So here is the problem that I see: This systematic suppression of ID is nothing less than coercion. But if you think not, then I am curious to hear why it is you and so many others feel threatened by it. Why does ID threaten?
Because it encourages people to not ask questions. Why ask a difficult question that may very well require lots of hard work and serious investigation (hey, maybe even dedicating you life to searching for the answer) when you could simply say..."Eureka, God did it!!"?
We complain about how we, as a Country, are falling behind other developed Nations in the areas of math and science, and yet you want this crap to be taught in our schools. What would we teach? That rather than following the scientific method in our search for answers, let's instead just stop when the questions become too difficult (or might cause a bit of a hiccup in our religious beliefs), and proclaim the answer to be "God"? Thank you...but no.
ID brings nothing to the table, and is a waste of valubale time.
Not so, it encourages people to think critically and divide pure empirical science from materialist philosophies.
Horse shit. When confronted with a potentially difficult question to answer (ie: "How could the eye have evolved?"), I.D. claims that it could not have evolved and that God designed the eye. So what ever you do, do not investigate potential mechanisms by which the evolution of the eye can be explained, because it would be a waste of time. Instead, simple state that "God did it" an move on.
That's not encouraging critical thinking. Quite the opposite. For you to even suggest that teaching students that "God did it, so no further investigation is needed" is a a valid and acceptable answer, and that it somehow encourages critical thinking is so utterly preposterous, that the thought of you having any say whatsoever in our education system scares the crap out of me.
or...eureka, evolution did it!!!
Yeah...well, except for the fact if we ever see this sort of answer, it is followed by a detailed explanation of HOW the evolutionary processes brought about the structure, or the change, or whatever it is we are describing.
Not so with ID. With ID, it stops with "eureka, God did it". No further questioning allowed and no further investigation needed. What a complete crock of shit to be teaching our children.
We complain about how we, as a Country, are falling behind other developed Nations in the areas of math and science
This is actually not true, technological advances continue in the absence of evolutionary assumptions.
The fact alone that we are even discussing whether something as vacuous as ID should be taught in our science classrooms demonstrates that science education in this Country is sorely lacking.
You know, you spout off a lot about Natural Selection this, and Variability that, and Philosophies these, and blah blah blah.
Look, it's quite simple...cut the bullshit and provide to us the I.D. hypothesis. What is the testable hypothesis put forth by I.D.? If you truly believe that I.D. meets the criteria of being a real scientific tool, then for the first time in the history of the planet, provide for us the workable, testable, falsifiable hypothesis on which it is based.
And while you're at it, why not provide us with even ONE new piece of usable information we have "learned" from I.D. What scientific advancement has it brought to the scientific community and/or the World as a whole. What do we know now that we did not know prior to the utilization of the new, revolutionary, scientific tool known as Intelligent Design?
Wrong -ID claims that the evidence does not support that concept as well as it supports special creation by an intelligence that acts beyond natural laws inherent in our system.
But this means nothing. There is NO evidence to support special creation by an intelligence that acts beyond natural laws. There is only your refusal to accept and/or understand the evidence provided by evolutionary theory. I.D. brings absolutely NO evidence to the table. It simply says that evolution can't explain it, so God must have done it. There is no evidence Beretta...none. Or perhaps you will finally provide us with some. Please...I beg of you...provide us with some evidence that supports a designer.
The fact that creatures appear fully formed in the geological strata, remain essentially unchanged (i.e. exhibit stasis) for the duration of their appearance and then disappear abruptly or (in other cases) are essentially the same as those now living, is better explained by special creation rather than by gradualism which is badly supported by the available evidence.
Bull shit. Do you just sit there and make this crap up? This is complete and utter nonsense. You either no nothing about the fossil record and/or evolutionary theory, or you are purposefully telling untruths.
Id also claims that wonderful stories of gradual evolution of, say the eye, are badly supported since all different kinds of fully developed eyes appear, not piece by piece, but complete in the geological record.
And yet I.D. provides absolutely no contradictory evidence in support of this designer. It's once again the typical "to complex to evolve so God did it" answer. Nothing is learned. Nothing is questioned. No new research is spawned. It's a dead end, never to be brought up again. "God did it...now shut up and get out you English Books". Wow...what a great learning experience.
Where are all the inbetween partly functional eyes? What would their purpose be that natural selection would retain them if they didn't work to begin with.
Oh, for the love of god...are you really this ignorant? Pull out any basic Zoology text book and start with chapter one. And natural selection would “retain” them because they provided an advantage. Having a light sensitive cell is better than not having a light sensitive cell. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
In the absence of absolute proof for your view, lets allow for the alternative models to be considered.That is critical thinking as opposed to indoctrinated thinking.
And if one actually critically looks at your alternative, it becomes quite evident that it is vacuous and provides nothing. It only (falsely) criticizes evolutionary theory while, in and of itself, contributes nothing to the scientific community. For a model to be a viable alternative it must provide oh...I don't know...how about some friggen supportive evidence.
We don't have to know where the eye came from in order to investigate it and work on technological ideas concerning it.
I'm glad to see that we agree that I.D. discourages further investigations into the unknown. And this completely ignores the fact the because of our understanding of evolutionary theory, we know that we can investigate and conduct experiments and you know...fix eyes...by examining other, closely related organisms. To suggest that we can advance our knowledge of the eye without the use of evolutionary theory is to then also knowingly ignore potential areas of important research.
No, it is generally followed by imaginative stories of how evolutionists believe it happened with no evidence at all to back up their assertions just that solid belief that material mechanisms must account for everything.
Again...are you really this blissfully ignorant?
I'm not here to write a thesis
I didn't ask you to write a thesis. Do you know nothing about science and the scientific method, Beretta? I simply asked you to be the first person in the history of mankind to actually put forth a testable hypothesis. You're a long long long way from having to worry about writing a thesis. Baby steps, Beretta...baby steps.
...-there are so many good websites out there presenting these things...
Bwah ha ha ha ha. Well at least you have a sense of humor.
...-why must I repeat it?
Because there fucking isn't one...and you know it. So either provide a testable, falsifiable hypothesis or admit that none exists.
Most branches of science were started by people that believed that God was responsible for creation and that we therefore live in a rational universe with working laws.
Blahdy Blahdy fuckin Blah. All I did was ask for one piece of new information that comes to us via I.D. Do you have any at all, or are ya gonna try to baffle me again with more psychobabble bullshit?
We do empirical science just like everyone else. Like I've said before, you don't have to prove where an eye came from to investigate the structure.
Well, this should be easy then. First, provide us with your testable, falsifiable hypothesis (you know, that science thingie you use to design the experiments). Next, why don’t you just give us a synopsis of your experimental design. And finally, provide us with the peer reviewed, scientific journal in which this novel I.D. concept was (or soon will be) published.
And in the same vein who needs to know that we must have evolved in order to investigate what we see around us?
Wow...simply wow! And yet you try to tell us that I.D would not stifle our childrens desire to investigate and ask questions. Amazing.
Hey, look...Beretta...before you get all excited about this new paradigm shift, what say you first provide us with that pesky, hard to find hypothesis you so conveniently keep forgetting about. I mean, hell bells, if I'm gonna have to start tossing out all these wonderful science books I have, I'd at least like to first see what must surely be the mother of all hypotheses!
I think the biggest problem is the misconceptions that abound about what ID is trying to achieve- they are trying to get a fair hearing and to allow children to hear both sides of the origins debate as well as to explain to them where science and philosophy must be separated.
I think that this will be the third time in this thread that I've asked you to state the testable, falsifiable I.D. hypothesis.
You continually go on and on about the scientific merits of I.D., but yet you seem incapable of even meeting one of the first steps of the scientific method. I mean, you really seem to enjoy writing tomes about I.D., and I realize I'm asking for only a sentence or two...but what do you say, Beretta...why not give it a whirl. Only one or two sentences should do it. You think you could limit yourself to so little...and finally answer the question?