Enough of this faux debate on ‘intelligent design’. Couldn’t the religious approach to science be….?
…characterized as "Retarded Design?"
Notice I mentioned religion, not your god.
forgetful student: you have lost the debate, over and over again. This is a new debate, based on your loss of the last one. Answer the question; you can debate ‘it’ if you want.
cadisney: this is the most accurate term I can think of; if offense was taken, perhaps a nerve was hit.
fs: box office returns shows Titanic is the best film ever made. Fact: it sucks!
you could use some tolerance yourself.
fs: you lose for not being rational; it has nothing to do with numbers, only self-congruency. Bottom line: Unless you accept the possibility that god doesn’t *have* to exist for evolution to work, the ID (mystical) component infects it like a cancer, and you start to become intoxicated with regard to where mysticism ends and science begins.
They are fundamentally incompatible notions.
fs: your persistence is more childlike than academic. I do agree debate skills are healthy, but such exercises are really moot. Q:Does the ‘concept’ of existence exist? A:sure! Q: Without the senses? A:Only with common or contrasting reference frame. Q: Could you make an argument for anything without the senses and thus language? A: no. And so the arguments go with respect to the ‘concept’ of love as well.
It is not I (as an agnostic) who has problems considering the existence of god or not. It goes without saying that I cannot definitively say so or not. But I can deemphasize the importance of this consideration (as with the current consideration). And so it will go with my choice of best answer with this question. The burden is on you to consider god’s nonexistence. I have no problem with considering its existence or nonexistence. YOU HANDICAP YOURSELF in this manner (ask yourself whether fear exists). I just think ‘retarded’ is a good way to describe this handicap.
ID is a complete fraud.
It isn’t science it isn’t even a belief. It’s a public relations campaign. Do a quick search for ID & Wedge Strategy and you will find that in the words of the ID promoters themselves that the sole purpose of ID is as a campaign to undermine science and evolution specifically.
This is not just my opinion it’s the stated goal of the biggest ID promoters.
October 18th, 2009 at 3:50 am
I agree, it’s a great pun
References :
October 18th, 2009 at 4:28 am
ID is a complete fraud.
It isn’t science it isn’t even a belief. It’s a public relations campaign. Do a quick search for ID & Wedge Strategy and you will find that in the words of the ID promoters themselves that the sole purpose of ID is as a campaign to undermine science and evolution specifically.
This is not just my opinion it’s the stated goal of the biggest ID promoters.
References :
October 18th, 2009 at 5:01 am
What you did is use an offensive term to describe something you dont agree with.
Doesnt take a genius to do that. 1st graders have been doing it for years.
References :
October 18th, 2009 at 5:14 am
Precisely. =]
References :
October 18th, 2009 at 5:32 am
That would be a fairly accurate name, yes.
References :
October 18th, 2009 at 6:14 am
I thought atheists liked debate! What happened?
—————————————-
Thanks for the offer: If we lost the debate, then why does 72% of the world believe there is a Creator God? Apparently those who don’t believe in God are in the vast minority: 2.5%!
—————————————-
W-w-wait: how am I being intolerant? And I totally agree that majority does not rule, but I thought that was the logic you were using! So explain: How does one win/lose the debate?
You’re making this really fun! Thanks! I love debating too!
(Guess what else? I just found out that ID actually attempts to negate my religion altogether! Still, since there are scientists that purport it, I believe it should be mentioned at least. And it doesn’t negate evolution at all!)
——————————————
I don’t know whether to go on supporting ID’s right to existence although I don’t believe in it. Now that I know what it really means, I believe JUST evolution would give people a better chance to believe in their personal concept of God. Mark and mach… thanks for explaining your viewpoint, it’s much more convincing than when you just call things you disagree with "retarded": that attitude doesn’t put you in a RATIONAL light.
If I have to believe there’s a chance God doesn’t exist to enter this debate, then I believe all atheists should be required to believe there may be a god to enter the debate.
In my favorite class of all time, each student had to debate whether he/she exists, without using senses as proof, after all: senses can be very deceiving, something we should know in a world of computers, virtual games etc. I don’t think ANYONE actually disbelieves their own existence, but it is an enlightening activity that builds debating skills (something which should be important in all classes and aspects of life). Trying to prove love exists (as more than just chemical reactions in the brain) is even trickier.
Finally, when did Aristotle’s material outlook win over the definition of rationality anyway? To name a few: Socrates, Plato, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Einstein did not agree with him. Have you ever read The Allegory of the Cave? Science and scientists should not stand alone in the definition of rationality. That’s almost as ridiculous as the "Church" standing alone in that position.
Thanks again, and (I just can’t help saying it) God bless.
References :
http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
http://www.alienryderflex.com/evolution/
October 18th, 2009 at 6:28 am
religion and science cannot be mixed, just like oil and water.
References :
October 18th, 2009 at 6:52 am
Well, though I certainly empathize with your disdain for ID, and I get the joke, Retarded Science is a more accurate insult. Or perhaps Intelligent Deception!
Retarded Design might still imply to some people that design was involved; just that the Designer was retarded (though I don’t think that’s what you meant). I’d prefer not to attack a person’s image of God even though I don’t believe in one… or to muddy the real issue about what bothers me… or to risk offending someone who will then just close their mind to further reason.
But my pickiness aside, you are absolutely right and accurate to call it a faux debate! And what bothers me is just that — the ignorance and/or deception involved in suggesting there’s a scientific debate between evolution and intelligent design. I don’t mind people believing in God, and to some extent even tolerate the widespread ignorance about evolution. Some people genuinely and innocently believe in ID because they are just so indoctrinated in their religion that they have no incentive to study the science. It may not even occur to them. (It’s sad and pathetic, but not my biggest concern.)
My biggest problem is with the people involved in this campaign to teach ID in science classrooms who knowingly spread misinformation and the myth of a debate, when there IS NONE in the science community. I can forgive ignorance more than I can forgive lying (which, gosh, I thought was considered a sin!)
To be clear to anyone who hasn’t studied the issue (and don’t take my word for it; do your own research with credible sources): THE ONLY DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER EVOLUTION HAPPENED AND CONTINUES TO HAPPEN IS BETWEEN THE EDUCATED AND THE UNEDUCATED. There is essentially none between biologists and other expert scientists about whether or not it happened. On that foundation, should we also teach *astrology* in science classes? Exorcism? Faith Healing? Many people outside the science community — and practically nobody within it — believe these things, so should we "teach the debate?"
Where there *is* debate among scientists is on the issue of precisely *how* evolution happened. Contrary to common misconception, only that part is in the realm of theory, but that’s how clever creationists obfuscate the truth. That evolution took place — that man and other creatures evolved from simpler life forms — is considered a scientific FACT, as solid as the earth revolving about the sun. Incredulity among uneducated people doesn’t change that fact.
To ‘tuyet n,’ let’s be accurate so as to maintain our credibility… intelligent design certainly IS a belief… just not a scientific theory. I agree it’s also a fraud, in that many of its proponents try to pass it off as science. It is an outrage that it’s being used as an attempt to undermine evolution and science, as you pointed out.
‘Forgetful student,’ the existence of God aside, for the moment, you’re quite right that debate is one of the ways we learn. But once the debate (and observation and the rest of the scientific process) have arrived at a fact or even an overriding theory, THERE SHOULD BE NO MORE TEACHING of alternative ideas… at least not in a science classroom unless and until an updated scientific theory arrives! Also: some variations of ID *do* negate evolution; others merely suggest God got it started and evolution took over. Neither is a scientific theory, however, or even a hypothesis. I’m glad to hear at least that you support the teaching of evolution — that’s a lot more reasonable than some others’ positions.
References :