Wow, I sure like waiting until the last minute. But I got this in on time too, and this is my last post. I await your final post. Thanks for agreeing to this debate and thanks to the judges for judging this. I await your final post, and then the judges' final votes. Thanks, it's been fun and I have learned a lot. So no matter what the outcome I have benefited from this. Now here's my post, before I run out of time
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marc9000
Sure you did;
|
Yes I said it was similar. But the flying spaghetti monster "theory" is even more similar to it. It has some evidence, many followers (though not quite as many as ID), as well as being possible, and unable to be disproven.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marc9000
I AM showing you, you're just refusing to acknowledge it. By claiming to be serious about your monster, you're doing the same thing that talkorigins and much of secular science often does, ridiculing ID instead of addressing it's scientific aspects. Even if it's established that ID shouldn't be taught in science class, shouldn't we also establish that it can't be ridiculed in science class? If the ACLU is waiting to sue if it's taught, should ID proponents have the same legal recognition to sue if it's ridiculed? So another of many good reasons to allow ID to be taught in science class would be to avoid legal complications, something even many evolutionists agree the US already has too much of.
|
Anyone can sue anyone for anything. The ACLU can sue if it's taught, and if you want to start suing school systems for ridiculing it, fine.
Wow, the reason we should teach ID as a valid alternative to evolution (not just mentioning it) would be to avoid legal complications? School curriculum is not supposed to be made to avoid contreversy. It's supposed to teach so kids actually learn. Let's teach atheism while we're at it. As it is now Christians think we have too little God in school and atheists think there's too much. If we just straight out taught atheism we wouldn't have to worry about teachers qualified in religion (they wouldn't need to know the bible, etc.) and we would have half the lawsuits (from only the Christians). I don't agree with this because that's not what education is about. Education is not to stop contreversy, it's to get people thinking. I'm all for teaching ID as a current hypothesis, something that hasn't been proven but is a leading belief as to what may have happened. But to teach it as the same level as evolution (a scientific theory) is just plain stupid, because there is not even close to as much proof as there is for evolution.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marc9000
And the second best thing about a dictionary is how easy it is to show when someone attempts to leave out an important part of the definition.
|
Yep, unfortunately I said in my original post why I left them out. #2 is the definition of the plural word and the 3rd has to do with the philosophy of Kant.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marc9000
As we now see, 2 and 3 are very much related, and they show how the definition of the word phenomena is vague, as I said. When the words "perceptible" and "observable" are included in the definition of the same word as "unaccountable", "marvel", and "remarkable", it's vague enough so that science applies it to happenstance origins, but not to scientific paths of ID.
|
because they are different uses of the word. Are you trying to argue that science is the study of miracles? (or "marvels")
Do you not understand the words unaccountable, marvel, or remarkable? You think they're too vague? Look them up too.
And you keep trying to argue that ID is not considered science, but it is. There has just not been enough evidence set forth to consider it a theory. It is currently a hypothesis, a possibility along with happenstance origins. Evolution has to do with life as it is now, and can be observed. The origin of life, from ID to happenstance origins, simply wasn't observed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marc9000
It can't happen if he has to overcome the obstacle of established "theories" to get anyone's attention. He has to get past emotional attention; "you can't do that because it violates THIS established theory!" before he can get to logical attention. Michael Behe has that problem all the time.
|
sorry, but ID doesn't go against ANY established scientific theory. Please explain the scientific theory (as I said earlier, happenstance origins is NOT a scientific theory) that goes against ID.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marc9000
One man, or a small group of men working with recent ideas can't make these things happen overnight. New young students with the latest scientific ideas need to be involved. They can't be if they're politically blocked from the ID thought process, like the things that were described in that link. Designed systems, casual powers of intelligent agents, and our growing knowledge of the cellular world and it's many mechanisms.
|
ohh, I see. So since right now we can't prove that something's true, the way to prove it is to teach it to our kids as true, and then hopefully they'll prove it's true? Again with the flying spaghetti monster. It could be true, no one knows for sure. Why not teach it as fact in school? Maybe someone would study Him and prove that He really exists.
You explain why it is taught as a hypothesis. People are taught that a hypothesis is that there was an intelligent creator that created the Earth. If they want to find some way to test that hypothesis, either to prove or disprove it, I'm sure they could do that. You say that it has no chance of being proven true if we don't teach it as truth? That makes no sense, and could be used as logic to teach anything which currently can't be proven false, but is not established as true.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marc9000
Today, it can't be determined if there was intelligent design any more than science has determined that there were happenstance origins. Evolution, without ID, is an established scientific theory only because it's been politically established as one. Without the politics and presuppositions of today's humanist science, it's a hypothesis on exactly the same level as ID.
|
You're saying that evolution is only a theory because of politics? Nice idea, but until you give me some proof I'll have to take it as that, an idea. Do you understand what evolution is? It has been observed and verified. It is as much a theory as gravity, or will you advocate teaching IF next (Intelligent Falling teaches that things gravitate towards bodies of mass because an intelligent creator makes them)?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marc9000
You're making a huge distinction between the words "hypothesis" and "theory", and assigning them with a biased presupposition. You've called ID a hypothesis; you've called everything associated with origins a hypothesis, yet you've elevated common ancestor evolution to the theory level. A theory can't have a hypothesis as it's base without a presupposition being involved. Common ancestor evolution fits generally only with atheism, since no major organized religion believes that a god created only simple life forms, then abandoned them. While there are some differences of opinion as to how the book of Genesis is interpretated, (a large time gap between the first few verses, for example), interpretations by established religions isn't all that complex. It's sometimes made complex by a small segment of atheism that mocks Genesis, or a small segment of atheists who masquerade as religious people.
|
Because there is a big difference between hypothesis and theory. Here are the dictionary.com definitions, and I'll paste the whole definition since you didn't like when I only posted 2 last time.
Hypothesis:
1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.
I hope you will agree 3 is not what we are talking about
Theory:
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
now 4 and 6 are certainly not what is meant by a scientific theory, but the rest give pretty good definitions. Compare this to hypothesis, there is a big fundamental difference. ID is a hypothesis, an educated guess, while evolution is accepted as true because of the amount of evidence.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marc9000
The bottom line is, ID fits many religions, but common ancestor evolution fits almost only atheism. You can claim that if origins aren't addressed it doesn't matter, but that's not the impression students are going to get if they're taught that common ancestor evolution is the ONLY established theory for the origin of humans.
|
sorry, but there are many religious people who believe in evolution (and even ID currently acknowledges that there was a common ancestor, just that God created it). And the reason they teach it is because it is true. We don?t teach things just because if we don?t people may be offended. It has been sufficiently proven, just as gravity has been proven. It is POSSIBLE that the theory of gravity is wrong. Maybe God decides when to attract two things together. Maybe the fairy does. We don?t know for sure, but we are almost positive that the theory of gravity (F = k*M1*M2 I think, but don?t hold me to it).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marc9000
If we elevate common ancestor evolution to the theory level, beyond the hypothesis level of everything else, the religion of atheism is then elevated above everything else.
|
The problem is that we already have the common ancestor evolution at the theory level. It has caused many advances in scientific progress and Christianity is still the major religion in the United States. A common ancestor in no way relates to atheism. Atheism says there is no God. There is a perfect possibility of a God who created that common ancestor.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marc9000
ID is about SO MUCH MORE than guesses, despite what the scientific community implies.
|
Well that is what you were supposed to prove through this debate. So far, you have not convinced me that there is enough evidence for Intelligent Design to be taught as a scientific theory. You have provided very good reasons to hold it as a hypothesis, and to encourage students as well as scientists to study ID, but not teach it as a scientific theory, because there is simply not enough proof.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marc9000
Yes we're talking about the classroom, but classroom's teaching establishments have to get their information from somewhere. If they don't get it from sources like talkorigins, then where do they get it? I see you didn't provide a more neutral example of a scientific source that I requested. Science has become too politicized for neutrality.
|
Classrooms HAVE to get material from a website? How about a textbook? If I had my biology textbook from last year I would quote from it, but I assure you it holds open the fact that there is a God. What it does not hold open is that God created the Earth as it is today with no evolution. But I think that?s ok, they haven?t put in my theory about me creating everyone with their beliefs they are now. If you want to believe that God created the Earth as it is today, in fairies, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, etc. no one is stopping you. Excuse me if I don?t agree with you that it should be taught as fact in school.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marc9000
Genetics (and all of biology) isn't the only source of truth when it comes to guessing about what happened in the past. The paths that ID can take us down (designed systems, mathemetics, etc.) could possibly trump a previous genetics guess, and all it's subsequent paths, and it could involve a lot of politics and money. The main reason "science" is afraid of ID.
|
I am convinced that ID has the POSSIBILITY of producing evidence to consider it. I would welcome further study on this topic. Unfortunately, evolution has been established as fact and helped us a lot with a lot of accurate predictions. ID is open for study, but it should not be taught in the science classroom as fact.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marc9000
|
certainly some people want it out of schools period. But that doesn?t mean that?s the way it is today. The first web site is simply an organization that has this belief. I?m sure there are many websites advocating teaching creationism too.
The second website refers to a creation class. That is not ID, or even the science classroom. In my opinion it should be allowed to be offered, as long as it is optional to take it.
And I?m glad you know why the ACLU does what it does, any proof for the fact that they are only ?mocking? it? I would think they?d either want it out, or they would defend it if someone wanted to take a case up.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marc9000
They both deal with funding. It's a big part of them, and often what one of them does get is directly proportional to what the other doesn't get. It's reality and it can't be changed. Until only fairly recently, science was actually science driven, motivated by a genuine curiosity and a desire to discover. Politics has led to an increasing centralization of scientific research. Science is more and more associated with grant acceptances and refusals for universities. POLITICS. In the first part of the twentieth century, a grant refusal would not necessarily stop an idea from being presented and developed, because universities weren't nearly as dependent on government grant money like they are today. Today, a college grant can have an "overhead" charge that can amount to 50% of the grant. That charge goes directly to the university administration. Naturally the university is strongly motivated to associate with scientists who can obtain large grants. They couldn't very well get a grant to study ID if it has even a remote chance of clashing with a recent grant for evolutionary study, could they?
|
Universities are private organizations. I?m sure Christian colleges would welcome a student studying ID. So you are advocating changing the curriculum of PUBLIC schools, just so private organizations will think better of ID?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marc9000
There really is a financial interest that desires to silence the scientific paths that ID can take, and the debate and thought that it can lead to in schools from the grade school level to the college level, from today's generation to future generations.
|
and that financial interest should stay outside of public schools. There are also financial interests that desire to silence evolution and teach creation (not ID, creationism). There are financial interests that want to start school-led prayer. should we start teaching atheism because of the groups trying to eliminate it from public schools? Of course not.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marc9000
The most important thing that the teaching of ID can do, is hold secular science to a higher responsibility than it currently is to better prove it's theories, and discourage it from making atheist presuppositions, even if the importance of it's funding has to be secondary. The possiblities of benefits far outweigh the possibility of harm. Common sense has to trump politics. It's the reason ALL citizens, not just the educated, are entrusted by the Constitution to make many decisions. The US is in trouble when it puts biased politics in front of open ideas, and a desire for truth.
|
You act like evolution is changing constantly. The theory is written up for anyone to view. It?s not some hidden changing force.
I believe the possibility of harm is much greater. Harm would be teaching our public school students that something is fact when it has simply not been proven as such. For you to call teaching ID as SCIENTIFIC THEORY, something it simply doesn?t have enough evidence to be, the quest for truth? It is taught as a valid hypothesis, open for investigation, yet you MUST have it be taught as an alternative to evolution (a scientific theory)? That is certainly not the quest for truth.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marc9000
I plan on using my one remaining post for recap purposes only.
|
Actually, I did too, but I guess you presented too much here. In my responses I tried not to open any new arguments, just replying with what I have said before. I will conclude here.
In this debate, it was your job to prove that Intelligent Design should be taught as a valid alternative to evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory. Lots of evidence for it, nothing has falsified it, and it has made many correct predictions that have helped advance scientific knowledge. ID is simply a hypothesis that the cause of life could have been an Intelligent Designer.
You have certainly opened my eyes to the fact that Intelligent Design is actual science, and I?ll admit I went into this debate thinking that it should never be taught even as a hypothesis, and didn?t like that it was taught as such in our biology class. But you still have not convinced me or presented enough evidence to prove that it should be taught as a valid alternative to evolution. You have shown how there are possibilities of benefits from studying ID further, but that is different from teaching it in the science classroom as what is the closest to fact you get in science, a scientific theory.