Teacher Excused from 'Intelligent Design'

Post Reply New Topic

ghotistix

Then maybe they need to teach only science in schools not theory. Need to then take out Evolution in the schools.

Then they could debate it in a contemporary issues class or debate club were it belongs. It does not belong in school then.

All science is based on theories.

How is a stripped down Intelligent Design still a spiritual belief.

It relies on vague, unfalsifiable assumptions.

ghotistix

The theory of Evolution to me is unfalsifiable and full of assumptions.

I believe that the animals adapted not evolved over the years.

Take Darwin's Galapagos finches they may come from one finch or one type of finch, but they became different types of finches because they just adapted to their environment. The finches are still finches, they never evolved into something else, they just again stayed finches.

The same with the horse they have been around for 60 million years. They have adapted over the 60 million years, But they have remained horses, and again they stayed horses.

Evolution assumes that the finches and horses evolved when only they adapted.

Maybe the schools need to teach Adaptation Theory not Evolution Theory.

Remember Evolution has not yet truly been proven yet.

Unlike Intelligent Design, evolution relies on evidence. The theory attempts to explain certain scientific observations while remaining open to scrutiny -- the individual facets can be double-checked by anyone. And they have been double-checked more thoroughly than nearly any other theory. I have yet to see any contradicting evidence.

Intelligent Design, on the other hand, can't be double-checked because it has no observable evidence. No matter how much we learn about the world, the ideas of religious proponents are so vague that they can be adapted -- evolved, if you will -- so that they can never be disproved.


The evolutionary process has shown that all contemporary organisms share common ancestors. The horse was not always a horse; before a certain point, the creature that would evolve into it looked nothing LIKE a horse. But that animal split into so many other animals that would later evolve into the ones we know today that we don't classify it as a horse. That's why you don't see diagrams detailing its path all the way back to a single-celled bacteria. The same thing applies with Darwin's finches.


It's widely accepted among scientists and educators as the central theory on organism development.

Last edited by ghotistix on 27 Oct 2005, 4:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

this is part of Popper's argument (scientific philosophy) - a theory has to be falsifiable. whether we like it or not, we're living and working within a (Popperian) scientific paradigm, at the present time, even if Popper's epistemology is prone to difficulties, including the difficulty of falsification itself. however, if we are within an empirical paradigm (and we have been since the 17th century), we have to reject a priori arguments as they have no evidence and are not falsifiable.

Feyerabend disagrees, but is considered to be unscientific. and, of course, there is always the issue of underdetermination.

i'd stick with "agreeing to differ", personally.

ghotistix and vertivert

Science in itself has become a philosophy of beliefs that in the end borders on the religious.

Evolution is philosophy that many take as being absolute. I have said this one to many times that I have come across many in Science that see it as their religion, are they then BLINDED by their BELIEFS. I have heard many arguments from them that they thought I should believe in what they believed. No matter what I believe it is how I see it that matters to me.

The evidence still shows me what I see it is called LIFE, we all see LIFE differently, that is what LIFE is. Science will never truly explain what is LIFE. Science will truly never know LIFE. Science will truly never understand LIFE.

We can come up with all the theories about LIFE and they are just theories.

Darwin's Galapagos finches are just birds that only adapted to LIFE. They remained finches they remained birds. They never evolved one bit. Darwin only described these finches and their ADAPTATIONS ONLY.

We only can describe the horses through the fossils only. They only show the ADAPTATIONS that they have gone through.

LIFE is full of ADAPTATIONS. Evolution does not truly EXPLAIN these ADAPTATIONS. Evolution and Science will never be able to truly EXPLAIN THEM EITHER.

We may even see it differently in the future.

Even LIFE might truly show us something new, that we will have to study and come up with a new theory or theories one day.

As we have a Intelligent Designer that has made us also intelligent beings called HUMANS.

Just something to think about.

If you refuse to believe the theory I don't really care. I just hope you realize things that aren't science don't belong in a scientific classroom, and when people start thinking otherwise then we are on the yellow brick road to thought control. People have the right to learn anything they want -- that includes both the right to go to a private school if they want to learn the teachings of their religion and the right to go to a public school if they want to learn facts.

Unfortunately that really means the parents decise they go to a religious school. Schools shouldnt be allowed to be any denomination. The parents can send the kids to sunday school for religious education or do the brainwashing themselves as a lot of them already do anyway.

state schools shouldn't be denominational, i agree, eamonn. if you're going to teach religion, teach all of 'em, cos they're interesting and it's about learning others' culture.

ghotistix

Maybe not everybody can afford private or religious schools. In the town I went to High School it was the only School in town. South Dakota is very small in population it only has 754,844 people in the state and it has a lot of small towns. Not all parents can home school their children. Many towns in South Dakota only have one school. So it can be very limited in ops-ions.

We are already on the yellow brick road to thought control. The Scientific community especially in the schools are putting us on this yellow brick road of thought control. That needs to stop.

Just something to think about.

you what?

vetivert

What do You want me to explained now?

what you meant by the quotation i used (quoting your post) in my post above.

vetivert

After You quoted me.

You said (you what?)

I guess I didn't understand.

there was a lot of posting lately.