Intelligent Design and The Holy Bible

Originally posted by Suzianne
Or insisting that it be taught in our schools alongside real science.

Why not teach what the scientist are actually doing? They are doing experiments to investigate irreducible complexity and intelligent design. The students should be made aware of it as well as all the faults with the theory of evolution and evilution in my opinion. That is what science is all about. How else can we really find out what the facts are and come to the understanding of the truth?

The Instructor

Originally posted by stellspalfie
it wasnt a court. it was a judge, a christian apologetic judge. who when faced with the overwhelming facts had to rule that it wasnt science. watch the documentary i provided.

If the Judge had been Judge Judy, I might have given a rat's ass.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Why not teach what the scientist are actually doing? They are doing experiments to investigate irreducible complexity and intelligent design. The students should be made aware of it as well as all the faults with the theory of evolution and evilution in my opinion. That is what science is all about. How else can we really find out what the facts are and come to the understanding of the truth?

The Instructor

what experiment involving irreducible complexity? can you tell us about one?

Originally posted by RJHinds
If the Judge had been Judge Judy, I might have given a rat's ass.

The Instructor

did you follow the court case?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
its two dogs names squeezed together. not that amazing or crazy.

You should be ashamed of yourself. How dreadful.

The Instructor 😀

Originally posted by RJHinds
You should be ashamed of yourself. How dreadful.

The Instructor 😀

je ne comprends pas que vous êtes fou?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
je ne comprends pas que vous êtes fou?

No, I am not nuts. I was just joking with you about squeezing two dogs together to get your name, stellspalfie. 😀

The instructor

Originally posted by twhitehead
Funny how you repeat this lie over and over despite being corrected many times in the past. If you had a case, you wouldn't need to lie.

That's what we expect though from a grown man who wilfully chooses to remain ignorant on the topic at hand.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
That's what we expect though from a grown man who wilfully chooses to remain ignorant on the topic at hand.

A New Theory of Evolution: Cellular Genetic Engineering

YouTube

YouTube

Evolutionary Programming is Organized Top-Down, not Bottom-Up

YouTube

The Evolutionary Algorithm is Intentional - and That's a Testable hypothesis

YouTube

Evolution as a Highly Optimized Calculation, Not a Random Walk

YouTube

A good theory that needs perfecting to eliminate the billions and millions of years among other things.

The Instructor

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am essentially non confrontational, i rarely enjoy battling against dogma, its tiresome, never the less, i am sure thats Hinds posted some details, Behe himself had a blog i don't know if he continues it.

In other words, no, you can't provide evidence on your own.

Originally posted by googlefudge

Intelligent Design is true science too....

What? are you 8 yrs old?

You're like a little kid on the school playground stamping your foot and
throwing a tantrum.

Things are not true because you, or anyone else, asserts them.
Belief is not knowledge.

It doesn't matter how much you believe something, wishing something
was tru at.

And this poses you a problem, because science does not support your position.
At all.

Looks to me like you are the one throwing a silly temper tantrum. RJ quoted Dawkin's words about his thoughts on something which could be construed to support ID, and you throw a tantrum that he is dishonest ?

That's stupid.

ID in the hands a number of scientists I have seen may have theological or philosophical implications. But any other science theory just as much has theological or philosophical implications.

Eugenia Scott hosted a talk on defining ID. And Eugenia Scott is dead set against allowing creationism to be taught in public schools in the US as far as I can see. Yet she moderated this debate (whatever her personal attitude towards ID might be.)

YouTube

Originally posted by stellspalfie
what experiment involving irreducible complexity? can you tell us about one?

A scientific blow to Darwinism - Irreducible complexity

YouTube&list=TL9R54gWvrlek

The Instructor

Originally posted by sonship
Looks to me like you are the one throwing a silly temper tantrum. RJ quoted Dawkin's words about his thoughts on something which could be construed to support ID, and you throw a tantrum that he is dishonest ?

That's stupid.

ID in the hands a number of scientists I have seen may have theological or philosophical implications. But any other science ...[text shortened]... r her personal attitude towards ID might be.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmMVgOTCukQ

Actually I was responding to the line I quoted (crazy I know) where hinds
responds to people informing him (correctly and yet again) that ID is not
science, and that the discovery institute is not doing science and neither
is it a peer reviewed scientific publisher ect ect.... With this...

Intelligent Design is true science too....

Which struck me rather strongly as being an 8 year old kid in the school
playground responding "it is so too!" to someone disagreeing with them.

I realise that that's not the only way of reading it but that's how it struck
me at the time.

I had already dealt with Hinds' twisting and taking out of context the words
of Richard Dawkins in an earlier post (the second one in this thread actually).



So perhaps you might want to try reading posts, and what they're responding
to a little more carefully.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Actually I was responding to the line I quoted (crazy I know) where hinds
responds to people informing him (correctly and yet again) that ID is not
science, and that the discovery institute is not doing science and neither
is it a peer reviewed scientific publisher ect ect.... With this...

[quote]Intelligent Design is true science too....[/quote ...[text shortened]... might want to try reading posts, and what they're responding
to a little more carefully.

I did not twist or take the words of Dawkins out of context. It is on the video for all to listen to. He just speculates that the intelligent designer might be an alien from another world, because the God of the Holy Bible is unacceptable to him.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
I did not twist or take the words of Dawkins out of context. It is on the video for all to listen to. He just speculates that the intelligent designer might be an alien from another world, because the God of the Holy Bible is unacceptable to him.

The Instructor

The idea of the 'Intelligent Designer' cannot ever be science, because it cannot be falsified. Just like any other supernatural event, if you can't falsify it it is not science. If you cannot, even in principle, prove something wrong, it is in the realm of religion or metaphysics.