Creationism taught in Libertyville science class

[supraman]

The problem with ID is that it comes out from an assumption that some kind of supreme being is behind it all, which is basically unscientific. And most of its arguments, mainly the "irreducible complexity" argument, has been shown to be simply wrong and arguments for it are from ignorance or downright dishonesty. ID is no more than pseudoscience. And in debates about evolution vs. creationism, the question of the origin of life is often involved, which has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and is a completely separate field of study, which currently has a number of different theories, but there is somewhat of an understanding on how the process from inanimate molecules to living organisms could have happened. However, even if there are gaps in our current scientific knowledge, there is no point in placing "god in the gaps", which seems to be one argument made by creationist to have it taught in schools.

To borrow from the Ben Stein doc. One of the theories put forth by the scientist arguing against ID said that life on this planet could have been seeded from somewhere by another species. Now that sounds a lot like ID and that is one of the theories of ID as it is and then it begs the question how did that life start.



I don't see ID as religious based, creationalism certainly is religious based. I see ID worth at least researching, let it be proven or disproven but let's do the research to find out.

 

[supraman]

For the record Sheen didnt create matter but he did however create Awesomeness

 

[roshinaya]

To borrow from the Ben Stein doc. One of the theories put forth by the scientist arguing against ID said that life on this planet could have been seeded from somewhere by another species. Now that sounds a lot like ID and that is one of the theories of ID as it is and then it begs the question how did that life start.



I don't see ID as religious based, creationalism certainly is religious based. I see ID worth at least researching, let it be proven or disproven but let's do the research to find out.

ID is most certainly religious based, as I said earlier it's just repackaged creationism after creationism was getting thrown out from the curriculum in schools. It has simply no scientific basis. Teach it in philosophy class if it has to be brought up in school, but it has nothing to do with science. And of course the documentary with a pro-ID agenda takes up an outlandish theory about the origin of life on this planet, I bet that theory has little or no support in the scientific community.



What is there to research in ID? When faced with something strange or complex, they just give up and say a wizard did it. Where's the science in that?

 

[supraman]

ID is most certainly religious based, as I said earlier it's just repackaged creationism after creationism was getting thrown out from the curriculum in schools. It has simply no scientific basis. Teach it in philosophy class if it has to be brought up in school, but it has nothing to do with science. And of course the documentary with a pro-ID agenda takes up an outlandish theory about the origin of life on this planet, I bet that theory has little or no support in the scientific community.



What is there to research in ID? When faced with something strange or complex, they just give up and say a wizard did it. Where's the science in that?

So speaking on the origins of life. What scientific basis do we have to go off of, as far as I know all the theories that they have tested haven't worked out. So even science is poking in the dark trying to figure it out.



The concept that the necessary proteins assembled into DNA that was function and that a cell structure to use that DNA were assembled randomly is highly improbable. If I had Scott Dahn's book with me I'd look up the numbers since he gives figures and has citations for them. If you want the numbers it will have to wait until I get home.



Honestly I thought the numbers were a lot smaller than they really are.

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

Should I just create a general religion thread (again)?

I think this thread is straying from the OP.

 

[ginnie]

To borrow from the Ben Stein doc. One of the theories put forth by the scientist arguing against ID said that life on this planet could have been seeded from somewhere by another species. Now that sounds a lot like ID and that is one of the theories of ID as it is and then it begs the question how did that life start.



I don't see ID as religious based, creationalism certainly is religious based. I see ID worth at least researching, let it be proven or disproven but let's do the research to find out.

There is a scientific theory that water on the earth came from comets. Seeing that water is necessary for life - at least our lifeforms....

 

[MassHavoc]

If there was nothing. Then god created it all, where did god exist?

 

[supraman]

If there was nothing. Then god created it all, where did god exist?

His mom's basement

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

His mom's basement

MOM... the MEATLOAF!

 

[roshinaya]

So speaking on the origins of life. What scientific basis do we have to go off of, as far as I know all the theories that they have tested haven't worked out. So even science is poking in the dark trying to figure it out.



The concept that the necessary proteins assembled into DNA that was function and that a cell structure to use that DNA were assembled randomly is highly improbable. If I had Scott Dahn's book with me I'd look up the numbers since he gives figures and has citations for them. If you want the numbers it will have to wait until I get home.



Honestly I thought the numbers were a lot smaller than they really are.

So what you are saying is, if something is improbable or we don't understand it, it means that god did it?

There are a number of different models of abiogenesis proposed and some even have experiments as a basis. I am no biochemist, so can't elaborate on it, but what I am trying to say is that science is trying to work out how it works, without having a supernatural being involved in the process. God is occupying an ever decreasing place in human understanding as science progresses, will everything ever be explained by science? I don't know, but so far science has been able to explain a lot of things that previously was thought to be unknowable and all without mixing in a deity. Lets keep the gods out of the school classes and keep them in their churces and temples, is all I am saying.

 

[supraman]

So what you are saying is, if something is improbable or we don't understand it, it means that god did it?

There are a number of different models of abiogenesis proposed and some even have experiments as a basis. I am no biochemist, so can't elaborate on it, but what I am trying to say is that science is trying to work out how it works, without having a supernatural being involved in the process. God is occupying an ever decreasing place in human understanding as science progresses, will everything ever be explained by science? I don't know, but so far science has been able to explain a lot of things that previously was thought to be unknowable and all without mixing in a deity. Lets keep the gods out of the school classes and keep them in their churces and temples, is all I am saying.

Where did I say that?



And I agree that science typically answers the unexplained eventually but you have to consider the evidence presently. All I am arguing for is to just not dismiss ID as bullshit. It has enough reasoning behind it that is worth exploring.



I mean there is a chance that a entity beyond us kicked this whole thing off. I am saying I'm not ruling out all reasonable possibilities and given the current evidence a superior being is as probable as spontaneous life.

 

[roshinaya]

What are the things presented by ID that is worth exploring, that science can't or wont do? So there is a chance a supernatural being kicked it all off, but our knowledge of nature isn't even close to beginning tackling such a fundamental question, so why then make this huge leap at all when proper rigorous science has and I am sure will continue to answer our questions about nature without having a supernatural force. Is there cause for speculating about some supernatural being being behind it all, sure, but that discussion should be held in philosophy class or Sunday school.

Where did I say that?

The concept that the necessary proteins assembled into DNA that was function and that a cell structure to use that DNA were assembled randomly is highly improbable. If I had Scott Dahn's book with me I'd look up the numbers since he gives figures and has citations for them. If you want the numbers it will have to wait until I get home.

You are basing this improbability from a book written by a catholic apologist. He might cite peer-reviewed journals, but something being improbable does not mean there is a god behind it. Improbable things are bound to happen in such a vast system as the universe.

 

[Tater]

Where did I say that?



And I agree that science typically answers the unexplained eventually but you have to consider the evidence presently. All I am arguing for is to just not dismiss ID as bullshit. It has enough reasoning behind it that is worth exploring.



I mean there is a chance that a entity beyond us kicked this whole thing off. I am saying I'm not ruling out all reasonable possibilities and given the current evidence a superior being is as probable as spontaneous life.

Kind of like, us being someone's ant farm.

 

[supraman]

What are the things presented by ID that is worth exploring, that science can't or wont do? So there is a chance a supernatural being kicked it all off, but our knowledge of nature isn't even close to beginning tackling such a fundamental question, so why then make this huge leap at all when proper rigorous science has and I am sure will continue to answer our questions about nature without having a supernatural force. Is there cause for speculating about some supernatural being being behind it all, sure, but that discussion should be held in philosophy class or Sunday school.











You are basing this improbability from a book written by a catholic apologist. He might cite peer-reviewed journals, but something being improbable does not mean there is a god behind it. Improbable things are bound to happen in such a vast system as the universe.

Have you read the book? Since he does not ever say that something being improbable means god did it. The book is based on arguing against Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion. Typically he cites dawkins and says it is wrong then cities his source for data.

 

[roshinaya]

No, I have not read the book, but knowing he is a Christian apologist I would take his opinions with a grain of salt. Those with a religious agenda tend to misunderstand, misuse or be plain dishonest when talking about science and scientific theories.

 

[TSD]

To borrow from the Ben Stein doc. One of the theories put forth by the scientist arguing against ID said that life on this planet could have been seeded from somewhere by another species. Now that sounds a lot like ID and that is one of the theories of ID as it is and then it begs the question how did that life start.



I don't see ID as religious based, creationalism certainly is religious based. I see ID worth at least researching, let it be proven or disproven but let's do the research to find out.

That still isn't intelligent design. Its no different than if I were to introduce bacteria to a sterile petri dish (or however yous spell that), there is no design involved there, and further more, even if aliens were involved every step of the way throughout our evolution the "design" was through natural processes. Evolution itself is, in fact, design, but it is un-conscious design. And coming down to the nitty gritty there is no evidence, nor reason to assume a designer.



The whole Idea behind intelligent design is, life REQUIRES a designer. So we are left with if life is too complex to occur naturally, then the designer is too complex to occur naturally. You must first prove the designer before you can assert the designed.

 

[MassHavoc]

My new theory is that it's impossible to make something from nothing. The first matter always had to be created by something, and for that something to exist it had to be created by something so it's an infinite cycle. Which means that there was always something and time does not actually exist because there is no beginning and no end. just existence. Along these lines everything is possible, including time travel since time doesn't exist. With all things possible it's just a matter of figuring it out which we may never have the brain power to comprehend or do, no matter how long it takes even without an end of time.

 

[BigPete]

Exactly... who/what created matter?

Who cares? What does it matter?





It doesn't change that you are HERE in the NOW man. That is what drives me nuts about religious types, you need reason and answers. I don't think it is the same with the science community. It is what can you prove, not what sounds plausible.



So to re-emphasize what Ginnie said, science is okay with saying "we don't know". While religious types have to think they know.



PS none of us fucking know!

 

[BigPete]

Hey whadya know I'm actually agnostic

Actually you guys could be more agnostic atheist. You don't believe in god, but you also acknoweldge that you just don't know so if God ever comes down and does some miracles you don't want to be the guy that says, "god damnit I was wrong"...cause, well he probably wouldn't like that.



I associate with AAs. But I am still pretty much an atheist for all the reasons everyone is listing. Prove it. That's what I say.

 

[TSD]

My new theory is that it's impossible to make something from nothing. The first matter always had to be created by something, and for that something to exist it had to be created by something so it's an infinite cycle. Which means that there was always something and time does not actually exist because there is no beginning and no end. just existence. Along these lines everything is possible, including time travel since time doesn't exist. With all things possible it's just a matter of figuring it out which we may never have the brain power to comprehend or do, no matter how long it takes even without an end of time.

Time travel, at least into the future is absolutely proven. The faster you move the slower you age. On discovery they did a test with a blackbird supersonic jet, syncronized a watch on the plane and one on the ground, flew that ***** around the world, when it came back the watch on the blackbird was like a fraction of a second behind the watch left behind. while thats not enough to make a real difference, if you could travel at the speed of light it would make a huge difference.