Nova: Judgement Day

[Jolly Roger]

Please be advised that his comment doesn't directly relate to my opinion on ID

I would like to suggest that people take the science into their view, but also continually question it.

Remember it wasn't that long ago that the current "science" lauded a flat world. It might prove to be interesting for our great grandkids, having disproved that is currently etched in the stone of scientific support, to have a laugh at our expense.

[StrykerFSU]

There are no parallels between the philosophy of intelligent design and the science of climate change.

If you can't test something via the scientific method then it does not belong in the science classroom.

[TheBearcatHimself]

Will, not sure what program you watched but Matthew Chapman (Darwin's great-great-Grandson) appeared near the end of Nova and most certainly was NOT on the side of the creationists. Quite the contrary.

It is also fine if you believe that evolution is only an opinion (your words) and not a time-tested and verified scientific theory about the origin of the species. Of course since so much modern science is based, in whole or in part, on Darwinian theory than you must also believe entire fields of scientific discipline like genetics, molecular biology etc. etc. are only opinions, too. What exactly was your major there at Willamette? PLEASE tell me you were not pre-med!

Now please excuse me while I run spell check over this reply.

Dan, I was not sure if the spot I saw Chapman if he was for or against it, as he was only explaining the flagellum motor concept, not projecting an opinion, I didn't watch it long enough to see him presented again, that's why I had the question mark after my statement, next time I'll watch the whole thing!

Also, I am on your side here, I fully believe that evolutionary theory has full evidential backing through the scientific record and that Intelligent Design is simply an offshoot of creationism as an attempt to infiltrate the scientific classroom. My post was mainly centered on the fact that I find the whole debate amusing because both sides say we should open our minds...but that always involves crushing the other side of the argument. In reality to know the truth we'd have to go back 4.4 billion years, whose to say an Interstellar Deity didn't let an interstellarly massive fart rip and that created the Big Bang? For now for my money Darwinian theory is the only model that satisfies my scientific wranglings.

And for the record I was an Exercise Science major for two years (thus my solid belief in evolutionary theory), and then switched to Rhetoric and Media Studies, Go Bearcats!

[BucLax13]

Science is a philosophy... its major tenants would be broken by teaching ID

Call it religion, another philosophy, or just a different perspective; but please don't call it science or scientific.

ID has a premise that can never be tested nor proved... and that is the way that individuals who belive it want it... real scientific inquiry would destroy their underlying belief system that made them postulate a subjective philosophy in the first place

[Beta]

Going way back to high school physics, I think I remember something about matter or energy not being able to create itself. This is a pretty basic scientific principle. So if nothing can create itself, then how did the world get here? Big Bang Theory? Random gasses and rocks forming? where did those gasses and rocks come from? Go back as far as you want, but I think eventually there has to a point where something has ALWAYS existed.

Ok so it's not so much "evolution" as it is "big bang" vs "god says exist". Ok, questioning the big is alright..but the fact that the big bang may not be true doesn't mean that creationism needs to be taught. There are 1000's of different religions and they dont all fit the same mold. But since there's zero proof other than hearsay for religion (which is a 100% true statement)...can't every conceivable notion for creationism be held accountable? Therefore...I say that the high and mighty Flying Spaghetti Monster created the cosmos. What? Don't believe me? You gotta just believe and have faith.

[BucLax13]

how do you delete after the first day?

Bump?

[TheBearcatHimself]

Science is a philosophy... its major tenants would be broken by teaching ID

Call it religion, another philosophy, or just a different perspective; but please don't call it science or scientific.

ID has a premise that can never be tested nor proved... and that is the way that individuals who belive it want it... real scientific inquiry would destroy their underlying belief system that made them postulate a subjective philosophy in the first place

For the sake of devil's advocacy, can science ever through pure method prove what happened before the Big Bang? Can science explain what is outside our universe created in the Big Bang? Before you go claiming that religion is a limited philosophy, I think you must also understand that even science itself is limited.

I believe that this gruff attitude toward religion is what will perpetually give religious zealots the fuel for their fire to continually push that we don't know where we came from and religion offers a theory for those who are willing to listen (which just so happens to be some about 5 billion people).

Is it a theory that can be proven scientifically? Absolutely not. But is science a theory that can be proven religiously? Therein lies our predicament.

Thou shalt not cast stones in a glass house.

[BucLax13]

For the sake of devil's advocacy, can science ever through pure method prove what happened before the Big Bang?

maybe (I will always have to say maybe with out knowing the future) but we look at gamma radiation from the expanding edges of our universe... from it we estimate of how old our universe is...

Can science explain what is outside our universe created in the Big Bang?

not now... but maybe some day

Religion can... that is one of the major reasons it is religion and not science

Before you go claiming that religion is a limited philosophy

Subjective and limited are not the same terms... both philosophies (religion and science) are subjective and limited since you have to create a basis for argument (i.e. we had to create inches to measure...religion had to create concepts like omnipotence and such... it is still a subjective, and there are a ton of more examples in this area... i digress)

I think you must also understand that even science itself is limited

You are completely right, but just because science and religion are both limited does not mean they are comparable... science cannot test the questions of religion i.e. the soul, hell, heaven, God, Gods... by process they will always be incompatible

I also understand the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... there are many good points religion makes and has... I have always enjoyed the thought that if an omnipotent power created a tree in my yard tonight and that if I go cut down that tree and count its rings it will show the tree is so many years old, the truth is that the tree is one night old... scientifically the tree will be shown to be so many years old. The difference in methodology does not come to the same truth... that is ok... but it is insulting too my intelligence and to the scientific community to pass religion off as science...

the gruff attitude comes to those with agendas, I don't see scientist breaking down the doors of churches in protest for them to start teaching evolution in their sermons... when real ID scientist start publishing their work in Nature I will start to give their ideas credence... but that is not what is happening the arguments are being made in school board meetings where they are telling teachers to betray the tenants of their philosophy...

Thou shalt not cast stones in a glass house.

that is a great point... I would like to say that I am not trying to attack or be mean or malicious... I was a little testy before... I apologize

I hope the my arguments have weight and depth (maybe, I don't know what you think) but when someone starts telling you how to do your job from a seemingly moral high point you can get a little annoyed... west texas can be a little annoying from time to time

[TheBearcatHimself]

BucLax, great response, and as always I simply replied to your post to continue the debate, no malice was received from your post on my end!

It's nice that we can all debate such a touchy subject in a civil manner, and I guess that's 99% of the battle!