Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

Since I clearly believe that creationism and ID are the samething and can provide more than valid reasons why they (it) should be taught in the classroom, prehaps you would like to demonstrate why I might (in your opinion) be making things up or lyingI say the law is shortsighted and inaccurate. Perhaps you would like to take up the opposite postion to demonstrate otherwise. My guess is that you are to afraidProve me wrong on both accounts if you are so inclinedDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Your as ignorant about reality as you are about creationism and ID. You wouldnt know what reality was if it was following you.Dawn Bertot

Your problem is that you misunderstand what creationism is or is not. Creationism has nothing to do with the specifics of any religion. Creationism is another word for design. Creationism cannot fail as a scientific theory because its foundation is based in the reality of the physical world, in the nature of observation demonstrated by order, law and purpose. These things are undeniable and unmistakableNow I can only know this by applying scientific methods and rules to that reality, hence ID or creationism is as much a scientific method as anyother and it serves a definate SECULAR purposeUnless you are prepared to demonstrate otherwiseCan you explain what your scientific theory allows me to know that ID does not and what it qualifies as science but mine does not. Now be very specificDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Now we have got the ball rolling, lets see if you have actually done what you say you have.Ive set out an argument which states that creationism cannot fail because it is based in the observation of order, law and purpose in the reality of the natural world.Did you touch this argument, absolutely not. the best you had to offer was that creationism has failed.Now i dont know where you learned to debate, but i am accustomed to the opposition actually responding to the argument. perhaps you would like to try againI stated that Creo and ID are a scientific theory because they follow the same tenets to thier conclusion, therefore not only qualify as a ST, but should be present as such in the classroomSince creationism and ID have nothing foundationally to do with religion, perhaps you could demonstrate why my case is not valid. My guess is that you will avoid this by a bombardment of sarcasm and lame witlets see what happens, Doctor, always ready with the answerIll give you another chance to demonstrate that I am wrong without another display your overwhelming wit and charmEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Possibly you have, but it could only be from a from a misconception and misunderstanding of what Creo and ID actually are. Now lets see you do it with an accurate explanation of the two itemsCreationism and ID cannot fail because they only involve the powers of obsrvation, explanation and conclusions, pitted against reality. Therefore you must possess some special power outside of these simple tenets. My guess is that it is your misunderstanding of reason and reality that misleads you into thinking you have accomplished such a feat Wow, he repeated one assertion and made another one, without explaining his first assertion. while I await the explanation of why creationism has failed, Ill add to it, for you to demonstrate why my powers of reasoning are some how in questionBetter hurry DA, you will fall behind quickly as the assertions start to mount up and ill keep reminding you of each and every detail of each and every one, that has little or no responseNow i know your simply a mathmatician, so this valid philosophical reasoning thing may be out of your reach. Feel free to include or substitute yourself with a pinch hitter if you desireHurry DADawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Have at it if you are so inclined. assertions dont amount to arguments. Lets see what frakos gotDawn Bertot

Creationist's claims are not reality, creationism as design is reality i agree this is nothing more than a statement, its not an argument Wrong, design is not defined in terms of an agent doing anything. design is defined by the reality of order and law. This is what it is at its core. BTVN of the case it couild be nothing morethe distinction this fella requires is contrived and imaginary it is not necessary, for the argument to be valid, AS IS The reason no one includes agent or purpose, is because logically and rationally it is not necessary. your kidding, these are the best ones you chose to presentOne fails to see why the bones of the design ideology, ie, order and law are not sufficient to predicate the existence of a designer, by themself. that is, it works in reality and logical formOne fails to see why any of its PROCESS is not a scientific approachWhat specifics about the designer would need to be present or presented to invalidate the argument and conclusions, as isWhy is this necessary. Imagining that a problem exists and it parameters, is not the same as demonstrating why that is necessary to begin withUnless I am missing something I dont see anything in the above comment that invalidates the reality of design, via the principle of order and law to a purpose, whether we agree with the purpose or not. Or whether we think it could have happened or been designed better Ones opinion about design being subjective, does not remove the reality of order and law. happily design does not rely on opinon or subjectivity. I fail to see how this statement has any validity Reality in the nature of order and law are reality, they cannot be contrary to common sense. To ignore thier reality and obvious function would be contrary to common sense This statement has no validity or rational in removeing the basic tenets of an argument set out for design. order law and purpose are present irregardless of our perspective of its functionthe above comment is jargon designed to convalute a very simple principle. BTW, it does not workIf however, you think I have missed something by all means present itDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

How can a member spam a thread that is on topic? So let me get this straight, if i disagree with you and dont see your conclusions, you must be right about this matter, correct?I tell you what, when I see the argument that is so convincing that it cannot be denied, Ill quit or switch sides. In the meantime DA, remember your not the only person with an opinion or argumentYou are an arrogant one, I swareDawn Bertot

Part of the division and misunderstanding is due to the fact that many believe creationism or ID is religiously based, it is not. One needs simply to evaluate the method of approach for these diciplines to know they have nothing to do with religion, atleast initiallyIf it could be demonstrated that i was wrong, an argument would have been presented in that connectionNo such division exists in the first place for someone to theorize whether creation and ID should or should not be taught in the science classroom. Its all science up to a certain point, especially IDs tenets. One would wonder how any thinking person could concieve of it It amazes me how you think you can make a baseless assertion, without the slightest evidence to accompany such a statement. you have some 200 posts only been here a while and can assert such nonesense.Provide the thread or post I have abandoned, if you are so inclined. Otherwise, check you facts before making silly commentsDawn Bertot

DA, as per my request you havent demonstrated that you know what creationism is at its core, or how it is theorized. Ill try again. ill put it in question form so you can take it nice and slow. Is it possible to contemplate and theroize, by observation and evaluation, the physical world and its order, to conclude that design is a very real explanation of the existence of things. Yes or No?Even if your answer is no, what does any of that evalustion have to do with religion? And why would it not qualify as some sort of scientific evaluation?Bertot writesDA writesHow can I know if you wont present one or answer simple questions You see thats your problem, while i dont know that you are more attractive the the E man, I do know that you are not more moral than Hitler, because you cant even reason correctly concerning such mattersIf God does not exist as you suggest, then only a fool would believe that his morals are Better or Worse than someone elses. If god does exist then you are as contemptable and detestable as Hitler because of your heresy and blasphemy."If one does not provide for his own he has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel"Your still pretty low on the scale, no matter whos standard you use. If no God, then you are illogical and stupid. If God then you are as detestable as HitlerIt does not surprise me that you cannot reason correctly concerning creationism and ID, when you, who does not believe in God, actually thinks his morals are better than someone elses. Its just matter in motion, just doing abstract subjective stuffDawn Bertot

When you can demonstrate, outside of your own desires, that such is a requirement for the design principle to not be valid, in and of itself, by order and law alone, your point would have validity. As such it does notI dont know absolutely the ultimate source of the materials that allows gravity to work, but hey, guess what, it doesIs it true that law and order exist? As such it is sufficient to establish a valid argument, scientific in nature that allows the design principle. Only a fool or a person void of any reasoning abilites would deny such a simple principleAgain if you would explain why these two are necessary and why they would invalidate the argument as such, it might make your contention more reasonableOtherwise your just ramblingDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Its not a matter of how I use them, they are observable in reality.Order is simply the observable and testable materials in nature, that work in an orderly fashion, in conjuction with its parts, to produce a demonstratable purposeAn organism or a simple organism doesnt stop doing what it was designed to do or become somthing different, that is not allowed by its biological make up. It follows that bio and its order, unless something prevents itSimply disagreeing with such observable order, is not sufficient to deny its existence. it doesnt need your approval for it to be valid and observableDawn Bertot

Im happy to do that at any point, but there is every reason to believe you will continue to fail to present any argument and continue with your sarcasm and lame humorWhen you present the wisp of a response, answer or argument here, I might take you serious somewhere else, not until then. You really dont know how to respond to this argument do you?Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

you mean I cant use the words "evolution", natural selection or mutation when describing these events? Evolution is therefore invalid because it involves itself in circular reasoning?How do you define a thing if its function is not what it is or what it is doing?now these are the heights and breath of silliness you fellas will go to to avoid an obvious pointI gave you a very clear explanation of order and law in the previous post and you just ignorded itYou have to do that to avoid the force of the argument Acting like a moron doesnt help your causeDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

You obviously havent been doing this very long or you would know immediately that there is no difference between creationism and ID. Theses are terms Nuke, they only assist in defining reality, they are not realityThe reality of the situation is that they are both only an attempt from a scientific approach to explain the nature of things.there is no such thing as religious creationism, again, just another term to help explain the nature of things. there is only a physical explanation, rationally produced, that pitts itself against reality and the natural orderNow here is the point, pay close attention. the explanation (the scientific approach)what ever you choose to call it, is logically valid or it is notSince, the design principle from the perspective of observable order and obvious law are more than valid and no argument can be set out that demonstrates it as invalid and it falls squarely within only two possibilites, it most certainly should be taught in the science classroom.There is no rational explanation attempting to explan the nature of things that should be excludedIf you want to call this ID, fine, if you want to call it creo, fine, if you want to call it a scientific method fine. these are only term, they are not reality. reality is what you do in your investigation and whether it is logically soundNuke use your head to see something deeper. Ofcourse I amn ontopic, Im trying to make clarifications where they are needed. people bog down when they dont even understand the nature of things or reality itselfGeeeeZDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.