>
> Christians -- depends on the Christian, just like any other group of
> people.
>
> ID yes -- because the logic of ID is provably flawed (Re: what good is
> half an eye)... and they're demanding that it be taught in a class
> which is explicitly about proof. Teaching ID in science class is
> teaching children that flawed logic is just as good as unflawed logic.
> Hence the frustration of the science community in the face of the
> insistance taht ID be taught.
I'd take issue with that. ID is most definitely not a scientific theory, and
therefore it cannot be demonstrably proven (or supported) scientifically.
The same is true for disproving, however. How does your example ("what good
is half an eye") demonstrably disprove the logic of ID??
>
> Okay... I'll allow ID to be taught in science class... on one
> condition... It needs to be taught the same way that the theory of
> spontaneous generation was taught in my biology class... That is --
> the theory was explained, immediately followed by the explanation of
> the experiment(s) which disproved the theory. ID can be taught, as
> long as it is immediately followed by the explanation of why ID is
> flawed (the fact that there's no irreducible complexity in biological
> organisms, etc).
>
But why introduce a NON scientific theory, in a science class? Your
spontaneous generation theory makes sense in a science class because it is a
SCIENCE experiment. Since science can make no claims about non-scientific
experiments, why mention ID at all?
>
> I'm not saying that people who choose to believe that life is
> intelligently designed are stupid -- only people who believe in the
> theory (which also means, you need to have an understanding of the
> specific theory of ID which most Christians probably don't). Beleiving
> that an intelligent creator is responsible for life is acceptable --
> that's an opinion removed from sicence. Believing that the ID theory
> is good science is stupid...
Again, to be very specific here, if someone chooses to believe in the theory
of an intelligent creator, and bases their belief on some of the tenets of
the "theory" of Intelligent Design, that isn't really "stupid" in and of
itself. I mean, life IS really, really complex! If i choose to think that
some higher power had some hand in that, that's not really "stupid".
It's when I think my conclusion amounts to a scientific conclusion, meriting
mention along side evolution in a science class, that i've made my mistake.
The belief isn't "stupid", the belief that you engaging in science and
should have your beliefs taught as such, is indeed stupid.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support
efficiency by 100%
http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:167833
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5
Unsubscribe:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
