Rival to evolution may enter schools Intelligent design considered for science curriculum
By Adam Forest
INTELLIGENT DESIGN, a controversial alternative theory to evolution, could become part of the science curriculum in Scottish schools.
The Sunday Herald has learned that the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) is considering provision for the theory as part of a review of the science course curriculum.
Intelligent design (ID) is one of a wide range of theories of origin currently taught as part of the Religious, Moral and Philosophy Studies (RMPS) SQA course, but could be moved elsewhere as part of the review. A spokesman for the SQA said: "It happens to sit in RMPS just now. If and when it does becomes part of the curriculum for science, which it may well do as part of this review, then that's where it could sit."
Scientists have already expressed fears that ID theory is entering science classrooms. An organisation called Truth in Science (TiS) sent teaching resource packs to every head of science in Scottish schools in September 2006. The material critiques the Darwinian theory of natural selection and promotes the idea that biological mechanisms are best explained by the idea of an intelligent designer.
Professor Andrew McIntosh, a director of Truth in Science, said: "We've had a lot of positive feedback about the DVDs, which included Scottish schools. There are quite a number of people who are indicating they are happy to use the resources."
Dr Simon Gage, director of the Edinburgh Science Festival, believes the influence of Truth in Science and ID theory is "worrying and dangerous". He said: "This is creationism with a wrapper on it, dressed up as pseudo-science. These people prey on ignorance and should be forbidden at the school door."
Alastair Noble is an educational consultant who has been invited by both denominational and non- denominational secondary schools to present ID on a scientific basis. He said: "I gauge a growing level of interest from pupils and teachers. My guess is that the (TiS) DVDs are being used by a small but significant number of teachers."
"It deserves formal consideration. It presents a scientific challenge to the construct that the world is the result of blind and purposeless forces."
Ian Fraser, director of education for Inverclyde, is not in favour of prohibiting Truth in Science material and accepts teachers are free to present ID informally. He said: "I have no objection to intelligent design being advanced as one theory, but most teachers don't have time. I trust head teachers to make their own decisions about what is appropriate."
Simon Barrow, director of the faith think-tank Ekklesia, urged Scottish education authorities to prevent private organisations gaining undue influence. He said: "The UK education secretary and the English curriculum authority say clearly that ID is not to be taught in science. Scotland should follow suit."
Without clear guidelines, many scientists fear the ID controversy will create the appearance of significant debate among scientists over the validity of Darwinian evolution. Roger Downie, professor of zoological education at Glasgow University, said: "It's certainly worrying. ID hasn't got any testable hypotheses so it cannot be considered science. It is purely an acceptance, in a literal way, of a particular set of religious texts. Teachers may be being misled into regarding Truth in Science material, which sounds respectable, as bona fide. They should be sent some kind of guidance that this is not science."
An education spokeswoman for the Scottish Executive said: "We're not prescriptive as to books or materials. We provide guidelines, and within those guidelines it's up to schools to decide."
Michael McGrath, director of the Scottish Catholic Education Service, made it clear intelligent design was not part of science teaching in Catholic schools. He said: "There is a distinction between what is appropriate for religious education and what is appropriate for science. We wouldn't confuse one with the other."
A 2006 UK-wide Mori poll suggested 41% believed intelligent design should be taught as part of science education.
|
|
Posted by: Iain MacLaren, Galway Ireland on 9:06pm Sat 16 Jun 07
This is, if true, really disturbing. ID is not a theory it is completely unfounded garbage and is used as a 'wedge' to easy extreme fundamentalist religious ideas into education. This much has been admitted by the US organisations that have promoted it and dreamt up the name in the first place. It is a deliberate attempt to reject science in place of blind faith and it must be resisted in the school curriculum, since it will totally distort students' views of what science is and isnt about. If ID is accepted then it is equally legitimate to introduce witchcraft, seances, madcap perpetual motion machines, psychics and colonic irrigation!!
I am sure that Scottish educators will not accept this, unless of course they don't know what science is too?!
By the way "Truth in Science" should be sued for their title. They have simply retitled extreme religious dogma as 'science' and 'alternative theory'. The public needs to be made aware that there is absolutely NO scientific debate about this. ID has no basis in science and the folk that are pushing it are not scientists despite their "Dr" titles - they are religious fundamentalists. If they want space in the curriculum then by all means give it to them in a module entitled "Irrationality, fundamentalism, narrow-mindedness and ignorance."
This is, if true, really disturbing. ID is not a theory it is completely unfounded garbage and is used as a 'wedge' to easy extreme fundamentalist religious ideas into education. This much has been admitted by the US organisations that have promoted it and dreamt up the name in the first place. It is a deliberate attempt to reject science in place of blind faith and it must be resisted in the school curriculum, since it will totally distort students' views of what science is and isnt about. If ID is accepted then it is equally legitimate to introduce witchcraft, seances, madcap perpetual motion machines, psychics and colonic irrigation!!
I am sure that Scottish educators will not accept this, unless of course they don't know what science is too?!
By the way "Truth in Science" should be sued for their title. They have simply retitled extreme religious dogma as 'science' and 'alternative theory'. The public needs to be made aware that there is absolutely NO scientific debate about this. ID has no basis in science and the folk that are pushing it are not scientists despite their "Dr" titles - they are religious fundamentalists. If they want space in the curriculum then by all means give it to them in a module entitled "Irrationality, fundamentalism, narrow-mindedness and ignorance."
Posted by: spagan agus an tigh ur, brighton of the north on 10:32pm Sat 16 Jun 07
Be afraid - very afraid. Difficult to believe that it is 2007. Never mind climate change - the dark ages beckon!
Be afraid - very afraid. Difficult to believe that it is 2007. Never mind climate change - the dark ages beckon!
Posted by: Rab The Man, WAS MY UNCLE on 12:03am Sun 17 Jun 07
So-called Intelligeny design is a danger to our children, and to our society.
We do ourselves no favours through any support of this trash !
So-called Intelligeny design is a danger to our children, and to our society.
We do ourselves no favours through any support of this trash !
Posted by: James on 12:07am Sun 17 Jun 07
I am in complete agreement with the first two posters. I know this Intelligent Design movement has gained ground in England, but it must not be allowed to stymie the promotion of genuine science in Scottish schools.
Intelligent Design is not science and should therefore have no part in the science classroom. Schools would benefit from having more science teaching, but this nonsense is Christianity by the backdoor. In essence, this pseudo science seeks to instil the belief in children that the enormous complexity of the universe and life can only be understood with reference to an Intelligent Designer. I think an apposite quote against this nonsense comes from Stephen Hawking who says:
“So long as the universe has a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning or end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"
Even if one were to consider that the universe had a beginning, the science classroom would not be the best place to suppose if it had a creator.
I am in complete agreement with the first two posters. I know this Intelligent Design movement has gained ground in England, but it must not be allowed to stymie the promotion of genuine science in Scottish schools.
Intelligent Design is not science and should therefore have no part in the science classroom. Schools would benefit from having more science teaching, but this nonsense is Christianity by the backdoor. In essence, this pseudo science seeks to instil the belief in children that the enormous complexity of the universe and life can only be understood with reference to an Intelligent Designer. I think an apposite quote against this nonsense comes from Stephen Hawking who says:
“So long as the universe has a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning or end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"
Even if one were to consider that the universe had a beginning, the science classroom would not be the best place to suppose if it had a creator.
Posted by: Tom McAlister on 12:41am Sun 17 Jun 07
.
I do hope public funding in any shape or form is not going to be squandered on this hocus pocus masquerading as some sort of "religious studies" or whatever.Now I wonder what applicating this sort of "learning" will be put to use on or on whom? Aye Right.
There was a rumour that yon Bliar fellow wanted one of them "academies" part funded by a private individual deeply involved in that sort of thing in Coventry.
I wonder what they would have called this academy? BLiars Academy perhaps? Aye, about right so.
.
.
I do hope public funding in any shape or form is not going to be squandered on this hocus pocus masquerading as some sort of "religious studies" or whatever.Now I wonder what applicating this sort of "learning" will be put to use on or on whom? Aye Right.
There was a rumour that yon Bliar fellow wanted one of them "academies" part funded by a private individual deeply involved in that sort of thing in Coventry.
I wonder what they would have called this academy? BLiars Academy perhaps? Aye, about right so.
.
Posted by: GW, Peterhead on 1:49am Sun 17 Jun 07
'In the beginning there was a big bang'...
'In the beginning God created'...
Either could be true based on the evidence we have. Both require faith.
But only one should be discussed in science classes...
'In the beginning there was a big bang'...
'In the beginning God created'...
Either could be true based on the evidence we have. Both require faith.
But only one should be discussed in science classes...
Posted by: AGM, US of A on 2:08am Sun 17 Jun 07
If ID is to be taught, then so should the flying spagetti monster. May "His noddly appendage" touch all of yall out there. (just google FSM)
If ID is to be taught, then so should the flying spagetti monster. May "His noddly appendage" touch all of yall out there. (just google FSM)
Posted by: ferg, Australia on 2:49am Sun 17 Jun 07
This is as boring an argument as it is old.
Creationism/ID is not a science. Never was never will be.
Science is testable. Religion is not.
Using the Bible as your 'evidence' is not appropriate for a science class.
If you want to talk about creation stories keep it in the place where it belongs and keep it out of the science class.
And ironically, "God did it" is also just a theory, in the same way Creationists lampoon evolutionists.
This is as boring an argument as it is old.
Creationism/ID is not a science. Never was never will be.
Science is testable. Religion is not.
Using the Bible as your 'evidence' is not appropriate for a science class.
If you want to talk about creation stories keep it in the place where it belongs and keep it out of the science class.
And ironically, "God did it" is also just a theory, in the same way Creationists lampoon evolutionists.
Posted by: Guga, Rockall on 4:49am Sun 17 Jun 07
What a load of garbage. There is no way that this nonsense could be or should be considered science. If they want to teach such garbage, it should be limited to their comparative theology (a.k.a. mythology) classes. Though I would have grave doubts even about that.
The next thing we know is that some other group of weirdos will be wanting Scientology taught as a science subject; along with spoon bending.
I do not believe that Mori poll that 41% of people want this hocus pocus taught in the schools, not even the ones that have listed their religion as "Jedi" in the census forms. Moreover, if the education authorities try and force the issue, I think they wil be in for quite a surprise at the reaction of the majority of parents.
What a load of garbage. There is no way that this nonsense could be or should be considered science. If they want to teach such garbage, it should be limited to their comparative theology (a.k.a. mythology) classes. Though I would have grave doubts even about that.
The next thing we know is that some other group of weirdos will be wanting Scientology taught as a science subject; along with spoon bending.
I do not believe that Mori poll that 41% of people want this hocus pocus taught in the schools, not even the ones that have listed their religion as "Jedi" in the census forms. Moreover, if the education authorities try and force the issue, I think they wil be in for quite a surprise at the reaction of the majority of parents.
Posted by: ferg, Australia on 5:11am Sun 17 Jun 07
Now remember, Creationists/ID proponents have no 'evidence' other than the Bible: a collection of stories, some contradictory, borrowed from other cultures before them, many written by others and lots of them edited later to fit the religious mood of the time.
Their energies are almost exclusively put into trying to refute evolutionary theory.
Take a step back before engaging in any such discussion and ask to see [italic]their[/italic] evidence first.
Don't get trapped into only defending yours - a classic Creationist/ID debating tool.
Further reading:
Philip Kitcher, 'Abusing Science' - Cambridge, Mass, USA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press 1982
[italic]A thorough examination of the claims of creationism.[/italic]
And Karl Popper, 'The Problem with Demarcation' - London, Routledge 1999
[italic]Popper's position on what distinguishes science from non-science is explained clearly and succinctly here.[/italic]
As a Scottish educator currently living abroad, this pains me greatly.
C'mon Alex Salmond, sort this out. Don't let it go the way of the USA.
Now remember, Creationists/ID proponents have no 'evidence' other than the Bible: a collection of stories, some contradictory, borrowed from other cultures before them, many written by others and lots of them edited later to fit the religious mood of the time.
Their energies are almost exclusively put into trying to refute evolutionary theory.
Take a step back before engaging in any such discussion and ask to see
their evidence first.
Don't get trapped into only defending yours - a classic Creationist/ID debating tool.
Further reading:
Philip Kitcher, 'Abusing Science' - Cambridge, Mass, USA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press 1982
A thorough examination of the claims of creationism.
And Karl Popper, 'The Problem with Demarcation' - London, Routledge 1999
Popper's position on what distinguishes science from non-science is explained clearly and succinctly here.
As a Scottish educator currently living abroad, this pains me greatly.
C'mon Alex Salmond, sort this out. Don't let it go the way of the USA.
Posted by: James E. Gambrell, USA on 5:48am Sun 17 Jun 07
Alchemy,astrology,an
d evolution have all served their purpose by leading us to a greater truth. That greater truth is logic. When we are searching for the truth we are searching for what is logical. This is the beginning of the application of intelligence. If logic indicates design, indicates cosmos rather than chaos,then it also indicates that intelligence has been applied. Neither faith nor religion is part of this subjective search.
Alchemy,astrology,an
d evolution have all served their purpose by leading us to a greater truth. That greater truth is logic. When we are searching for the truth we are searching for what is logical. This is the beginning of the application of intelligence. If logic indicates design, indicates cosmos rather than chaos,then it also indicates that intelligence has been applied. Neither faith nor religion is part of this subjective search.
Posted by: Swilly Tisher, Loch Maree on 7:46am Sun 17 Jun 07
Crivvens, there's surely no "Scope/s" for this in modern-day Scotland where quite enough bible-bashing can be witnessed...from the bloody-minded Old Firm terracing to the tiniest, wood-wormed Free Church pulpit.For ***'* sake , don't turn the calendar back - to the Middle Ages.
Crivvens, there's surely no "Scope/s" for this in modern-day Scotland where quite enough bible-bashing can be witnessed...from the bloody-minded Old Firm terracing to the tiniest, wood-wormed Free Church pulpit.For ***'* sake , don't turn the calendar back - to the Middle Ages.
Posted by: M77, Glasgow on 8:07am Sun 17 Jun 07
Surely the whole point of education is to train people to tink critically about conflicting views and come to our own conclusions. Evolution is an unproven theory which is taught as scientific fact in schools and universities. However, there is an intolerance of Intelligent Design on ther part of those secularists who claim to be open minded.
The contradiction in their posiotion is obvious. What are they so scared of? Could it be that they know that there is little evidence to prove evolution, that it is a theory based on unproven assumptions and that it requires a massive leap of faith to believe it?
As usual the Sunday Herald runs a spoiler story to undermine anything which its editors disagree with. That is hardly fair and impartial journalism!
Surely the whole point of education is to train people to tink critically about conflicting views and come to our own conclusions. Evolution is an unproven theory which is taught as scientific fact in schools and universities. However, there is an intolerance of Intelligent Design on ther part of those secularists who claim to be open minded.
The contradiction in their posiotion is obvious. What are they so scared of? Could it be that they know that there is little evidence to prove evolution, that it is a theory based on unproven assumptions and that it requires a massive leap of faith to believe it?
As usual the Sunday Herald runs a spoiler story to undermine anything which its editors disagree with. That is hardly fair and impartial journalism!
Posted by: fsm, Aberdeen on 8:14am Sun 17 Jun 07
Professor Andrew Macintosh: Professor of Baloney
Professor Andrew Macintosh: Professor of Baloney
Posted by: Electric Hermit on 11:31am Sun 17 Jun 07
[quote]Intelligent Design, a controversial alternative theory to evolution...[/quote]
ID most certainly is [bold]NOT[/bold] an "alternative" to genuine science. Neither does it qualify as a scientific "theory". It is no more than a device by which religious fundamentalists seek to insinuate their agenda of ignorance, intolerance and repression into schools so that they can infest our children's minds with their hateful mumbo-jumbo.
Allow the pestilential priests access to places of learning and we will soon be back to burning people for reciting multiplication tables.
Intelligent Design, a controversial alternative theory to evolution...
ID most certainly is
NOT an "alternative" to genuine science. Neither does it qualify as a scientific "theory". It is no more than a device by which religious fundamentalists seek to insinuate their agenda of ignorance, intolerance and repression into schools so that they can infest our children's minds with their hateful mumbo-jumbo.
Allow the pestilential priests access to places of learning and we will soon be back to burning people for reciting multiplication tables.
Posted by: wonderwoman on 11:40am Sun 17 Jun 07
Intellicent Design is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one; it can be neither proved or disproved by scientific method. If true, would not negate evolution, which could be the scientific method by which ID is implemented in this universe. It should continue to be discussed in Religious, Moral and Philosophy Studies, but it should not be taught in Science unless we want the rest of the world to think that Scottish scientists are prehistoric nutters.
Intellicent Design is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one; it can be neither proved or disproved by scientific method. If true, would not negate evolution, which could be the scientific method by which ID is implemented in this universe. It should continue to be discussed in Religious, Moral and Philosophy Studies, but it should not be taught in Science unless we want the rest of the world to think that Scottish scientists are prehistoric nutters.
Posted by: jacquesmac, france on 11:43am Sun 17 Jun 07
Intelligent Design as a scientific theory, God help us!
What a load of Middle Ages bilge; we'll be going back to witch burning and The Inquisition next, maybe some religious aboriginals never actually evolved from that era.
Who exactly is the Professor Andrew Mackintosh then, a professor of what, awarded by which academic dody or agency?
Professor Sir James Ian McLaren, Lord Guardian of Scientific Reconstruction and Knight of THe Ancient Order of The Keepers of Betrand Russell's Celestial Teapot!
ps ( I awarded these qualifications to myself; seems as logical and honest as ID?) Did you guess?
Intelligent Design as a scientific theory, God help us!
What a load of Middle Ages bilge; we'll be going back to witch burning and The Inquisition next, maybe some religious aboriginals never actually evolved from that era.
Who exactly is the Professor Andrew Mackintosh then, a professor of what, awarded by which academic dody or agency?
Professor Sir James Ian McLaren, Lord Guardian of Scientific Reconstruction and Knight of THe Ancient Order of The Keepers of Betrand Russell's Celestial Teapot!
ps ( I awarded these qualifications to myself; seems as logical and honest as ID?) Did you guess?
Posted by: Alex McDonald, Edinburgh on 11:47am Sun 17 Jun 07
[quote]However, there is an intolerance of Intelligent Design on ther part of those secularists who claim to be open minded.[/quote]
No, there's a natural reluctance to allow the teaching of non-science in science. ID has no testable hypothesis. It's a theory of personal incredulity; "Gosh, that's so complicated I can't understand it; therefore <insert deity here> must have done it". No intolerance is required, just an enquiring mind.
However, there is an intolerance of Intelligent Design on ther part of those secularists who claim to be open minded.
No, there's a natural reluctance to allow the teaching of non-science in science. ID has no testable hypothesis. It's a theory of personal incredulity; "Gosh, that's so complicated I can't understand it; therefore <insert deity here> must have done it". No intolerance is required, just an enquiring mind.
Posted by: James on 12:00pm Sun 17 Jun 07
M77 at 8.07
I agree with what you say in your first sentence, but I believe that the introduction of the Intelligent Designer into the science curriculum would hamper the development of critical thinking. I am confident that many who proselytise on behalf of religion would see some potential in the saying: “if you are seeking God (Intelligent Designer) then you’ve already found him.”
Our understanding of Evolution I accept is by no means complete. Lacunae do exist, but these do not justify using the Intelligent Designer in the science classroom. The evidence supporting evolution is authoritative and compelling, despite some flaws in the work of Darwin. The scientific process of investigation in Scottish schools is essential for critical thinking; it must not be stymied by pseudo science.
I am not opposing a persons right to believe in Intelligent Design. I am opposed to taxpayers’ money being used to support religion dressed up as science in schools. In addition I am concerned that some officials in education might see Intelligent Design as an easy means of boosting the numbers of “science” teachers in our schools.
M77 at 8.07
I agree with what you say in your first sentence, but I believe that the introduction of the Intelligent Designer into the science curriculum would hamper the development of critical thinking. I am confident that many who proselytise on behalf of religion would see some potential in the saying: “if you are seeking God (Intelligent Designer) then you’ve already found him.”
Our understanding of Evolution I accept is by no means complete. Lacunae do exist, but these do not justify using the Intelligent Designer in the science classroom. The evidence supporting evolution is authoritative and compelling, despite some flaws in the work of Darwin. The scientific process of investigation in Scottish schools is essential for critical thinking; it must not be stymied by pseudo science.
I am not opposing a persons right to believe in Intelligent Design. I am opposed to taxpayers’ money being used to support religion dressed up as science in schools. In addition I am concerned that some officials in education might see Intelligent Design as an easy means of boosting the numbers of “science” teachers in our schools.
Posted by: Robert McKinlay on 12:18pm Sun 17 Jun 07
dear M77 (posted 8:07am),
yes, the point is to educate people to think critically but teaching ID/Creationism would stifle that ideal as it would be tantamount to admitting that superstition was as valid as the scientific method.
The only thing "we" are so afraid of is a return to the mentality of the middle ages where Galileo was persecuted for daring to 'think critically' and deduce that the Earth revolved around the Sun.
There is no contradiction in the scientific position as evolutionary theory has been rigorously tested for well over a century now and not been found wanting (try looking up DNA for instance).
The only intolerance being shown is that for your position I'm afraid because ID/Creationism is superstitious myth, not science and should have no part in any scientific curriculum, anywhere.
Scientific theories (like evolution) postulate testable, independently verifiable and repeatable results (again try DNA with reference to evolution). Whether you choose to irrationally ignore/dispute this evidence is entirely up to you but please bear in mind ID/Creationism can do none of this and should not therefore be regarded as science, it is a fable at best and 'uncritical thinking' at it's worst.
Finally, an 'unproven theory' is called a hypothesis, evolution is a theory not a hypothesis.
There is no conflict in this view, there is no contradiction and there is no faith required. Only reason, 'critical thinking' and a great concern for the future of the education of our children.
dear M77 (posted 8:07am),
yes, the point is to educate people to think critically but teaching ID/Creationism would stifle that ideal as it would be tantamount to admitting that superstition was as valid as the scientific method.
The only thing "we" are so afraid of is a return to the mentality of the middle ages where Galileo was persecuted for daring to 'think critically' and deduce that the Earth revolved around the Sun.
There is no contradiction in the scientific position as evolutionary theory has been rigorously tested for well over a century now and not been found wanting (try looking up DNA for instance).
The only intolerance being shown is that for your position I'm afraid because ID/Creationism is superstitious myth, not science and should have no part in any scientific curriculum, anywhere.
Scientific theories (like evolution) postulate testable, independently verifiable and repeatable results (again try DNA with reference to evolution). Whether you choose to irrationally ignore/dispute this evidence is entirely up to you but please bear in mind ID/Creationism can do none of this and should not therefore be regarded as science, it is a fable at best and 'uncritical thinking' at it's worst.
Finally, an 'unproven theory' is called a hypothesis, evolution is a theory not a hypothesis.
There is no conflict in this view, there is no contradiction and there is no faith required. Only reason, 'critical thinking' and a great concern for the future of the education of our children.
Posted by: Anders Nogiets, Holland on 12:54pm Sun 17 Jun 07
#M77
One could also say that there is also little evidence to prove that there is a god. I have also noted a disturbing intolerance of those who have been abducted by aliens. One should think critically about these things. No one has disproven the existence of aliens. I'll let the poetry of Hugh McMillan speak on the subject:
Lorrayne
before you hit me with that object
shaped like a toblerone
let me explain.
We only went for a half pint and a whisky
then set off home but somehow
lost two hours on a thirty-minute journey.
My mind’s a blank
but Brian clearly saw
Aliens with black eyes and no lips
leading us into a kind of craft.
I tried to lash out, explain that I was late,
but they used some kind of numbing ray on me:
it put me in this state.
Lorrayne, don’t you see what it explains?
All the times I crawled home with odd abrasions.
Put that down Lorrayne,
don’t you see I have to go again,
for the sake of future generations?
THE X FILES (Bonnybridge, October ‘95)
#M77
One could also say that there is also little evidence to prove that there is a god. I have also noted a disturbing intolerance of those who have been abducted by aliens. One should think critically about these things. No one has disproven the existence of aliens. I'll let the poetry of Hugh McMillan speak on the subject:
Lorrayne
before you hit me with that object
shaped like a toblerone
let me explain.
We only went for a half pint and a whisky
then set off home but somehow
lost two hours on a thirty-minute journey.
My mind’s a blank
but Brian clearly saw
Aliens with black eyes and no lips
leading us into a kind of craft.
I tried to lash out, explain that I was late,
but they used some kind of numbing ray on me:
it put me in this state.
Lorrayne, don’t you see what it explains?
All the times I crawled home with odd abrasions.
Put that down Lorrayne,
don’t you see I have to go again,
for the sake of future generations?
THE X FILES (Bonnybridge, October ‘95)
Posted by: kinghob, Alba on 1:06pm Sun 17 Jun 07
You'd be as well showing children a series of the flintstones and telling them it is a factually based documentary.
Wiiiiiiillllllmaaaaa
a!!!
You'd be as well showing children a series of the flintstones and telling them it is a factually based documentary.
Wiiiiiiillllllmaaaaa
a!!!
Posted by: S.Beaton, St Cyrus on 1:14pm Sun 17 Jun 07
No No and No again. This must not be allowed to go any further. Read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins for enlightenment.
No No and No again. This must not be allowed to go any further. Read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins for enlightenment.
Posted by: Anders Nogiets, Holland on 1:43pm Sun 17 Jun 07
#S.Beaton, St Cyrus on 1:14pm
How dare you - god exists. Here is a' the proof ye need fae the internet:
http://www.godlessge
eks.com/LINKS/GodPro
of.htm
#S.Beaton, St Cyrus on 1:14pm
How dare you - god exists. Here is a' the proof ye need fae the internet:
http://www.godlessge
eks.com/LINKS/GodPro
of.htm
Posted by: Marie on 2:06pm Sun 17 Jun 07
What are you people afraid of? All of you sound intolerant and obtuse! Here's an idea: Before you judge ID or any "alternative theory," study it first.
What are you people afraid of? All of you sound intolerant and obtuse! Here's an idea: Before you judge ID or any "alternative theory," study it first.
Posted by: Robert McKinlay on 2:19pm Sun 17 Jun 07
dear Marie (2:06pm)
try reading some of the posts more closely, we have studied these supposed theories - but here's the judgemnet by an American Court from December 2005 on this very issue for you:
"... many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on
every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions".
John E. Jones III
United States District Judge
(United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ, Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School Board).
dear Marie (2:06pm)
try reading some of the posts more closely, we have studied these supposed theories - but here's the judgemnet by an American Court from December 2005 on this very issue for you:
"... many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on
every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions".
John E. Jones III
United States District Judge
(United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ, Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School Board).
Posted by: Anders Nogiets, Holland on 3:42pm Sun 17 Jun 07
#Marie on 2:06pm
Marie,
Exactly my point. Many people have been abducted by aliens but the skeptics are scared to study this properly. Their reports and eye-witness accounts are available for everyone to see. What are youse all feart of?
#Marie on 2:06pm
Marie,
Exactly my point. Many people have been abducted by aliens but the skeptics are scared to study this properly. Their reports and eye-witness accounts are available for everyone to see. What are youse all feart of?
Posted by: Anders Nogiets on 3:48pm Sun 17 Jun 07
#Robert McKinley.
The Americal Court talks about:
"the existence of a supreme being"
Are they qualified to talk about supreme beings; have they ever seen one?
Don't tell me you can't see it, hear it or touch it, you just need faith to believe in it.
And let me guess, if you pray to it, it will win your war for you, knock down the walls of Jerico, find your lost spoon, smote philistines. And after a monsoon, earthquake, tsunami, war, pray to it again for all the people that got killed, smoted, etc.
#Robert McKinley.
The Americal Court talks about:
"the existence of a supreme being"
Are they qualified to talk about supreme beings; have they ever seen one?
Don't tell me you can't see it, hear it or touch it, you just need faith to believe in it.
And let me guess, if you pray to it, it will win your war for you, knock down the walls of Jerico, find your lost spoon, smote philistines. And after a monsoon, earthquake, tsunami, war, pray to it again for all the people that got killed, smoted, etc.
Posted by: Col. Blimp on 4:02pm Sun 17 Jun 07
What was it John McEnroe used to say?
http://www.thebrickt
estament.com/genesis
/garden_of_eden/gn02
_04-06.html
What was it John McEnroe used to say?
http://www.thebrickt
estament.com/genesis
/garden_of_eden/gn02
_04-06.html
Posted by: Desertphile, Earth, Sol System, Milkyway Galexy on 4:10pm Sun 17 Jun 07
I object to the article when it claims there is an "intelliogent design theory:" there is no theory of "intelligent design." Promoters of the ID scam in the USA were unable to produce any such theory when a court judge asked them to. None of the Creationists who promote ID have been able to state what ID theory is.
I object to the article when it claims there is an "intelliogent design theory:" there is no theory of "intelligent design." Promoters of the ID scam in the USA were unable to produce any such theory when a court judge asked them to. None of the Creationists who promote ID have been able to state what ID theory is.
Posted by: Charles Trask, Lutz, FL on 4:29pm Sun 17 Jun 07
Who cares if Scotland has become an atheist hellhole? You had over a thousand years in the light, far longer than most societies; it’s someone else’s turn now. Do you really think Jesus cares if Scotland is added to the list of countries he will conquer when he returns? Who knows or cares if Scotland prefers burning incense to Vladimir Lenin or John Lennon, rather than Jesus? Who cares if this group of sophisticated atheist materialist intellectuals currently controlling the sciences ridicules and ruin as superstitious fools anyone who believes anything supernatural is real, including intelligent design? Who cares if the atheist materialists’ are genuine scientists or are they part of the despair subculture that are street gangs with spray paint defacing the sciences like they have vandalized every other part of our culture? Who cares if atheist materialists taking control of sciences developed by deeply religious people and forcing everyone to deny credit to their true source, and give undeserved credit to atheist materialists as the only ones who could possibly understand science and who are the true protectors of the sciences? Who cares if none of the scientists who made significant scientific advancements in the history of the world, who were atheist materialists, including Darwin? Who cares if scientific advancement becomes impossible due to people who have an atheist materialist world view? Who cares if the skepticism of the atheist materialist world view suppresses everyone’s creativity? Who cares if your boys would rather put a gun in their mouths than endure the mind numbing lies of atheist materialists attempting to explain everything in the world without reference to God and traditional religion?
Who cares if Scotland has become an atheist hellhole? You had over a thousand years in the light, far longer than most societies; it’s someone else’s turn now. Do you really think Jesus cares if Scotland is added to the list of countries he will conquer when he returns? Who knows or cares if Scotland prefers burning incense to Vladimir Lenin or John Lennon, rather than Jesus? Who cares if this group of sophisticated atheist materialist intellectuals currently controlling the sciences ridicules and ruin as superstitious fools anyone who believes anything supernatural is real, including intelligent design? Who cares if the atheist materialists’ are genuine scientists or are they part of the despair subculture that are street gangs with spray paint defacing the sciences like they have vandalized every other part of our culture? Who cares if atheist materialists taking control of sciences developed by deeply religious people and forcing everyone to deny credit to their true source, and give undeserved credit to atheist materialists as the only ones who could possibly understand science and who are the true protectors of the sciences? Who cares if none of the scientists who made significant scientific advancements in the history of the world, who were atheist materialists, including Darwin? Who cares if scientific advancement becomes impossible due to people who have an atheist materialist world view? Who cares if the skepticism of the atheist materialist world view suppresses everyone’s creativity? Who cares if your boys would rather put a gun in their mouths than endure the mind numbing lies of atheist materialists attempting to explain everything in the world without reference to God and traditional religion?
Posted by: Col. Blimp on 4:35pm Sun 17 Jun 07
Conclusive PROOF that Global Warming Theory is a load of Tripe -
Genesis 9:8-11 God signed a contract with Noah promising that he would never destroy the earth with a flood ever again.
Conclusive PROOF that Global Warming Theory is a load of Tripe -
Genesis 9:8-11 God signed a contract with Noah promising that he would never destroy the earth with a flood ever again.
Posted by: Anders Nogiets, Holland on 4:40pm Sun 17 Jun 07
Chrismas:1924 by Thomas Hardy
"Peace upon earth!" was said. We
sing it,
And pay a million priests to bring it.
After two thousand years of mass
We've got as far as poison gas.
Chrismas:1924 by Thomas Hardy
"Peace upon earth!" was said. We
sing it,
And pay a million priests to bring it.
After two thousand years of mass
We've got as far as poison gas.
Posted by: Col. Blimp on 4:51pm Sun 17 Jun 07
#Anders Nogiets, Holland
Do you think that Charles Trask would like to smite us? and how do you think that Jesus "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" Christ would feel about that?
#Anders Nogiets, Holland
Do you think that Charles Trask would like to smite us? and how do you think that Jesus "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" Christ would feel about that?
Posted by: Anders Nogiets, Holland on 5:13pm Sun 17 Jun 07
Col. Blimp
Who cares if all these well-paid US preachers make a fortune from their congregations? Who cares if these rich preachers get caught having affairs? Who cares if these preaching parasites prey on the sick while praying for them?
I think I'd rather get smoted than prayed for by that lot!
Col. Blimp
Who cares if all these well-paid US preachers make a fortune from their congregations? Who cares if these rich preachers get caught having affairs? Who cares if these preaching parasites prey on the sick while praying for them?
I think I'd rather get smoted than prayed for by that lot!
Posted by: Im not here on 5:22pm Sun 17 Jun 07
I'm a creationist and a scientist. Is see ID as just another sop to evolutionists. I have to laugh at a some posters who believe that Evolution is science-backed. They start off with the assumption that Evolution is true, and then go out and make observations based upon that assumption, and then declare Evolution is true. If you look for something you will find it.
Evolution means change. Micro-evolution is self evident in you and your children, but I believe the only way a CAT can become a DOG is if you are a very bad speller.
Evolution is the faith of Humanists.
Creation is the faith of Christians.
I bet some of you didn't realise you were in a religious sect called Evolutionists!!!
All that is feared and criticised in faith based teaching, is in fact performed by the Humanist Sect, under the guise of Science, in particularly intolerance to anything other than their viewpoint.
I'm a creationist and a scientist. Is see ID as just another sop to evolutionists. I have to laugh at a some posters who believe that Evolution is science-backed. They start off with the assumption that Evolution is true, and then go out and make observations based upon that assumption, and then declare Evolution is true. If you look for something you will find it.
Evolution means change. Micro-evolution is self evident in you and your children, but I believe the only way a CAT can become a DOG is if you are a very bad speller.
Evolution is the faith of Humanists.
Creation is the faith of Christians.
I bet some of you didn't realise you were in a religious sect called Evolutionists!!!
All that is feared and criticised in faith based teaching, is in fact performed by the Humanist Sect, under the guise of Science, in particularly intolerance to anything other than their viewpoint.
Posted by: Al, Paisley on 5:26pm Sun 17 Jun 07
41% ? Doesn't look like that from the comments so far.Maybe everyone's too busy at church. I for one would rather educate my child at home than waste her time on anything not based on evidence. There is a time and place for fairy stories but not in a science class.
41% ? Doesn't look like that from the comments so far.Maybe everyone's too busy at church. I for one would rather educate my child at home than waste her time on anything not based on evidence. There is a time and place for fairy stories but not in a science class.
Posted by: jacquesmac, france on 7:46pm Sun 17 Jun 07
Re I'm not here
Was that an existentialist statement or a cry of despair!
You certainly are no Scientist or are a superb wine-up merchant.
Evolution does not just mean change, except in its literal sense, like language or popularity in different musical styles or even fashion.
Biological evolution is the progressive change in dominant gene pools or alleles that leads to demonstrable differences in organisms that will permit them to be advantaged in their environment
Yes, this is a testable,demonstrabl
e and verifiable hypothesuis which can be repeated and then becomes a theory
.
The graduallly unfurling of the DNA map demonstates and underpins this theory and to say that a DOG can become a CAT or vice versa betrays a lack of understanding of basic biology nevermind genetics.
Somewhere in our common evolution past there were animals that would have evolved separately into what became dogs and cats.
That argument of CAT and DOG is only one logic step from saying that monkeys apes and humans are not similar. I thought that canard had been put to death a long time ago.
Evolution is a process that goes back millions of years and one of the tricks of Creationists is to deny the time frame and thus evolution is so complex that it could never have happened in their self determined timeframe without divine intervention. In other words our human ancestors were running about on this Earth with Dinosaurs--they deny Carbon dating on that one.
WE have within our genetic makeup distinct pools of bacterial DNA so how did that get there?
Does GOD do Genetic Engineering?
Faith is an untestable hypothesis so keep it where it belongs, in the navel gazing context.
Science is the rigorus testing of hypotheses to ascertain the validity of the same.
They are not the same.
Keep your faith where it belongs, with the fairy stories and don't try to impose your superstitions and their repressive consequences on us again.
Re I'm not here
Was that an existentialist statement or a cry of despair!
You certainly are no Scientist or are a superb wine-up merchant.
Evolution does not just mean change, except in its literal sense, like language or popularity in different musical styles or even fashion.
Biological evolution is the progressive change in dominant gene pools or alleles that leads to demonstrable differences in organisms that will permit them to be advantaged in their environment
Yes, this is a testable,demonstrabl
e and verifiable hypothesuis which can be repeated and then becomes a theory
.
The graduallly unfurling of the DNA map demonstates and underpins this theory and to say that a DOG can become a CAT or vice versa betrays a lack of understanding of basic biology nevermind genetics.
Somewhere in our common evolution past there were animals that would have evolved separately into what became dogs and cats.
That argument of CAT and DOG is only one logic step from saying that monkeys apes and humans are not similar. I thought that canard had been put to death a long time ago.
Evolution is a process that goes back millions of years and one of the tricks of Creationists is to deny the time frame and thus evolution is so complex that it could never have happened in their self determined timeframe without divine intervention. In other words our human ancestors were running about on this Earth with Dinosaurs--they deny Carbon dating on that one.
WE have within our genetic makeup distinct pools of bacterial DNA so how did that get there?
Does GOD do Genetic Engineering?
Faith is an untestable hypothesis so keep it where it belongs, in the navel gazing context.
Science is the rigorus testing of hypotheses to ascertain the validity of the same.
They are not the same.
Keep your faith where it belongs, with the fairy stories and don't try to impose your superstitions and their repressive consequences on us again.
Posted by: Wiliam Bradford, USA on 7:46pm Sun 17 Jun 07
[quote]“So long as the universe has a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning or end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"[/quote]
The better question is what place then for causality? If the universe is just presumed to be then we have ceased looking for a causal chain of events. How does the assertion that the universe just is so accept it in any way informative? Hawking is indicating a personal point of view rather than one grounded in empirical evidence.
“So long as the universe has a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning or end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"
The better question is what place then for causality? If the universe is just presumed to be then we have ceased looking for a causal chain of events. How does the assertion that the universe just is so accept it in any way informative? Hawking is indicating a personal point of view rather than one grounded in empirical evidence.
Posted by: wee folding bike on 7:52pm Sun 17 Jun 07
Im not here,
Straw man argument. Nobody claims a cat can become a dog.
Where is your evidence for creation?
Im not here,
Straw man argument. Nobody claims a cat can become a dog.
Where is your evidence for creation?
Posted by: jacquesmac, france on 7:56pm Sun 17 Jun 07
Causality is genetic randomness, something we can see happening in front of our very eyes, under a microscope anyway, with respect to single cell organisms like bacteria and yeast.
In a beer fermentationup to 25% of all the yeast cells will display random genetic changes, the vaste majority of which do not survive. The one that do, if they can dominate will evolve into different strains.
Thus from one basic lager yeast strain, all the different stains used by the different breweries came to be.
Causality is genetic randomness, something we can see happening in front of our very eyes, under a microscope anyway, with respect to single cell organisms like bacteria and yeast.
In a beer fermentationup to 25% of all the yeast cells will display random genetic changes, the vaste majority of which do not survive. The one that do, if they can dominate will evolve into different strains.
Thus from one basic lager yeast strain, all the different stains used by the different breweries came to be.
Posted by: uksceptic, Edinburgh on 8:04pm Sun 17 Jun 07
For the sake of argument, let us assume that we have two boxes, one marked "ID/creationism" and the other marked "evolution". Then, let those who are qualified to do so, place all of the evidence, study and research of these two subjects into the appropriate boxes. I know which one would be overflowing while the other was all but vacant.
"Im not here" talks about evolution as the "faith" of the humanists - a frankly ignorant and retarded statement. Evolution was devised by a christian, based on his investigations, his [italic]science[/italic] . Surely if he had evidence of a creation, then his evidence would point to that. So-called "microevolution" [bold]is[/bold] evolution, you dolt. Evolution is small changes in populations over time, microevolution is small changes in populations over a [italic]small[/italic] time. To say that one is not the other is to say that you know absolutely nothing about the mechanisms of evolution. What's your precise area of study? I bet a pound to a penny that it's not one of the bio-sciences.
I say, all you ID/creationist types, if you have evidence for your designer, then bring it. Put it where we can all see it, we can all investigate it, we can all study and examine it. Then, and only then, should it even be considered for teaching in schools.
As added incentives, there's surely a Nobel prize in it, and the Templeton foundation would wet themselves for an opportunity to give you money.
If you want to see a cat turn into a dog, get your designer to do it. I'm sure there are plenty of us who would applaud such a feat of absolute amazingness. Saying that, I've never seen clay turn into a person, or an animal to be created out of thin air, or a man die, become alive again three days later and then fly into the sky...
For the sake of argument, let us assume that we have two boxes, one marked "ID/creationism" and the other marked "evolution". Then, let those who are qualified to do so, place all of the evidence, study and research of these two subjects into the appropriate boxes. I know which one would be overflowing while the other was all but vacant.
"Im not here" talks about evolution as the "faith" of the humanists - a frankly ignorant and retarded statement. Evolution was devised by a christian, based on his investigations, his
science . Surely if he had evidence of a creation, then his evidence would point to that. So-called "microevolution"
is evolution, you dolt. Evolution is small changes in populations over time, microevolution is small changes in populations over a
small time. To say that one is not the other is to say that you know absolutely nothing about the mechanisms of evolution. What's your precise area of study? I bet a pound to a penny that it's not one of the bio-sciences.
I say, all you ID/creationist types, if you have evidence for your designer, then bring it. Put it where we can all see it, we can all investigate it, we can all study and examine it. Then, and only then, should it even be considered for teaching in schools.
As added incentives, there's surely a Nobel prize in it, and the Templeton foundation would wet themselves for an opportunity to give you money.
If you want to see a cat turn into a dog, get your designer to do it. I'm sure there are plenty of us who would applaud such a feat of absolute amazingness. Saying that, I've never seen clay turn into a person, or an animal to be created out of thin air, or a man die, become alive again three days later and then fly into the sky...
Posted by: Dougthedug on 8:04pm Sun 17 Jun 07
[quote]A spokesman for the SQA said: "It happens to sit in RMPS just now. If and when it does becomes part of the curriculum for science, which it may well do as part of this review, then that's where it could sit."[/quote]
I hope this is a joke because, "Intelligent Design", is creationism. I never thought that there would be serious thought in Scotland to teaching it as "scientific" theory.
What next? Homeopathy, crystals and Feng shui as valid science?
Any questions on biological design and evolution will be answered by ID missionaries as, "because that's the way God made it."
Anyone from the SQA proposing ID is taught as a genuine theory within science should be fired immediately as scientifically illiterate and a danger to inquiring minds.
A spokesman for the SQA said: "It happens to sit in RMPS just now. If and when it does becomes part of the curriculum for science, which it may well do as part of this review, then that's where it could sit."
I hope this is a joke because, "Intelligent Design", is creationism. I never thought that there would be serious thought in Scotland to teaching it as "scientific" theory.
What next? Homeopathy, crystals and Feng shui as valid science?
Any questions on biological design and evolution will be answered by ID missionaries as, "because that's the way God made it."
Anyone from the SQA proposing ID is taught as a genuine theory within science should be fired immediately as scientifically illiterate and a danger to inquiring minds.
Posted by: Anne, Glasgow on 8:49pm Sun 17 Jun 07
Thank you M77. I thought i was the only one who noticed that the Theory of Evolution is taught/broadcast as if it is a fact. I think children should be open to all information, including Intelligent Design and then they can freely make up their minds. Evolution has sadly become a dogma and needs to be challenged. I was taught it in 2nd year Occupational Therapy degree course and was baffled as to why it had any relevance. I listened to the guy's evolution arguement but I saw too many holes to believe it.
Thank you M77. I thought i was the only one who noticed that the Theory of Evolution is taught/broadcast as if it is a fact. I think children should be open to all information, including Intelligent Design and then they can freely make up their minds. Evolution has sadly become a dogma and needs to be challenged. I was taught it in 2nd year Occupational Therapy degree course and was baffled as to why it had any relevance. I listened to the guy's evolution arguement but I saw too many holes to believe it.
Posted by: wee folding bike on 8:55pm Sun 17 Jun 07
Anne,
Would you also allow them to be taught about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
It has the same level of proof as that found in ID.
By all means challenge evolution, it is easily falsifiable. ID is not.
Anne,
Would you also allow them to be taught about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
It has the same level of proof as that found in ID.
By all means challenge evolution, it is easily falsifiable. ID is not.
Posted by: John on 9:16pm Sun 17 Jun 07
When Intelligent Design can produce profitable results, be falsifiable, and be testable, like evolutionary biology, then it can go into the science classroom. Creationism can have the churches, but I'll be damned if they get schools. If this is about teaching 'both sides,' then why don't religious people let scientists come and teach evolution at their churches?
When Intelligent Design can produce profitable results, be falsifiable, and be testable, like evolutionary biology, then it can go into the science classroom. Creationism can have the churches, but I'll be damned if they get schools. If this is about teaching 'both sides,' then why don't religious people let scientists come and teach evolution at their churches?
Posted by: Anders Nogiets, Holland on 9:21pm Sun 17 Jun 07
Anne,
You said:
"Evolution has sadly become a dogma".
Not possible. Evolution is a scientific hypothesis, there to be disproven. Use every test you can to disprove it. The more tests that don't disprove it the closer it comes to acceptance by scientists. At present, the evidence supports evolution by natural selection as a mechanism that has resulted in the present biological order.
Anne,
You said:
"Evolution has sadly become a dogma".
Not possible. Evolution is a scientific hypothesis, there to be disproven. Use every test you can to disprove it. The more tests that don't disprove it the closer it comes to acceptance by scientists. At present, the evidence supports evolution by natural selection as a mechanism that has resulted in the present biological order.
Posted by: uksceptic, Edinburgh on 9:32pm Sun 17 Jun 07
Anne:
evolution [bold]is[/bold] a fact, Darwin's (scientific) theory, and the 150 years of experimentation, research and attempts to falsify it thereafter is the explanation of that fact.
Saying that, the entire ID curriculum could be fitted into the first break between lessons. "God did it", or if you're not of a theistic bent "An unknown and unknowable designer did it". The shortest course in educational history.
Anne:
evolution
is a fact, Darwin's (scientific) theory, and the 150 years of experimentation, research and attempts to falsify it thereafter is the explanation of that fact.
Saying that, the entire ID curriculum could be fitted into the first break between lessons. "God did it", or if you're not of a theistic bent "An unknown and unknowable designer did it". The shortest course in educational history.
Posted by: Kathy Blocki on 10:47pm Sun 17 Jun 07
Has anyone who has commented negatively about ID, actually read even one of the books written by scholarly (ID) scientists. One should not comment blindly without having investigated the facts. This is not thinking logically, but reacting to the unknown.
I would love to here which books and research have been read. I challenge those commenting to get educated on both sides of the issue by reading primary sources.
Has anyone who has commented negatively about ID, actually read even one of the books written by scholarly (ID) scientists. One should not comment blindly without having investigated the facts. This is not thinking logically, but reacting to the unknown.
I would love to here which books and research have been read. I challenge those commenting to get educated on both sides of the issue by reading primary sources.
Posted by: wee folding bike on 11:02pm Sun 17 Jun 07
Kathy,
Enlighten us. Bring us evidence of ID.
Kathy,
Enlighten us. Bring us evidence of ID.
Posted by: BM, Glasgow on 11:13pm Sun 17 Jun 07
Has Tony Bliar's simian master in Washington ordered his pupet that this be taught in UK schools?
Has Tony Bliar's simian master in Washington ordered his pupet that this be taught in UK schools?
Posted by: Sara on 11:20pm Sun 17 Jun 07
wee folding bike 11.02
Good point. I have just read through all of these postings and I can see nothing which demonstrates the validity of Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. In scientific terms it is in my opinion simply garbage and will remain so until I am persuaded otherwise. Kathy, I too would like to see some arguments in favour of Intelligent Design as a credible scientific theory.
wee folding bike 11.02
Good point. I have just read through all of these postings and I can see nothing which demonstrates the validity of Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. In scientific terms it is in my opinion simply garbage and will remain so until I am persuaded otherwise. Kathy, I too would like to see some arguments in favour of Intelligent Design as a credible scientific theory.
Posted by: M77, Glasgow on 11:36pm Sun 17 Jun 07
I think the tone of many of the postings proves my point about intolerance!
I think the tone of many of the postings proves my point about intolerance!
Posted by: Dougthedug on 11:58pm Sun 17 Jun 07
Anne:
"Evolution has sadly become a dogma and needs to be challenged."
Fair enough, scientists should always question everything. If you can come up with a theory better than evolution which fits the fossil and DNA evidence which doesn't rely on the ID catch all religious answer of, "God made it", you'll get the Nobel prize.
Kathy Blocki:
"Has anyone who has commented negatively about ID, actually read even one of the books written by scholarly (ID) scientists."
Nope, but I've followed the intelligent design debate in the States very closely. The whole of ID theory boils down to, "God made it". There is no, "both sides of the issue", this is constant propaganda from ID proponents who try and push ID as a valid scientific theory and as a rival to evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory backed by fossil and DNA evidence which explains how life evolved on earth. ID is a religious description of how life appeared and diversified on earth. It boils down to, "God made it".
There is no scientific "debate" or "argument" between ID and evolution unless you read ID press releases. ID is religion. Evolution is science. If the SQA are actually looking at ID as science they are very, very, stupid.
Anne:
"Evolution has sadly become a dogma and needs to be challenged."
Fair enough, scientists should always question everything. If you can come up with a theory better than evolution which fits the fossil and DNA evidence which doesn't rely on the ID catch all religious answer of, "God made it", you'll get the Nobel prize.
Kathy Blocki:
"Has anyone who has commented negatively about ID, actually read even one of the books written by scholarly (ID) scientists."
Nope, but I've followed the intelligent design debate in the States very closely. The whole of ID theory boils down to, "God made it". There is no, "both sides of the issue", this is constant propaganda from ID proponents who try and push ID as a valid scientific theory and as a rival to evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory backed by fossil and DNA evidence which explains how life evolved on earth. ID is a religious description of how life appeared and diversified on earth. It boils down to, "God made it".
There is no scientific "debate" or "argument" between ID and evolution unless you read ID press releases. ID is religion. Evolution is science. If the SQA are actually looking at ID as science they are very, very, stupid.
Posted by: wee folding bike on 11:58pm Sun 17 Jun 07
M77,
Present your evidence for ID. Prove that point not intolerance.
M77,
Present your evidence for ID. Prove that point not intolerance.
Posted by: Shaun, Northern Ireland on 12:05am Mon 18 Jun 07
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
By John Rennie : As published by as published Scientific American July 2002
WARNING DO NOT READ THE THE FOLLOWING LINK UNLESS YOU ARE PREPARED TO BE CHALLENGED AND THINK FOR YOURSELF.
A 15 point response http://www.answersin
genesis.org/news/sci
entific_american.asp
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
By John Rennie : As published by as published Scientific American July 2002
WARNING DO NOT READ THE THE FOLLOWING LINK UNLESS YOU ARE PREPARED TO BE CHALLENGED AND THINK FOR YOURSELF.
A 15 point response http://www.answersin
genesis.org/news/sci
entific_american.asp
Posted by: Sara on 12:11am Mon 18 Jun 07
M77 - 11.36
I'll have to switch off soon, but could you please present some evidence for Intelligent Design. Without evidence how can you expect any rational person to accept Intelligent Design as something deserving of being taught in schools as science?
M77 - 11.36
I'll have to switch off soon, but could you please present some evidence for Intelligent Design. Without evidence how can you expect any rational person to accept Intelligent Design as something deserving of being taught in schools as science?
Posted by: Charles Trask, Lutz, FL on 12:56am Mon 18 Jun 07
Here is your proof and your problem. You are attempting to make science absolute. You refuse to believe there is a God until it is proven to you in a scientific materialistic manner. God said he commanded the creation and other created spirit beings carried it out and maintain it, except for humans. God took some of the dust in his hand and formed man and the Holy Spirit breathed into it giving it life, a special creation of God. Jesus was born, lived, died and arose again witnessed and documented by many people. The Holy Spirit has for two thousand years since, empowered many people to express Christianity in their own cultural forms in every culture in the world, with more people who believe this than any other explanation of our existence. Everywhere in the world you go and every civilization you dig has evidence that interaction with God and the spirits was a significant part of their existence. The nature of this can only be proven in a historical proof not a scientific proof. You can’t scientifically prove that your spouse is your spouse. God has no interest in playing your little game of trying to prove his existence in a test tube. The fact that you are so bothered by God is evidence God exists. Just like the Soviets stripped and suppressed the Russian Orthodox Christians, destroying a thousand year tradition which will never be recovered. Like the Soviets your despair subculture is a post-Christian anti-Christ movement. Your skepticism, your soviet style atheistic materialist science despair subculture, which you are imposing on your children, strips them of their belief in God and traditional Christian religion. This creates in them a deep hunger that they are filling with Harry Potter.
You are making a society in which even you won’t want to live.
- continued from 4:29 pm post:
Here is your proof and your problem. You are attempting to make science absolute. You refuse to believe there is a God until it is proven to you in a scientific materialistic manner. God said he commanded the creation and other created spirit beings carried it out and maintain it, except for humans. God took some of the dust in his hand and formed man and the Holy Spirit breathed into it giving it life, a special creation of God. Jesus was born, lived, died and arose again witnessed and documented by many people. The Holy Spirit has for two thousand years since, empowered many people to express Christianity in their own cultural forms in every culture in the world, with more people who believe this than any other explanation of our existence. Everywhere in the world you go and every civilization you dig has evidence that interaction with God and the spirits was a significant part of their existence. The nature of this can only be proven in a historical proof not a scientific proof. You can’t scientifically prove that your spouse is your spouse. God has no interest in playing your little game of trying to prove his existence in a test tube. The fact that you are so bothered by God is evidence God exists. Just like the Soviets stripped and suppressed the Russian Orthodox Christians, destroying a thousand year tradition which will never be recovered. Like the Soviets your despair subculture is a post-Christian anti-Christ movement. Your skepticism, your soviet style atheistic materialist science despair subculture, which you are imposing on your children, strips them of their belief in God and traditional Christian religion. This creates in them a deep hunger that they are filling with Harry Potter.
You are making a society in which even you won’t want to live.
- continued from 4:29 pm post:
Posted by: Don't Dish Up, Any More Drivel on 1:29am Mon 18 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Charles Trask[/bold] wrote:
Here is your proof and your problem. You are attempting to make science absolute. You refuse to believe there is a God until it is proven to you in a scientific materialistic manner. God said he commanded the creation and other created spirit beings carried it out and maintain it, except for humans. God took some of the dust in his hand and formed man and the Holy Spirit breathed into it giving it life, a special creation of God. Jesus was born, lived, died and arose again witnessed and documented by many people. The Holy Spirit has for two thousand years since, empowered many people to express Christianity in their own cultural forms in every culture in the world, with more people who believe this than any other explanation of our existence. Everywhere in the world you go and every civilization you dig has evidence that interaction with God and the spirits was a significant part of their existence. The nature of this can only be proven in a historical proof not a scientific proof. You can’t scientifically prove that your spouse is your spouse. God has no interest in playing your little game of trying to prove his existence in a test tube. The fact that you are so bothered by God is evidence God exists. Just like the Soviets stripped and suppressed the Russian Orthodox Christians, destroying a thousand year tradition which will never be recovered. Like the Soviets your despair subculture is a post-Christian anti-Christ movement. Your skepticism, your soviet style atheistic materialist science despair subculture, which you are imposing on your children, strips them of their belief in God and traditional Christian religion. This creates in them a deep hunger that they are filling with Harry Potter. You are making a society in which even you won’t want to live. - continued from 4:29 pm post: [/quote] Charles
You Sir are a total mindless, blinkered nutter.
The ramblings of a zealot are far from likely to persuade those you condemn, and you will need to accept that there are millions of us who see NO REASON WHATEVER to believe in the god that you do, or indeed any god.
For example, do you believe in the literal truth of ALL the bible writings??? (There's an all too-long list of things on which I'd take you to task there).
If there is a god, and we all need to be saved etc...what happens to the billions of souls of those who lived before christ? What happens to those who have never been exposed to ANY reading of the bible? What happens to those who can't understand the message, as opposed to those who simply deny it? Does your universal god have jurisdiction over every planet?...anywhere in the universe? Has life on these planets been exposed to your idea of religion and godliness? Were these aliens (if there are any)saved by the son of god etc?.
If you'd been born and raised all your life as a New Guinea head-hunting cannibal unable to read, write or meet missionaries (presumably before eating them), would you/could you go to heaven?
The point Sir is that there are so many ways in which even the most willing and level-headed people are entitled to be sceptical of your religion (why yours and no-one elses?) and you need to do better than invoke the wrath of the deity upon us if you are not yourself to appear as anything more than a snake oil salesman from the dark ages.
Go away and construct your argument more fully than this superstitious drivel you send us from the god loving mass murderers of the Iraqi people !!
Charles Trask wrote:
Here is your proof and your problem. You are attempting to make science absolute. You refuse to believe there is a God until it is proven to you in a scientific materialistic manner. God said he commanded the creation and other created spirit beings carried it out and maintain it, except for humans. God took some of the dust in his hand and formed man and the Holy Spirit breathed into it giving it life, a special creation of God. Jesus was born, lived, died and arose again witnessed and documented by many people. The Holy Spirit has for two thousand years since, empowered many people to express Christianity in their own cultural forms in every culture in the world, with more people who believe this than any other explanation of our existence. Everywhere in the world you go and every civilization you dig has evidence that interaction with God and the spirits was a significant part of their existence. The nature of this can only be proven in a historical proof not a scientific proof. You can’t scientifically prove that your spouse is your spouse. God has no interest in playing your little game of trying to prove his existence in a test tube. The fact that you are so bothered by God is evidence God exists. Just like the Soviets stripped and suppressed the Russian Orthodox Christians, destroying a thousand year tradition which will never be recovered. Like the Soviets your despair subculture is a post-Christian anti-Christ movement. Your skepticism, your soviet style atheistic materialist science despair subculture, which you are imposing on your children, strips them of their belief in God and traditional Christian religion. This creates in them a deep hunger that they are filling with Harry Potter. You are making a society in which even you won’t want to live. - continued from 4:29 pm post:
Charles
You Sir are a total mindless, blinkered nutter.
The ramblings of a zealot are far from likely to persuade those you condemn, and you will need to accept that there are millions of us who see NO REASON WHATEVER to believe in the god that you do, or indeed any god.
For example, do you believe in the literal truth of ALL the bible writings??? (There's an all too-long list of things on which I'd take you to task there).
If there is a god, and we all need to be saved etc...what happens to the billions of souls of those who lived before christ? What happens to those who have never been exposed to ANY reading of the bible? What happens to those who can't understand the message, as opposed to those who simply deny it? Does your universal god have jurisdiction over every planet?...anywhere in the universe? Has life on these planets been exposed to your idea of religion and godliness? Were these aliens (if there are any)saved by the son of god etc?.
If you'd been born and raised all your life as a New Guinea head-hunting cannibal unable to read, write or meet missionaries (presumably before eating them), would you/could you go to heaven?
The point Sir is that there are so many ways in which even the most willing and level-headed people are entitled to be sceptical of your religion (why yours and no-one elses?) and you need to do better than invoke the wrath of the deity upon us if you are not yourself to appear as anything more than a snake oil salesman from the dark ages.
Go away and construct your argument more fully than this superstitious drivel you send us from the god loving mass murderers of the Iraqi people !!
Posted by: Don't Dish Up, Any More Drivel on 1:41am Mon 18 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Charles Trask[/bold] wrote:
Who cares if Scotland has become an atheist hellhole? You had over a thousand years in the light, far longer than most societies; it’s someone else’s turn now. Do you really think Jesus cares if Scotland is added to the list of countries he will conquer when he returns? Who knows or cares if Scotland prefers burning incense to Vladimir Lenin or John Lennon, rather than Jesus? Who cares if this group of sophisticated atheist materialist intellectuals currently controlling the sciences ridicules and ruin as superstitious fools anyone who believes anything supernatural is real, including intelligent design? Who cares if the atheist materialists’ are genuine scientists or are they part of the despair subculture that are street gangs with spray paint defacing the sciences like they have vandalized every other part of our culture? Who cares if atheist materialists taking control of sciences developed by deeply religious people and forcing everyone to deny credit to their true source, and give undeserved credit to atheist materialists as the only ones who could possibly understand science and who are the true protectors of the sciences? Who cares if none of the scientists who made significant scientific advancements in the history of the world, who were atheist materialists, including Darwin? Who cares if scientific advancement becomes impossible due to people who have an atheist materialist world view? Who cares if the skepticism of the atheist materialist world view suppresses everyone’s creativity? Who cares if your boys would rather put a gun in their mouths than endure the mind numbing lies of atheist materialists attempting to explain everything in the world without reference to God and traditional religion? [/quote] This is even weirder drivel Sir than your other ramblings.
You ask lots of questions, but offer no answers....and what about the christian god being an all loving, all forgiving god? That being the case, aren't we as likely to get salvation as you NeoCons who hang on every literal word?....(e.g.DOES the water and wine REALLY change into the flesh and the blood..literally??..
.does it?).
Does Jesus really "not care if Scotland (the atheist hellhole as you describe it) is added to the list of countries....(he recognises state borders then does he?)...he will conquer when he returns"?...what happened to gods eternal love etc?.
Sir...GO AWAY..you are an embarrassment both to yourself, your nation, and tyour version of god...Seek medical help...do it now!
Charles Trask wrote:
Who cares if Scotland has become an atheist hellhole? You had over a thousand years in the light, far longer than most societies; it’s someone else’s turn now. Do you really think Jesus cares if Scotland is added to the list of countries he will conquer when he returns? Who knows or cares if Scotland prefers burning incense to Vladimir Lenin or John Lennon, rather than Jesus? Who cares if this group of sophisticated atheist materialist intellectuals currently controlling the sciences ridicules and ruin as superstitious fools anyone who believes anything supernatural is real, including intelligent design? Who cares if the atheist materialists’ are genuine scientists or are they part of the despair subculture that are street gangs with spray paint defacing the sciences like they have vandalized every other part of our culture? Who cares if atheist materialists taking control of sciences developed by deeply religious people and forcing everyone to deny credit to their true source, and give undeserved credit to atheist materialists as the only ones who could possibly understand science and who are the true protectors of the sciences? Who cares if none of the scientists who made significant scientific advancements in the history of the world, who were atheist materialists, including Darwin? Who cares if scientific advancement becomes impossible due to people who have an atheist materialist world view? Who cares if the skepticism of the atheist materialist world view suppresses everyone’s creativity? Who cares if your boys would rather put a gun in their mouths than endure the mind numbing lies of atheist materialists attempting to explain everything in the world without reference to God and traditional religion?
This is even weirder drivel Sir than your other ramblings.
You ask lots of questions, but offer no answers....and what about the christian god being an all loving, all forgiving god? That being the case, aren't we as likely to get salvation as you NeoCons who hang on every literal word?....(e.g.DOES the water and wine REALLY change into the flesh and the blood..literally??..
.does it?).
Does Jesus really "not care if Scotland (the atheist hellhole as you describe it) is added to the list of countries....(he recognises state borders then does he?)...he will conquer when he returns"?...what happened to gods eternal love etc?.
Sir...GO AWAY..you are an embarrassment both to yourself, your nation, and tyour version of god...Seek medical help...do it now!
Posted by: Rab The Man, WAS MY UNCLE on 1:55am Mon 18 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Anders Nogiets[/bold] wrote:
#Marie on 2:06pm Marie, Exactly my point. Many people have been abducted by aliens but the skeptics are scared to study this properly. Their reports and eye-witness accounts are available for everyone to see. What are youse all feart of?[/quote] Whit we are all feart of Sir....is being stuck in a lift wi' you over a bank-holiday...that scares me more than any (other) alien !!
Gerralife Anders .... or see a quack ....right away....don't mess about !!
Anders Nogiets wrote:
#Marie on 2:06pm Marie, Exactly my point. Many people have been abducted by aliens but the skeptics are scared to study this properly. Their reports and eye-witness accounts are available for everyone to see. What are youse all feart of?
Whit we are all feart of Sir....is being stuck in a lift wi' you over a bank-holiday...that scares me more than any (other) alien !!
Gerralife Anders .... or see a quack ....right away....don't mess about !!
Posted by: Kathy Blocki on 2:38am Mon 18 Jun 07
If you want to begin a balanced and fair study, begin with Michael Behe's book entitled, "Darwin's Black Box." His discussion on irreducible complexity is worth a read.
If you want to begin a balanced and fair study, begin with Michael Behe's book entitled, "Darwin's Black Box." His discussion on irreducible complexity is worth a read.
Posted by: uksceptic, Edinburgh on 2:53am Mon 18 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Kathy Blocki[/bold] wrote:
If you want to begin a balanced and fair study, begin with Michael Behe's book entitled, "Darwin's Black Box." His discussion on irreducible complexity is worth a read. [/quote] What? So that's it? The entirety of ID "theory"? That a biological organism cannot be reverse-engineered to produce something useful? It hardly seems like something that should be taught in schools, does it?
Some questions for ID proponents:
1) Who and where is the designer?
2) Where are designs produced/where's the factory?
3) How are designed enacted into reality?
4) What tools does the designer use to produce both design or finished product?
5) Why has the designed chosen to design to produce organisms to self-replicate ineffiently, rather than mass-produce identical organisms from a central design?
6) How can we contact the designer to ask for upgrades?
7) Why has the designer apparently stopped producing new designs of organisms?
8) Are humans the apex of the ability of the designer to design?
9) Why did the designer make most of the environment inhospitable to our kind of life?
10) Why are the most powerful land mammals ever created now extinct?
11) Why did the designer design most mammals to breath and eat through a single passage?
12) Why did the designer create reproductive facilities so close to waste facilities?
13) Why did the designer require animals to eat?
14) Why did the designer require some animals to eat other animals?
15) Why did the designer require animals to breathe?
16) Why did the designer make bacteria the most prolific organism on the planet?
17) Why did the designer design bacteria at all?
18) Why design any life at all?
There are just a few questions to be getting on with. I have hundreds more. Any evidence whatsoever to support answers to any of those questions is more than welcome.
Kathy Blocki wrote:
If you want to begin a balanced and fair study, begin with Michael Behe's book entitled, "Darwin's Black Box." His discussion on irreducible complexity is worth a read.
What? So that's it? The entirety of ID "theory"? That a biological organism cannot be reverse-engineered to produce something useful? It hardly seems like something that should be taught in schools, does it?
Some questions for ID proponents:
1) Who and where is the designer?
2) Where are designs produced/where's the factory?
3) How are designed enacted into reality?
4) What tools does the designer use to produce both design or finished product?
5) Why has the designed chosen to design to produce organisms to self-replicate ineffiently, rather than mass-produce identical organisms from a central design?
6) How can we contact the designer to ask for upgrades?
7) Why has the designer apparently stopped producing new designs of organisms?
8) Are humans the apex of the ability of the designer to design?
9) Why did the designer make most of the environment inhospitable to our kind of life?
10) Why are the most powerful land mammals ever created now extinct?
11) Why did the designer design most mammals to breath and eat through a single passage?
12) Why did the designer create reproductive facilities so close to waste facilities?
13) Why did the designer require animals to eat?
14) Why did the designer require some animals to eat other animals?
15) Why did the designer require animals to breathe?
16) Why did the designer make bacteria the most prolific organism on the planet?
17) Why did the designer design bacteria at all?
18) Why design any life at all?
There are just a few questions to be getting on with. I have hundreds more. Any evidence whatsoever to support answers to any of those questions is more than welcome.
Posted by: uksceptic, Edinburgh on 3:06am Mon 18 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Charles Trask[/bold] wrote:
Here is your proof and your problem. You are attempting to make science absolute. You refuse to believe there is a God until it is proven to you in a scientific materialistic manner. God said he commanded the creation and other created spirit beings carried it out and maintain it, except for humans. God took some of the dust in his hand and formed man and the Holy Spirit breathed into it giving it life, a special creation of God. Jesus was born, lived, died and arose again witnessed and documented by many people. The Holy Spirit has for two thousand years since, empowered many people to express Christianity in their own cultural forms in every culture in the world, with more people who believe this than any other explanation of our existence. Everywhere in the world you go and every civilization you dig has evidence that interaction with God and the spirits was a significant part of their existence. The nature of this can only be proven in a historical proof not a scientific proof. You can’t scientifically prove that your spouse is your spouse. God has no interest in playing your little game of trying to prove his existence in a test tube. The fact that you are so bothered by God is evidence God exists. Just like the Soviets stripped and suppressed the Russian Orthodox Christians, destroying a thousand year tradition which will never be recovered. Like the Soviets your despair subculture is a post-Christian anti-Christ movement. Your skepticism, your soviet style atheistic materialist science despair subculture, which you are imposing on your children, strips them of their belief in God and traditional Christian religion. This creates in them a deep hunger that they are filling with Harry Potter.
You are making a society in which even you won’t want to live.
- continued from 4:29 pm post:
[/quote] Prov
Comment | Read Comments (222)
