Unintelligible Redesign

The main problem with ID is that it is essentially old school religion in the emporer's new cloths. When humanity lacks an explination or understanding of some natural event, there are those that will say it is the work of spirits, gods, god almighty, ect. ID tries to imply that since our understanding of the mechanics of evolution is incomplete, then it must be another "being's" work. I will be the first to admit that science doens't have all the answers, but it does try and find them. If ID has solid evidence for its mechanics (does it even have any?), if it makes definite predictions that can be tested, and if those tests support the theory, then it would be a valid scientific theory, or at least the beggining of one. Till then, its simply old school faith dressed in new age cloths. Evolution has a large body of scientific evidence behind it, and has repeatadly be tested succefully as a scietific theory. ID isn't even a testable hypothesis yet, and as such, shouldn't be taught in schools. Its like cold water table top fusion. It sounds really nifty, but till there is repeatable experimental tests that support the hypothesis, it is nothing more than an inquiry. That isn't to say it may not one day be scientifically supported, but till then, it really has no place in a classroom. If the hypothesis isn't scietifically supported, well, then it goes the way of previous bogus hypothesis, into the trash dump.

Greg, I must say I find your description of TOE as a religion very amusing. TOE, like all scientific theories, follows the scientific method. For some reason, creationist like to call it a religion. Of course, the reason for this is quiet simple. Creationism isn't scietifically valid, and since TOE conflicts with your world view, despite being a solid scietific theory, you choose to label it a religion so you can dismiss it without having to invalide it. Course, that is like saying gravitional theory is a worldview, and there for isn't valid. What drivel!
However, privatly funded institutions should have the right to teach what they will. If you wish to send your children to a private school that teaches creationism, fine. Personally , I think you are handicapping your children intellectually. Besides, it isn't like you arn't teaching your children YEC at home. Asking a public instituition to teach mythology as science, however, is not acceptable. Science isn't about popularity. It isn't about what makes us feel good. Its simply a method to formulate theories that best describe the observable universe around us.
As for Copernicus, and subsequnetly Galileo, it was the CHURCH that tried to supress VALID SCIENTIFIC THEORIES to DEFEND A RELIGIOUS WORLDVIEW. I am amazed at the audacity of your attempt to use copernicus as vindication of relgious dogma , when relgious dogma was the reason Copernicus and Galileo were ridiculed and persecuted. How very ironic. Peace.

quote:

---

Originally posted by GregP618:
Am I correct in thinking that the original geocentric viewpoint was postulated by Ptolemy who was neither Jew nor Christian, but Greek? His viewpoint wasn't based on the Bible or on scientific evidence. The Copernican view was in opposition to the establishment of the time which the Church had allowed itself to become caught up in. Why they attempted to defend a theory which was neither Biblical or scientific is beyond me, I'm not surprised they came out with egg on their faces! This is what happens when the Church tries to align itself with the scientific theory of the day. Trying to fit the Bible to a worldly viewpoint is a dangerous game, which is why I won't align myself with "theistic evolution" or "progressive creation" as I understand them to be.

​

---

You seemed to miss the whole point. Besides,I believe it was the bible that put forth the whole concept of a firmement in heaven ( a nice solid sphere which contained the heavens). Now, I doubt you hold onto that particular part of the bible as literal truth. My point is that the bible is relgious scripture and NOT a text of Scientific knowledge. As for the "ptolemy" theory, it was the most accurate theory at the time it was created. Copernicus found faults with it and came up with a better theory, which was further supported by Galileo. Scientific theory changes to reflect new data as we more accuratley describe the world around us.