- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Intelligent design
Intelligent designFollow
Samira wrote:
I've sent emails to both Kansas State University and the University of Kansas inquiring about admission to their Intelligent Design curricula (in the Biology Department, as opposed to, say, Cosmetology or Architectural Engineering).
No word back as yet, but I'm confident they must offer degrees. The University of Kansas has an Evolutionary Biology curriculum, after all.
No word back as yet, but I'm confident they must offer degrees. The University of Kansas has an Evolutionary Biology curriculum, after all.
Well, you can start taking an Intelligent Design course at University of Kansas soon...
Associated Press wrote:
LAWRENCE, Kansas (AP) -- Creationism and intelligent design are going to be studied at the University of Kansas, but not in the way advocated by opponents of the theory of evolution.
A course being offered next semester by the university religious studies department is titled "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies."
"The KU faculty has had enough," said Paul Mirecki, department chairman.
"Creationism is mythology," Mirecki said. "Intelligent design is mythology. It's not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not."
[...]
John Calvert, an attorney and managing director of the Intelligent Design Network in Johnson County, Kansas, said Mirecki will go down in history as a laughingstock.
"To equate intelligent design to mythology is really an absurdity, and it's just another example of labeling anybody who proposes (intelligent design) to be simply a religious nut," Calvert said. "That's the reason for this little charade."
Mirecki said his course, limited to 120 students, would explore intelligent design as a modern American mythology. Several faculty members have volunteered to be guest lecturers, he said.
University Chancellor Robert Hemenway said Monday he didn't know all the details about the new course.
"If it's a course that's being offered in a serious and intellectually honest way, those are the kind of courses a university frequently offers," he said.
A course being offered next semester by the university religious studies department is titled "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies."
"The KU faculty has had enough," said Paul Mirecki, department chairman.
"Creationism is mythology," Mirecki said. "Intelligent design is mythology. It's not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not."
[...]
John Calvert, an attorney and managing director of the Intelligent Design Network in Johnson County, Kansas, said Mirecki will go down in history as a laughingstock.
"To equate intelligent design to mythology is really an absurdity, and it's just another example of labeling anybody who proposes (intelligent design) to be simply a religious nut," Calvert said. "That's the reason for this little charade."
Mirecki said his course, limited to 120 students, would explore intelligent design as a modern American mythology. Several faculty members have volunteered to be guest lecturers, he said.
University Chancellor Robert Hemenway said Monday he didn't know all the details about the new course.
"If it's a course that's being offered in a serious and intellectually honest way, those are the kind of courses a university frequently offers," he said.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Associated Press wrote:
John Calvert, an attorney and managing director of the Intelligent Design Network in Johnson County, Kansas, said Mirecki will go down in history as a laughingstock.
"To equate intelligent design to mythology is really an absurdity, and it's just another example of labeling anybody who proposes (intelligent design) to be simply a religious nut," Calvert said.
"To equate intelligent design to mythology is really an absurdity, and it's just another example of labeling anybody who proposes (intelligent design) to be simply a religious nut," Calvert said.
[OBVIOUS]
Do what now?
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/nov/18/vatican_intelligent_design/
Quote:
The Associated Press
Friday, November 18, 2005
Vatican City — The Vatican’s chief astronomer said today that “intelligent design†isn’t science and doesn’t belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.
Friday, November 18, 2005
Vatican City — The Vatican’s chief astronomer said today that “intelligent design†isn’t science and doesn’t belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.
Danalog the Vengeful Programmer wrote:
Associated Press wrote:
John Calvert, an attorney and managing director of the Intelligent Design Network in Johnson County, Kansas, said Mirecki will go down in history as a laughingstock.
"To equate intelligent design to mythology is really an absurdity, and it's just another example of labeling anybody who proposes (intelligent design) to be simply a religious nut," Calvert said.
"To equate intelligent design to mythology is really an absurdity, and it's just another example of labeling anybody who proposes (intelligent design) to be simply a religious nut," Calvert said.
[OBVIOUS]
I wonder if he realizes he's labeling the head of Religious Studies as a laughingstock for taking an intellectual stance on a religious topic. He's probably used to it by now. I'm guessing he wasn't quarterback of his HS team or anything.
What a ****-poor insult.
How can a process that sometimes yeilds downs syndrome be a product of 'intelligent design'?
The Glorious Lubriderm wrote:
How can a process that sometimes yeilds downs syndrome be a product of 'intelligent design'?
you need to understand the whole book before you can understand one page.
To me, it just makes sense. Something must've sparked evolution. What it was, I really don't care.
Should it be taught in schools? I really don't know, just don't let George Dubya decide, he's made some great decisions (we sure nailed Saddam!)
America has some mixed up priorities. We're focusing on gay marriage when the US National Debt is currently 8.1 trillion.
Should it be taught in schools? I really don't know, just don't let George Dubya decide, he's made some great decisions (we sure nailed Saddam!)
America has some mixed up priorities. We're focusing on gay marriage when the US National Debt is currently 8.1 trillion.
Quote:
To me, it just makes sense. Something must've sparked evolution. What it was, I really don't care.
And that Something couldn't have been random happenstance could it.
Why do people automatically assume that just because we can't explain it now that it has to be "God's work"?
GoblinWeaponsmith wrote:
To me, it just makes sense. Something must've sparked evolution. What it was, I really don't care.
But that's the point. Saying "something" is fine. After all, we don't know the why's, only the evidence of what we can see. But the second you assume there was some "intelligence" behind it, you start wandering off from science and enter the realm of religion and/or philosophy.
The problem is that religion and science approach the unknown in two completely different ways. Religion fills the unknown with some divine force. Science doesn't worry about the unknown. It focuses on what is known and expands on those known things over time. It doesn't matter to a scientist if god caused life to appear on earth, or a random set of events did, or whether space aliens did. What science cares about is what can be measured and seen, and what we can learn from those things.
Realize that most religious folks don't even care about ID. It's something that's getting a lot of press right now because of a very small number of people who keep trying different ways to put their religious ideology into the classroom. Most people are content to accept that their personal beliefs can fill in the unknown in whatever way they want, but science does a great job at filling in everything else. The two really can exist side by side. They just shouldn't be *taught* side by side in science class. Leave science class to things that are actually science and leave that unknown "something" to the realm of religious or philosophical studies.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
8 posts
I completely agree with gbaji - ID is not part of science, which presupposes a methodological naturalism.
But to say something is unscientific is far from saying it's false. There are MANY items of knowledge that are arrived at without the scientific method. To name a few obvious ones: beliefs from memory, the five senses (not necessarily involved the scientific method), testimonial beliefs, beliefs formed through viewing facial features on others (called sympathy, see Thomas Reid), among others.
So yes, Intellegent Design is unscientific by definition. But to imply that it's crackpot or false because it's not scientific is a completely unfounded statement.
Edited, Sat Nov 26 00:57:10 2005 by FranksValli
Edited, Fri Dec 9 21:08:14 2005 by FranksValli
But to say something is unscientific is far from saying it's false. There are MANY items of knowledge that are arrived at without the scientific method. To name a few obvious ones: beliefs from memory, the five senses (not necessarily involved the scientific method), testimonial beliefs, beliefs formed through viewing facial features on others (called sympathy, see Thomas Reid), among others.
So yes, Intellegent Design is unscientific by definition. But to imply that it's crackpot or false because it's not scientific is a completely unfounded statement.
Edited, Sat Nov 26 00:57:10 2005 by FranksValli
Edited, Fri Dec 9 21:08:14 2005 by FranksValli
Many of the things that we have proved over the years were once widely held to be true and then disproved by science only to be reproved by science at a later date.
I'm not saying that ID will fall out like this, because it's a pretty amorphous idea at present, just that we often see and recognize a greater truth initially and wind up denying the very thing we first recognized when we begin to learn a subject. In the end, we sometimes come full circle back to the basic truth.
The root belief behind ID is the same root belief behind all religions despite their individual flavors: That all of this could not have happened by accident. We are not here by accident. Once you believe that in the core of your being, the next logical thought is that if the universe isn't an accident, it must have a purpose. If there is a purpose, that purpose will or has been achieved by design. Design and purpose derive from the will of an intelligence. A God of some form or fashion, if you will.
Is it right? Is it wrong? I can't say. Is it supported by evidence? That really depends on your core beliefs, again.
If you believe that there is nothing, that's what you're predisposed to see. You could find a neon sign in the heaveans that lights up and says, "There is a God!11!!!" and you'd prove that it's statistically likely for a random alignment of molecules to occur to make this happen sooner or later and you just happened to be there to see it. There is no proof great enough.
If you believe that there is something, that's what you're predisposed to see. If you're looking for proof of God, you can find it in every bit of life that exists, in the properties of water, the physical laws of the universe. Proof surrounds you.
What I believe is that those who are arguing loudest on both sides of this issue are a set of closed minds. In a century, assuming that we haven't blown ourselves up or burned ourselves out by then, it's likely that the loudest voices on both sides of the issue will be pointed out as examples to schoolchildren of how silly we were in this day and time.
I'm not saying that ID will fall out like this, because it's a pretty amorphous idea at present, just that we often see and recognize a greater truth initially and wind up denying the very thing we first recognized when we begin to learn a subject. In the end, we sometimes come full circle back to the basic truth.
The root belief behind ID is the same root belief behind all religions despite their individual flavors: That all of this could not have happened by accident. We are not here by accident. Once you believe that in the core of your being, the next logical thought is that if the universe isn't an accident, it must have a purpose. If there is a purpose, that purpose will or has been achieved by design. Design and purpose derive from the will of an intelligence. A God of some form or fashion, if you will.
Is it right? Is it wrong? I can't say. Is it supported by evidence? That really depends on your core beliefs, again.
If you believe that there is nothing, that's what you're predisposed to see. You could find a neon sign in the heaveans that lights up and says, "There is a God!11!!!" and you'd prove that it's statistically likely for a random alignment of molecules to occur to make this happen sooner or later and you just happened to be there to see it. There is no proof great enough.
If you believe that there is something, that's what you're predisposed to see. If you're looking for proof of God, you can find it in every bit of life that exists, in the properties of water, the physical laws of the universe. Proof surrounds you.
What I believe is that those who are arguing loudest on both sides of this issue are a set of closed minds. In a century, assuming that we haven't blown ourselves up or burned ourselves out by then, it's likely that the loudest voices on both sides of the issue will be pointed out as examples to schoolchildren of how silly we were in this day and time.
if there is such thing as 'intelligent design', I really have to wonder what the hell the masses consider intelligent.
TStephens wrote:
If you believe that there is something, that's what you're predisposed to see. If you're looking for proof of God, you can find it in every bit of life that exists, in the properties of water, the physical laws of the universe. Proof surrounds you.
When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will rule the planets
And love will steer the stars
This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius Age of Aquarius
Aquarius! Aquarius!
Harmony and understanding Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions Mystic crystal revelation
And the mind's true liberation Aquarius! Aquarius!
When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will rule the planets
And love will steer the stars
This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius Age of Aquarius
Aquarius! Aquarius! Aquarius! Aquarius!
Let the sunshine, let the sunshine in, the sunshine in
Let the sunshine, let the sunshine in, the sunshine in
Let the sunshine, let the sunshine in, the sunshine in
Quote:
I completely agree with gbaji
There begins a dark path.
But in this instance, he's right.
TStephens: you're right, as well. Where I disagree with you is the place this amorphous belief holds. As far as I'm concerned it is religion; others may say it is philosophy. Until there is a testable hypothesis, though, it's not science.
Now, I have no problem with teachers saying in class, "We don't know what started the ball rolling; that's a matter for your religious or philosophical beliefs." But to present as "accepted scientific theory" that there was an intelligence at work is just silly.
TStephens: you're right, as well. Where I disagree with you is the place this amorphous belief holds. As far as I'm concerned it is religion; others may say it is philosophy. Until there is a testable hypothesis, though, it's not science.
Now, I have no problem with teachers saying in class, "We don't know what started the ball rolling; that's a matter for your religious or philosophical beliefs." But to present as "accepted scientific theory" that there was an intelligence at work is just silly.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
I feel so dirty when I agree with Gbaji.
Gbaji occassionally does stray from the Right Wing agenda. I still have to shower after agreeing with him though.
Today Sun had interesting article on teaching ID in schools. Seems you are likely to get a teacher that won't teach evolution in alot of public schools these days
Science, faith clash in class
Some biology teachers are among evolution's challengers
By Arthur Hirsch
Sun reporter
Originally published November 27, 2005
Barbara Reger says she believes that God created the Earth, animals, plants and, of course, woman and man, and she tells children that some scientists insist nature shows the mark of a higher power's design.
This might not be worth noting but for the fact that Reger teaches biology in a public school. She is also head of the science department in a middle school in Indianapolis, one of the quiet proponents of intelligent design and creationism -- whose numbers science education experts call "troubling" and surprising -- among the ranks of public school teachers.
Today Sun had interesting article on teaching ID in schools. Seems you are likely to get a teacher that won't teach evolution in alot of public schools these days
Science, faith clash in class
Some biology teachers are among evolution's challengers
By Arthur Hirsch
Sun reporter
Originally published November 27, 2005
Barbara Reger says she believes that God created the Earth, animals, plants and, of course, woman and man, and she tells children that some scientists insist nature shows the mark of a higher power's design.
This might not be worth noting but for the fact that Reger teaches biology in a public school. She is also head of the science department in a middle school in Indianapolis, one of the quiet proponents of intelligent design and creationism -- whose numbers science education experts call "troubling" and surprising -- among the ranks of public school teachers.
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare
This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
Recent Visitors: 217
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (217)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Intelligent design
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC