I find it quite ironic that in order to get around the non-scientific underpinnings of ID, the KS Board of Education rewrote the definition of science so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.
So according to the Board of Education, ID is science. larry On 11/22/05, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That's quite funny. And ironic. There are so, so many things wrong > > with the ID "movement". First and foremost is that it's based on > > religion. Of course IDers will argue this point, but they are wrong > > for the same reason ID is: science is about observable, repeatable > > facts. > > > > To me, that's the ONLY thing wrong with the ID movement. I have absolutely > no problem with the religious concepts of an intelligent designer, or of > creation stories, etc etc. > > But why must they try to pass it off as science, when it obviously is NOT? > AND....if it IS science....wouldn't that reduce God to a knowable human > quantity? I doubt these idiots have actually thought this all the way > through! > > > IDers will bring up physics concepts such as The Big Bang, Inflation, > > or Dark Matter/Energy as examples of things that can't be seen but are > > believed to exist. The point they foolishly miss is this: > > > > All of those things are predicted by mathematics - equations. God is > > not predicted by math; at least not in the objective sense. That's > > not to say that God doesn't exist, just that He's not predicted by > > math as we know it today. > > This is obviously true. Most of these ID people though are just trying to > hide behind these ideas to make them more pallatable to ordinary folks. > > Behind all that, they simply want God put back into public schools. > > > > > To me, what ID does say is ironically depressing: if God created this > > universe in which we live, we'll never see him as he must be external > > to it. While his influence may be felt, we'll never be able to prove > > his existance. > > I think this is the same as what I said earlier...and I don't think the ID > folks have thought this through to it's conclusion. > > > > > As an analogy think of an ant farm. Even though you built box, filled > > it with sand, etc, the ants could never you did this. They could > > never prove you existed. > > Ant farms use dirt, not sand. You'd make a horrible Intelligent Designer :) > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Purchase Dreamweaver with Homesite Plus from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF community. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=54 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:183545 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=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
