Evolution debate turns into debate over intelligent design

[Ave Maria]

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/state/11529035.htm

 

[PaladinValer]

When will people learn what science is and isn't? ID has no place in public schools as it is not science.

 

[Ave Maria]

When will people learn what science is and isn't? ID has no place in public schools as it is not science.

I agree for the most part.

 

[PaladinValer]

"Most part?" If it isn't science, it has no place in the public school science classroom.

It would have a hard time even fitting into a religious studies classroom.

 

[Michael5084]

I agree. Teach Genesis.

 

[CPman2004]

Well, I think that there is some problems with the evolutionary theory that should be reveled to the class so that they can make intellegent descions. So far the evolutionists of the USA have been extremely dogmatic in their quest to persuade the people of the USA that evolution is undisputable fact. That I think is the real issue.

Why is evoultion is so dogmatic? Why get soo upset over offering other ideas to explain things, isn't that science? Shouldn't the students know that there are problems with the theory?

I think that teaching evolution as undisputed fact is wrong. It is disputed, and it is not fact, nor is it totally and purely scientific, but with some scientisms mixed in. I think that students should be offered both sides so that they can decide for themselves, neither should teachers be dogmatic in their veiw. ID may or may not be a science, but it is an way to inturpert the data. Since we cannot prove there is a supernatural (since science only deals with the temprol and natural, but cannot dispove the supernatural) it would only be assuming that there would be no other way to have created an thing without having some design which did not, nor could not arise from random events.

 

[PaladinValer]

It isn't dogmatic; it is however tired of YECs spreading lies, misinformation, and half-truths.

If that were to end, then there wouldn't be so much "defensiveness" by evolutionists; secular or theistic.

 

[CPman2004]

It isn't dogmatic; it is however tired of YECs spreading lies, misinformation, and half-truths.

If that were to end, then there wouldn't be so much "defensiveness" by evolutionists; secular or theistic.

Now I don't think that I said YEC is innocent (I am OEC by they way) Both extremes are bad, but I would like to see open discussion of both evolution and ID. Students have the right to know of the problems of evolution and also the evidences that would lead to an ID. I don't think either one should be taught as the sole explaination of life and its processes, but in an open and civil matter. Evolution is dogmatic whenever it claims to be the sole undisputed fact of how life came to be and exists.

 

[PaladinValer]

Evolution isn't "dogmatic;" it is a theory. It is also fact.

And "problems" about evolution mainly deal with the misunderstandings of folks about evolution.

 

[Michael5084]

Well, I think that there is some problems with the evolutionary theory that should be reveled to the class so that they can make intellegent descions. So far the evolutionists of the USA have been extremely dogmatic in their quest to persuade the people of the USA that evolution is undisputable fact. That I think is the real issue.

Why is evoultion is so dogmatic? Why get soo upset over offering other ideas to explain things, isn't that science? Shouldn't the students know that there are problems with the theory?

I think that teaching evolution as undisputed fact is wrong. It is disputed, and it is not fact, nor is it totally and purely scientific, but with some scientisms mixed in. I think that students should be offered both sides so that they can decide for themselves, neither should teachers be dogmatic in their veiw. ID may or may not be a science, but it is an way to inturpert the data. Since we cannot prove there is a supernatural (since science only deals with the temprol and natural, but cannot dispove the supernatural) it would only be assuming that there would be no other way to have created an thing without having some design which did not, nor could not arise from random events.

Cool picture of the rapture! I like that!

 

[invisible trousers]

Why is evoultion is so dogmatic? Why get soo upset over offering other ideas to explain things, isn't that science? Shouldn't the students know that there are problems with the theory?

"Other ideas" with no scientific basis don't belong in a science classroom.

nor is it totally and purely scientific, but with some scientisms mixed in.

Do tell! I'm predicting you don't like these "scientisms" because they go against your view of creation, not because they are unscientific theories and ideas.

ID may or may not be a science, but it is an way to inturpert the data.

ID isn't even close to a science. Sure, it's a way to interpret data, but that doesn't make it right. Starting out with a hypothesis ("God made everything"), finding only data that supports your idea, and completely ignoring everything else on a religious, not scientific basis, is not science.

Students have the right to know of the problems of evolution and also the evidences that would lead to an ID

While we're at it can we include other religions' interpretations of creation as well? Or are we only to stick to something christian?