

 

I understand and thank you for clarifying that. But I guess I am just not ok (at least for me) that science just came about after something else happened that proceeded it. So science is the conclusion of something else which cannot be proven. Whatever it might be.

 

Please show evidence.

[InfiniteNow]

I'm really not following your question. My basic position is that intelligence was a characteristic selected for, and that science is an emergent property of intelligence (at least, the scientific method is).

 

Can you please restate your question in a way that it allows for a reasonable answer?

[C1ay]

But I guess I am just not ok (at least for me) that science just came about after something else happened that proceeded it. So science is the conclusion of something else which cannot be proven. Whatever it might be.

 

Please show evidence.

 

Science, the pursuit and study of physical and material knowledge, obviously could not come about until humans did. Science itself is not the conclusion of anything though. Something existed before us. We don't have to know what that is or how it occurred to know that we are here now. Science is just a systematic search for knowledge and it specifically avoids leaping to conclusions by requiring the knowledge acquired to be testable and verifiable. That's why the Big Bang theory is just a theory and not considered a fact.

 

Religion on the other hand doesn't care about verifiability or testability. It just wants to declare "God did it" as some unquestionable truth. It's about giving up the search for the real truth, whatever it is, and just using an invented answer.

[Grains]

I'm really not following your question. My basic position is that intelligence was a characteristic selected for, and that science is an emergent property of intelligence (at least, the scientific method is).

 

Can you please restate your question in a way that it allows for a reasonable answer?

 

I love you man! Your hilarious. I thought I didn't like you but this wouldn't be the same for me if you were not hear. I have a stalker and I am flattered. Everywhere I turn around in the forums you are there. I could start a thread about baking muffins and I know you would come with an apron on and ready to bake cookies. :phones::):evil::)

 

I guess my question is that the way you poised the big bang theory is that there was nothing in existence, or at least nothing that was scientifically (material proof) in existence before big bang. If that is so then explain it.

[InfiniteNow]

I love you man! Your hilarious. I thought I didn't like you but this wouldn't be the same for me if you were not hear. I have a stalker and I am flattered. Everywhere I turn around in the forums you are there. I could start a thread about baking muffins and I know you would come with an apron on and ready to bake cookies. :phones::):evil::)

 

I guess my question is that the way you poised the big bang theory is that there was nothing in existence, or at least nothing that was scientifically (material proof) in existence before big bang. If that is so then explain it.

 

Besides the fact that you cannot spell "you're" nor "here," you need to try wrapping your head around what the big bang represents before you keep asking your meaningless question of what was in existence prior to that event.

 

Btw... what you've done above serves as another example of an appeal to ridicule which I tried to teach you about over in the thread about global warming. Are you still in middle school, perchance?

[Grains]

Science, the pursuit and study of physical and material knowledge, obviously could not come about until humans did. Science itself is not the conclusion of anything though. Something existed before us. We don't have to know what that is or how it occurred to know that we are here now. Science is just a systematic search for knowledge and it specifically avoids leaping to conclusions by requiring the knowledge acquired to be testable and verifiable. That's why the Big Bang theory is just a theory and not considered a fact.

 

Religion on the other hand doesn't care about verifiability or testability. It just wants to declare "God did it" as some unquestionable truth. It's about giving up the search for the real truth, whatever it is, and just using an invented answer.

 

I just want to state I posted my next post before I saw this one.

 

I find it interesting that you say Religion on the other hand doesn't care....(rest of your quote)...but then people hold truth to the big bang as if it were fact and habitually use it to debate religion. So while they are criticizing religion for not having factual proof one of their main arguments is factual in itself. Correct?

[Grains]

Besides the fact that you cannot spell "you're" nor "here," you need to try wrapping your head around what the big bang represents before you keep asking your meaningless question of what was in existence prior to that event.

 

Btw... what you've done above serves as another example of an appeal to ridicule which I tried to teach you about over in the thread about global warming. Are you still in middle school, perchance?

 

Well I am not writing an essay nor do I have the time to. I am from the dirty south and sometimes we tend to use a little slang and I am working on that for the sake of the forum.

 

Actually I am in elementary school if you want to be comical about it.

 

What is a downtrend again? I love how you praised that graph and it was accepted as a downtrend and you used it in as an example for your glorification. I won't hold you to it as everybody makes mistakes. Even me (more times than most). But ridicule will get me to listen to you no more than I have. Nor will stalking.

[C1ay]

I just want to state I posted my next post before I saw this one.

 

I find it interesting that you say Religion on the other hand doesn't care....(rest of your quote)...but then people hold truth to the big bang as if it were fact and habitually use it to debate religion. So while they are criticizing religion for not having factual proof one of their main arguments is factual in itself. Correct?

 

Some people, not all. The bottom line is that there is an answer and searching for it is better than making one up. The Big bang is just a theory that fits the data, data which supports it better than the "God did it" theory.

[Grains]

Some people, not all. The bottom line is that there is an answer and searching for it is better than making one up. The Big bang is just a theory that fits the data, data which supports it better than the "God did it" theory.

 

Understood. I have to admit I know not much about the big bang theory and I was just trying to understand it. I know about the general principles but am trying to learn the debates/facts/fallacies/etc.

 

But with all do respect I am not making mine up. You can feel that I am, and I can feel that I am not, last time I checked we are allowed to do that.

[C1ay]

But with all do respect I am not making mine up. You can feel that I am, and I can feel that I am not, last time I checked we are allowed to do that.

 

If you want to say, "I think maybe some higher being is responsible" then you've stated a hypothesis. It's not a good hypothesis because it's not testable and can't be used to make predictions.

 

OTOH, if you want to say, "God did it" then you are drawing an unsupported conclusion and that's simply making up an answer.

[InfiniteNow]

But with all do respect I am not making mine up. You can feel that I am, and I can feel that I am not, last time I checked we are allowed to do that.

 

You have the right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

 

If you posit a god, then you ARE, in fact, making up your own explanation.

[Grains]

You have the right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

 

If you posit a god, then you ARE, in fact, making up your own explanation.

 

Please read my previous posts as I have asserted I have no facts to prove you (anyone else) wrong. But again, I am not making it up. God is to me what god is to me.

[Grains]

If you want to say, "I think maybe some higher being is responsible" then you've stated a hypothesis. It's not a good hypothesis because it's not testable and can't be used to make predictions.

 

OTOH, if you want to say, "God did it" then you are drawing an unsupported conclusion and that's simply making up an answer.

 

Forgive me but I don't know what OTOH means :phones:

 

But unless it is critical I think I can still answer.

 

I am saying God did it but the difference is that is an unsupported conclusion to you, that doesn't mean I am making up the answer, you have just as much justification in science perspective to prove me wrong.

[InfiniteNow]

Please read my previous posts as I have asserted I have no facts to prove you (anyone else) wrong. But again, I am not making it up. God is to me what god is to me.

 

Then you are delusional.

[InfiniteNow]

Forgive me but I don't know what OTOH means :phones:

 

But unless it is critical I think I can still answer.

 

I am saying God did it but the difference is that is an unsupported conclusion to you, that doesn't mean I am making up the answer, you have just as much justification in science perspective to prove me wrong.

 

OTOH = On the other hand...

 

Btw (that means "by the way"), if you are giving an unsupported conclusion, then you ARE making up the answer.

 

 

 

You're either a troll or a severely misguided kid (or, perhaps, some combination of both).

[Grains]

OTOH = On the other hand...

 

Btw (that means "by the way"), if you are giving an unsupported conclusion, then you ARE making up the answer.

 

 

 

You're either a troll or a severely misguided kid (or, perhaps, some combination of both).

 

 

 

Oh God here you go with the troll stuff again. I read about trolls because I was joking with my wife that I actually thought someone was calling me a troll (under bridge), it was you the first time actually, and I was laughing thinking, "man how immature". Then I read about what it was online and then realized what you meant. Now that I know what it means I find it interesting that you say this as every post I make a post and hit submit my mail program chimes with that sound for new mail and your name is next to it fighting something I have said, regardless of the thread.

 

By the way, I need to prove this guy wrong because he is saying I never said I could not prove it and I have a post to show it. Does anybody know how I can connect a link to another post in a thread that him and I were discussing in so I can prove it to him?

[InfiniteNow]

By the way, I need to prove this guy wrong because he is saying I never said I could not prove it and I have a post to show it. Does anybody know how I can connect a link to another post in a thread that him and I were discussing in so I can prove it to him?

 

On the top right hand corner of every post is a number. That is the sequential number representing where that particular post lands in the chronological order of thread posts where the topic is being discussed.

 

Beside that is a word that says, "Permalink." Click that, and you will see the URL in your address bar change. You now have a link directly to that post.

 

If you copy that link from your address bar, you can post it into any reply you make, regardless of where that thread in which you are posting resides or the topic under discussion.