Good luck Texas.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by FIREWALL

When did Texas become a state.

exactly

its a republic!

[clive bradbury]

Dawkins believes in ID? Er...unsuprisngly...no -

http://richarddawkins.net/article,23...ichard-Dawkins

[Rockstar]

In an interview his answer to our exisitence was I.D. HOWEVER he went on to say we may then have been seeded by aliens from another planet and it was they who evolved IAW Darwins theory.

Ya now thats science LOL

[UnderseaLcpl]

I don't see any harm in simply presenting the theory to students. If they are so stupid or so devoid of critical thinking skills as to be unable to make a rational choice of which theory(if either) to follow, then no amount of education is going to do them any good anyways. Besides, children are already required to learn about world religions, and the information isn't on any standardized tests.

Of course, we could avoid this whole issue if we had a privatized or semi-privatized education system where schools competed and determined their own curricula.

[Rockstar]

Because a certain theory relies heavily on science to arbitrarliy add zeros to time. Because they say for creatures to evolve it MUST take a gazillion of years right? Even if it were correct evolution science still does not answer where we came from or how 'something' came from 'nothing'. If we were created by I.D. 6,000 years is plausible. We should be able to discuss it , to reason with one another rather than one side calling the other stupid, ignorent, or blind.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Hear hear. I am a proponent of conventional evolutionary theory but it drives me nuts when people try to shut the ID people up.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Because a certain theory relies heavily on science to arbitrarliy add zeros to time.

You're saying that the theory of the Big Bang relies on the theory of Evolution?

Even if it were correct evolution science still does not answer where we came from or how 'something' came from 'nothing'

It's not supposed to.

[Gorduz]

"In an interview his answer to our exisitence was I.D. HOWEVER he went on to say we may then have been seeded by aliens from another planet and it was they who evolved IAW Darwins theory. "

could I get the source Rockstar?

Of course the origin of life is still not fully understood, but as written it is not supposed to explain how something came from nothing, but how that something evolves. And evolution happens, experimentalists evolve cells in their laboratories, theorist can easily simulate how a small mutation AND natural selection (an important factor that is often forgotten by ID supporters) can create complex being s like ourself.

[Rockstar]

The theory of evolution is based upon a book called the ORIGIN of Species. How does one explain the ORIGIN of a species?


Source for interview

[Kapt Z]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Because a certain theory relies heavily on science to arbitrarliy add zeros to time. Because they say for creatures to evolve it MUST take a gazillion of years right? Even if it were correct evolution science still does not answer where we came from or how 'something' came from 'nothing'. If we were created by I.D. 6,000 years is plausible. We should be able to discuss it , to reason with one another rather than one side calling the other stupid, ignorent, or blind.

To paraphrase Joseph Campbell-

"If you could prove the existence of GOD what would be the point of faith?"

Let God remain a mystery of our hearts. If we try to drag him under the microscope I think we'll regret it.

[Gorduz]

You were right that he admits that a sort I.D. can have some merit (a scienentist can not dismiss theories). But so far the evidence for this is not in any way conclusive enough fot it to be considered of as more than an idea, or hypothesis. And in no way is the evidence for I.D. conclusive enough to be taken into textbooks yet.

But when most people talk about I.D. they link the designer to some supernatural being (i.e. God), thats what is wrong. If you support I.D. by some other natural being that we don't know about sure, I'm not a biologist, and if you are then I will listen to your theory with respect. But if the designer is supposed to be a supernatural being, then it has nothing to do with science(perhaps theology).

Now as said I.D. could be considered in some way a hypothesis but until the supporters stop mixing religion(pr. def. beliving in something unprovable) into it, they will not be taken serously by their scientific peers.

and well said Kapt Z

[Rockstar]

(pr. def. beliving in something unprovable) Does anyone here really think aliens know about Darwins theory of the Origin of species? But it still doesn't answer where they came from now does it?

Kapt Z look out the window into space, the oceans, the land, your own body don't you ever wonder how it all came to be?

Myself I believe in the intelligent design of YHVH.


.

[Gorduz]

Your first question has nothing to do with teaching I.D. To the second question: Life probably started by some freak chemical reaction, but there could be other theories as well(As said I'm no biologist). However due to lack of experimental data (digging up million years old single cells are hard) I don't think anyone knows.

I think perhaps you also ask how did it all began (life, universe, etc.). There are theories but in the end the question, of why it happend will have to be answered by religion as it is probably impossible to investigate it scientificly. Most atheists probably answer that that question is irrelevant, most religious scientist probably believes (at least I do) that questions marks the end of sciense and the starting point of faith.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

If we were created by I.D. 6,000 years is plausible. We should be able to discuss it

Sure, but you have to scientifically proof it (or at least try it).

Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

You have to convince geologist, paleontologist, biologist, antropologist, genetics and a whole bunch of other scientist who work with the theory for years.

The age of the earth explained.

[heartc]

Originally Posted by Gorduz

But when most people talk about I.D. they link the designer to some supernatural being (i.e. God), thats what is wrong. If you support I.D. by some other natural being that we don't know about sure, I'm not a biologist, and if you are then I will listen to your theory with respect. But if the designer is supposed to be a supernatural being, then it has nothing to do with science(perhaps theology).

Define "natural".