<p>
[quote]
There, and here: If this really happened as written
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So all history, including evolutional progress, can not be scientific if all we have on it is somebody's writ? would that be what you are saying?</p>
<p>Ok perhaps I should have included the last part of that... "in the scriptures"
The main words I wanted to highlight were "if" and "scriptures"</p>
<p>Should we learn about all aspects and beliefs to an argument? Yes.</p>
<p>Should non-scientific beliefs be taught as SCIENCE? Absolutely not.</p>
<p>I am an extremely religious person and I do believe that evolution was guided by a higher power, but that is a religious matter. What is taught in science classrooms should be just that: science.</p>
<p>More liberal and philosophical and religious topics should be taught in English classrooms, social studies rooms, and at home/religious places, NOT in science classrooms.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would argue that this is COMPLETELY correct! intelligent in the context of intelligent design is argued to be of a higher intelligence than human beings have reached. We haven't got the science to come close to it, thus it would be unable to be proven by our comparatively miniscule, limited, unable to grasp the entire realm science. I argue that you are correct mr. weedboy. So pass the pipe, and keep the rotation poppin'! </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have to agree with this. Science is constantly changing..things that were once believed to be true, have been debunked and changed by people looking at different possibilities. Just because ID is so far out of reach by any human scientist doesn't mean that it's not a scientific phenomena that can be maintained as a possibility (whichever way a person perceives it). After all, the universe, space, solar system(s), stars, planets were all created somehow, and our scientists may never find out exactly how, because it's tooooooo large of a concept for anybody to grasp. So ID should be allowed in a scientific setting as another possibility of creation at unexplainable levels. </p>
<p>Evolution/big bang theory haven't been completely proven, and have too many missing links to really hold a lot of scientific fortitude (however, they are more controllable within the current, very limited, level of human scientific progression). Nevertheless, a lot of missing explanations go into these scientific concepts as well.</p>
<p>So are you saying that ID is science (and therefore should be taught, if only "as a possibility", in science classes), but its just so far advanced that we cannot comprehend it?
If the answer is yes, my follow-up is, "have you not been listening to everything that has been said here?"
Anything... (and I mean absolutely anything) that wants to be called even remotely scientific in the true sense of the word needs a falsifiable hypothesis (it feels like I've said this before). Otherwise those "things that were once believed to be true" you speak of could never have been "debunked and changed". ID doesn't have this. Therefore (and this is by a logical tautology people), ID is not science. It cannot even be called scientific "possibility", as you apparently want to call it.</p>
<p>Nothing is out of the realm of human understanding, IMHO. Don't say that the creation of the universe is "toooooo large of a concept" to grasp, because you don't know that. Like you said, we are constantly discovering new things about the universe we live in. </p>
<p>And I like how you say that ID should be allowed as "another possibility at unexplainable levels". Tell me, what other possibility at unexplainable levels do you know of that scientists are studying right now? Religion deals with the unexplainable - science deals with what can be known (even if it is not right now).</p>
<p>As for the missing links bit - I've heard it called "god of the gaps" refering to the gaps in our knowledge that supposedly proves god's existance. Well, as you again pointed out, we know now what was once not known. So I guess god must not exist then. We plugged those gaps in our knowledge didn't we? Oh, there are more you say? Well, I guess those must be the truly unexplainable type then :rolleyes:</p>
<p>The true holes exist in your logic and ideas. I do not mean that as an ad hominem, only a statement of my observation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Nothing is out of the realm of human understanding, IMHO
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
we are constantly discovering new things about the universe we live in.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
science deals with what can be known (even if it is not right now).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thus, ID can be a scientific theory too, eh? As you manipulate my argument out of context, to tailor a response, I will argue that, IMO, you are just arguing in a circle. Grasping at as many straws as you claim to see me doing.</p>
<p>The conclusion you draw out of those randomly chosen bits of my post is incorrect. I will refer you to my previous statements about falsifiable hypotheses for that one.</p>
<p>Second, please show me where I have taken your argument out of context. Correct me and explain what your argument is, and I will respond to that. Just make sure you take into account what I have already said (i.e. don't say ID should be science unless you are willing to give me a hypothesis that can be disproven)</p>
<p>You know what? It would be AWESOME if biology classes taught the "arguments" made by the proponents of intelligent design - and then required an exam, or essay, or whatever, that knocked down those arguments. That would have a bigger impact on most kids, I think, that basic study would.</p>
<p>
[quote]
BOTH evolution and ID are theories. Neither of them can be proved beyond a doubt. Thus, either all major theories should be taught with equal footing or none of them should be taught!
[/quote]
A theory is a well-developed idea, supported by evidence and evaluated thousands of times over. No, it's not a fact - however, it's not a fact in the way we say that the circumference of a circle is equal to 2(pi * radius), even though a perfect circle is impossible to create due to human error. ID is not a theory - it's a flimsy hypothesis proposed by those who are scared to let go of the god they've created (or, if you prefer, the way they've interpreted the concept of creation they hold as truth).</p>
<p>Hypothesis that can be disproven? The phenomenon of the after-life is something that has been/is being researched, and has built up an argument with scientific hypothesis that is falsifiable.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience</a></p>
<p>The reason this ties into my previous points? When i stated: "Science is constantly changing..things that were once believed to be true, have been debunked and changed by people looking at different possibilities." I was referring generally to science itself. If we can scientifically study the supernatural "phenomenon of Near Death Experiences", then why can't supernatural consideration be used with natural considerations in the scientific study of the "creation"? </p>
<p>And when you say:
[quote]
Don't say that the creation of the universe is "toooooo large of a concept" to grasp, because you don't know that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I respond with: "to this day, I do know it is tooooo large (maybe there's another way of saying it... too complex, too "never ending", etc.--but all the same) to grasp. Name one scientist who has this completely understood and proven...and I will retract my statement."</p>
<p>Yeah, I realize that science is limited to a certain set of rules, and ID doesn't entirely fit these rules, yet. But at some point there has to be a compromise about theories that are beyond our Earthly grasp, otherwise all of it is generally falsifiable, because if we only go by the scientific findings, it's still highly up in the air.</p>
<p>Meaning: The entire creation (what I mean here is the creation of the universe, not just earth, and it's inhabitants) is one BIG supernatural/natural mystery that nobody can put a true "(today's definition of) scientific" finger on--it's too broad/big/unexplained. Darwinism alone, however scientific by definition, just doesn't cut it when questions pertaining to the Universe etc. are presented. </p>
<p>Disclaimer: I am not a scientist, nor am I studying within a science related major...I do like to debate, however, and do realize that I don't have a perfect understanding of the "science" of the creation, nor would I ever claim to. I also leave this up to each's own interpretation, and am not responsible for any mis-interpretations!!!! ;)</p>
<p>But at some point there has to be a compromise about theories that are beyond our Earthly grasp</p>
<p>But see, the thing is, there doesn't. Science has it's rules... and that's it. Period. They don't flex or compromise for things "beyond our Earthly grasp" because that is the definition of what religion focuses on - the supernatural.</p>
<p>The phenomenon of the after-life is something that has been/is being researched, and has built up an argument with scientific hypothesis that is falsifiable.</p>
<p>As for that - well, did you actually read that article? Because I assure you, it has nothing to do with the afterlife (or god for that matter). NDE's are simply those experiences described by people who almost died, whatever that experience was. The explanation this scientific hypothesis proposes is purely physiological in nature (note: not supernatural), regarding a malfunction in the temporal lobe of the brain.
So no, this is not an example of something related to god that has a truly scientific hypothesis.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Meaning: The entire creation (what I mean here is the creation of the universe, not just earth, and it's inhabitants) is one BIG supernatural/natural mystery that nobody can put a true "(today's definition of) scientific" finger on--it's too broad/big/unexplained. Darwinism alone, however scientific by definition, just doesn't cut it when questions pertaining to the Universe etc. are presented.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's because it "Darwinism" or rather evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of the Universe, the earth, origins of life, etc...</p>
<p>Look, evolution explains biodiversity - not any of those other things. Don't like abiogenesis? Fine. Why are you attacking evolution?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yeah, I realize that science is limited to a certain set of rules, and ID doesn't entirely fit these rules, yet.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Or ever. Science deals with the natural whereas by definition, ID is outside. ID cannot be science - it is defined to be outside science. It's also an attempt to cover up the religious parts of creationsim.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But at some point there has to be a compromise about theories that are beyond our Earthly grasp, otherwise all of it is generally falsifiable, because if we only go by the scientific findings, it's still highly up in the air.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Can you explain this? I'm not getting it right now.</p>