Inteligent Design

[stan]

Archaeologist wrote:

stan-- i think that many scientists and geologist try to be honest and thorough in their work yet i feel that by eliminating variables, such as the creation story and the flood , the studies and experiments are not complete and lacking in data, making the conclusions biased and uncredible.

Two points:

1. Science doesn't need religion to do its work. The Bible is literature, a story, and does not constitute scientific evidence, except peripherally. In fact, it obfuscates history and archaeology rather than illuminating them. You claimed no one answered your question: does archeology need the bible? But the answer is almost 100% NO.
Archeology and the study of prehistory and history go on and have done so around the world, most of which was unknown to the early writers of the Bible. So for must the earth and its history, the Bible is useless as an archaeological tool.
(I guess the Bible covers about 1500 years of history or perhaps more, but only the geographical area of the mediterranean and middle east. In that time and place, certainly the Bible has historical value, but only if it can be verified by science and legitimate historical studies.)

Secont Point:
If you do it the other way, assuming the Bible is correct and trying to corroborate it through science, your enterprise is doomed. You end up prostituting science as well as failing to understand that Religion is a FAITH, not requiring scientific proof.

Don't get me wrong. I do not disrespect your faith. I am just attempting to defend science and objective historical study.
As to evolution and the origin of life, I have to agree with you that there is a great deal about them that is unknown and may never be known. But I am not willing to accept the existence of a "supreme being" who planned everything. I can live with the uncertainty.

[Guest]

no arguments from me on realist's and minimalist's points, i would like to see more parent's involved with their student's education.

yet again, science is to be objective but with the requirement that evolution be taught, that objectivity is thrown out the window and a pre-determined conclusion is allowed to alter the facts.

i am not advocating that only i.d. be taught. in fact i disagree with the title i.d. (as it is creation in a bad disguise) as it is an end run by evangelicals and their religious partners which to me is very dishonest.

but i feel that if science classes were given the freedom to explore and follow the facts, it woulod be easier to prove creation than evolution. which brings me back to my initial post and what evolutionists are afraid of.

evolution and its adherents do not provide any real answers while intelligent design allows the questioning to stop and enable one to explore the answers found in science. this is the greatest strength of i.d, it uses both science and the Bible to provide answers that evolution can not even come close to addressing.

stan's point concerning using the Bible is prostituting science is moot as the same can be said if you use evolution only as your guide. i would advocate letting science be truly objective and let the experiments contain all data so the conclusions can be without suspicion.

his other point about the Bible obfuscates history is just wrong. case in point, the hittites. it was not too long ago (maybe 100 years) that most people thought they did not exist and were made up by the Biblical writers. thenthe discovery of their nation. Archaeological finds have never disproven the Bible in fact, they have usually confirmed its record continuously.

so when i ask can there be archaeology without the Bible i believe the answer is no. Why? Because the questions that need to be asked will eventually draw the Bible into the discussion. as an example, the bimini road, how did the people get there? well many theories will pop up but so will the disporia in the Biblical account following the flood. I do not think you can go anywhere in the world and not have the Bible touch on the archaeological discoveries.

[Frank Harrist]

How does the bible affect the archaeology of the Caddo Indians of Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana? I'd say that's archaeology witrhout the bible. I also say that many of your points are just wrong, Arch. There is lots of proof for evolution. Creatures are evolving as we speak. All these hominid fossils that have been found over the years are just nothing? You think they made them up? Science and religion have always.....ALWAYS been at odds with one another and we aren't going to change that here. ID is not science. There are no experiments to prove ID. There is no concrete evidence for ID. There is lots of evidence for evolution. I have no objection to ID being taught in church or even in say a philosophy class, but not as science. It doesn't meet the requirements for a "science". In this country people are obsessed with keeping church and state seperate. A good idea, I think, and since the state funds schools, religion has no place there. Teach what you want in private schools.

[Guest]

The state funds British schools, and religion is taught in them. Better than that, the state funds non-denominational schools AND separate schools for Roman Catholics; that's been the case since at least the 1940s.
There are things taught in non-denom. schools that would never get past the board in an RC school...like evolution, for instance , yet no-one screams that RC schools must either stop it or lose state funding. How's that for 'teaching what you want' without being a private school?
Sorry, but this palaver about Intelligent Design v Evolution seems a uniquely North American obsession. Or maybe the rest of us are just less excitable by nature?

[Frank Harrist]

Our constitution guarantees seperation of church and state. One reason we left England was because it wasn't seperate there. We don't and shouldn't legislate religion. I am not trying to desparage anyone's religion or government. I'm just pointing out the differences. ID is fine for some, but it isn't science. That's my whole point. IT ISN"T SCIENCE.

[stan]

I can't convince you archaeologist...
ok.
Respectfully, I don't think you understand what I am saying.

The existence of the Hittites is such a weak example that only shows how flawed your logic is. I acknowledged in my post that he bible has some historical value, but you seemed to have missed that statement.
In addition, the "truth" of the existence of the Hittites is verified by archaeology, not by the Bible. Furthermore, the fact that there were Hittites mentioned in the Bible does NOTHING TO PROVE THE FUNDAMENTALS OF YOUR faith...the existence of God, his creation of the world, virgin birth, transubstantiation, resurrection, and so on.

I will say no more on this subject.
BEst wishes.

[Guest]

it does prove the reliability, the truthfulness and the credibility of the Biblical record so that those things we can not physically prove can be believed and accepted as accurate and true.

i see it didn't take long for the intolerance and closed-mindedness of the evolutionary side to raise its head. but i won't get into a tit-for-tat argument. you noticed how no one, especially evolutionists, have addressed any of the questions i asked in my original post. this is typical and it frustrates the attempt to have a decent discussion.

i saw the same behavior take place when kansas opened a discussion on the debate when they were trying to decide how to teach it in the classroom. basically every evolutionist said they would not take part which sparks my contention that the evolutionists are afraid of something and it is not the intolerance of the creation side of the debate.

by giving such blanket statements without corroboration shows the attitude that everyone must take the evolutionary's word for what took place or they will be like the muslims and attack any 'infidel'.

[Minimalist]

Arch,

Here's what the judge had to say in the latest case on the issue. I have quoted his Conclusion but provided a link to the whole decision.

I suppose you can appeal; however the Dover school board will not as the good citizens of Dover voted those fanatics out in the last election.

H. Conclusion
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Both Defendants and 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
Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 136 of 139

137
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.

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the
Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller ... er_342.pdf


Enjoy.

[Guest]

and your point is...? just because a judge did not side with i.d. does not make it unscientific or untrue. nor can it declare something unproveable, evolution, true.

the logic the judge uses certainly lacks insight. there is no way i.d. or creationist can divorce themselves from the religious aspect of their theory. they are one and the same BUT that doesn't make it unscientific.

only in the minds of those who reject the creation story, deny the science of the account. they limit the scope of what is science , which evolution is not for the very basic reason that all aspects of the theory are unobservable and outside the scope of review.

for example, the ape to man concept. all that is used for evidence is a few skulls and some scientists word that that is what took place, there is no modern day evidence, no scholarly observation, no multi-tasked experiments and no historical record that corroborates the claim.

so evolution is far less scientific than i.d. could ever be. at least with i.d. we can see the results of creation every day whether it is in the ancient records or modern day, everything goes according to what Genesis says.

there is an old saying which fits the evolutionary side well: they that cry the loudest, are guiltiest most of all.

[Rokcet Scientist]

and your point is...?

Arch, the point is (as Bob posted earlier):

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articl ... =1&catID=2

Now, can we get back to discussing facts instead of wishful thinking?

[Guest]

That's only one article. I know that few people outside America actually care about this "debate", but continually quoting only one source isn't the best way for supporters of evolution to prove their point.

[Tech]

ALL ,
Evolution...............................Science
I.d and creationism.................Mysticism

And neither the twain should meet

Get over it

[Guest]

and your point is...? just because a judge did not side with i.d. does not make it unscientific or untrue. nor can it declare something unproveable, evolution, true.

the logic the judge uses certainly lacks insight. there is no way i.d. or creationist can divorce themselves from the religious aspect of their theory. they are one and the same BUT that doesn't make it unscientific.

only in the minds of those who reject the creation story, deny the science of the account. they limit the scope of what is science , which evolution is not for the very basic reason that all aspects of the theory are unobservable and outside the scope of review.

for example, the ape to man concept. all that is used for evidence is a few skulls and some scientists word that that is what took place, there is no modern day evidence, no scholarly observation, no multi-tasked experiments and no historical record that corroborates the claim.

so evolution is far less scientific than i.d. could ever be. at least with i.d. we can see the results of creation every day whether it is in the ancient records or modern day, everything goes according to what Genesis says.

there is an old saying which fits the evolutionary side well: they that cry the loudest, are guiltiest most of all.

You're making statements which just aren't true. ID is untestable and unprovable. The people who subscribe to that belief do so on faith. Science requires proof. Therefore ID is not science. I rest my case.

[Guest]

ALL ,
Evolution...............................Science
I.d and creationism.................Mysticism

And neither the twain should meet

Get over it

You mean...

Science=Dogma

Opposition=scientific heresy

That's the real reason for opposition to ID; scientists don't appreciate people not taking their word as gospel (pun intended).

[Frank Harrist]

ID IS NOT SCIENCE!!!