America and the new evagelism

It would appear that most of the prospective reppublican candidates,Bachman ,perry ,romney etc,now advocate the teaching in schools of what they call "intelligent design" as opposed to evolution. Predictably the scientific lobby are up in arms,they obviously thought that all that "old fashioned " god sort of thing ,had been consigned to the dustbin of history,looks like they were wrong, - eat your heart out Dawkins.

Hello Jondav,,

ha ha ,I cant be doing with Dawkins, even though i like to listen to him.

but Intelligent design is not opposed to evolution. It is the idea that there is intelligence behind the universe and that evolution is guided.
as opposed to the Darwinian view that evolution is blind and unguided- random mutation etc..

I would speculate that everyone on this forum would agree with intelligent design..
i hope that that's the ID that those people want to be taught in schools. What do you think ?

i like the ID site it has interesting interviews and great animations on the cell etc

Personally i think Dawkins was probably a religious fundamentalist in a previous life, the swing of the pendulum has taken him in the opposite direction this time. so that next time he will have a more balanced view..

Thank you Starfish,I agree that "intelligent design" and evolution,are not totally exclusive of each other,however what I disagree with is the way some scientific factions have this almost ,paranoid aversion to even ,consider that there may be an intelligence involved in creation,this smacks to me of narrow minded tunnel vision ,which in itself ,goes against proper scientific parameters

I can't see why both Creationism and Evolution can't be taught and allow the student to decide, God is a scientist, where and how it all came to be, IMO well we will never know for sure...

nightowl

Originally Posted by jondav

It would appear that most of the prospective reppublican candidates,Bachman ,perry ,romney etc,now advocate the teaching in schools of what they call "intelligent design" as opposed to evolution. Predictably the scientific lobby are up in arms,they obviously thought that all that "old fashioned " god sort of thing ,had been consigned to the dustbin of history,looks like they were wrong, - eat your heart out Dawkins.

Yes, sadly all of the people you mentioned shouldn't be anywhere near the educational system. I.D is simply creationism repackaged to make it look more scientific. But in reality, it's hardly any better because it settles for the answer 'gawddedit', which prevents further inquiry and research - which, understandably is good enough for most people, but it's not intellectually honest; and that will mean any evidence to the contrary will either be twisted or ignored if it points to no creator god or "intelligent designer".

People are free to believe in I.D or creationism if that's what floats their boat. But it's utter nonsense to pretend that either one is on equal footing with mainstream evolutionary theory. Because they sure ain't.

Originally Posted by nightowl

I can't see why both Creationism and Evolution can't be taught and allow the student to decide, God is a scientist, where and how it all came to be, IMO well we will never know for sure...

nightowl

The problem with that is that it violates the separation of church and state and promotes a religion through a government institution. If we teach a pseudoscientific theory about how GOD made everything and such and such, there will have to be other religious alternatives. They'd have to teach all creation myths and not just the one from Genesis. If parents want their kids to know about how god created everything, they can teach them themselves. Rather than enlisting help from the school system.
It's much more simple to stick to what we can prove and observe, and let the individual decide themselves.

IF evangelism/christianity is the right way, why does there have to be a "new " one?

Originally Posted by Animus27

The problem with that is that it violates the separation of church and state and promotes a religion through a government institution. If we teach a pseudoscientific theory about how GOD made everything and such and such, there will have to be other religious alternatives. They'd have to teach all creation myths and not just the one from Genesis. If parents want their kids to know about how god created everything, they can teach them themselves. Rather than enlisting help from the school system.
It's much more simple to stick to what we can prove and observe, and let the individual decide themselves.

I can see where you could see that, but I see it as just another theory so if it is presented as such, religion doesn't figure in. I sure there are those out there who believe that the earth may have a different beginning than evolution, that doesn't necessarily include a specific religious thought. I do believe religion should be separate from government, to me theories are theories they hold fact and speculation...

nightowl

Originally Posted by Animus27

..... I.D is simply creationism repackaged to make it look more scientific. Not True

& here are the faqs

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/faq.php



Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?

No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism.
University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
For more information read Dr. Stephen Meyer's piece "Intelligent Design is not Creationism" that appeared in The Daily Telegraph (London) or Dr. John West's piece "Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same" in Research News & Opportunities.

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by starfish

Hello Jondav,,

ha ha ,I cant be doing with Dawkins, even though i like to listen to him.

but Intelligent design is not opposed to evolution. It is the idea that there is intelligence behind the universe and that evolution is guided.
as opposed to the Darwinian view that evolution is blind and unguided- random mutation etc..

I would speculate that everyone on this forum would agree with intelligent design..
i hope that that's the ID that those people want to be taught in schools. What do you think ?

i like the ID site it has interesting interviews and great animations on the cell etc

Personally i think Dawkins was probably a religious fundamentalist in a previous life, the swing of the pendulum has taken him in the opposite direction this time. so that next time he will have a more balanced view..

intelligence evolved with matter. there is no guiding principle in creation. all is just spontaneous.