Bush Officially Endorses Teaching Intelligent Design in Public Schools

[Inverted Things]

God exists until such time as science can falsify his existence.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read.

[MODU]

God exists until such time as science can falsify his existence.

Uh, no. Science ignores God until proof of existence or non-existence can be established either way.

Precisely. In science, the existence of God is a moot point, and is completely ignored. And in logic, Hawk's argument is fallacious.

It's interesting you bring up this point.  One of the former members (who is/was a scientist) of our congregation was not a believer in God until he tried to basically prove that God did not exist.  He said that through the process, there were too many unanswered questions for which he could not explain, which gradually moved him to believing that there must be a higher power involved.  It was after that he began searching for a Church.

[Democratic Hawk]

God exists until such time as science can falsify his existence.

Uh, no. Science ignores God until proof of existence or non-existence can be established either way.

Thanks, for correcting me. Am I right in thinking that it must just be scientific theories themselves, which can be tentatively refuted?

Dave

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Schools should teach both.  They probably shouldn't treat them equally, since evolution is a more robust theory at this point, but they should give students enough information to let them decide for themselves.

[John Dibble]

God exists until such time as science can falsify his existence.

Uh, no. Science ignores God until proof of existence or non-existence can be established either way.

Thanks, for correcting me. Am I right in thinking that it must just be scientific theories themselves, which can be tentatively refuted?

Dave

Could you rephrase the question or ellaborate? My brain is having a hard time deterimining what you're asking exactly, for some reason.

[Democratic Hawk]

God exists until such time as science can falsify his existence.

Uh, no. Science ignores God until proof of existence or non-existence can be established either way.

Thanks, for correcting me. Am I right in thinking that it must just be scientific theories themselves, which can be tentatively refuted?

Dave

Could you rephrase the question or ellaborate? My brain is having a hard time deterimining what you're asking exactly, for some reason.

I've gotten my wires crossed so where along the line - but something Krusty's said put me on the right lines

What happend was a few years ago, someone told me that God didn't exist so I challenged him to prove it. Naturally, he countered my challenge - so I told him that, scientifically, theories can only be falsified not proven and it was down to him to prove God did not exist. I've been arguing that for years now, with no one challenging me,  but since, as Emsworth points out, fallacious argument, I'm happy to stand corrected

Whether God exists is a matter of faith not science and since it's not a scientific theory it cannot be, therefore, be falsified

On a personal level, I was baptised an Anglican but as I grew older I became a little agnostic; however, on a visit to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, when I touched the tomb of Jesus Christ, I experienced a tingling in my arms right up to my elbows (kind of like a mild electric shock) and from than on I've never doubted the Lord's existence

Dave

[John Dibble]

God exists until such time as science can falsify his existence.

Uh, no. Science ignores God until proof of existence or non-existence can be established either way.

Thanks, for correcting me. Am I right in thinking that it must just be scientific theories themselves, which can be tentatively refuted?

Dave

Could you rephrase the question or ellaborate? My brain is having a hard time deterimining what you're asking exactly, for some reason.

I've gotten my wires crossed so where along the line - but something Krusty's said put me on the right lines

What happend was a few years ago, someone told me that God didn't exist so I challenged him to prove it. Naturally, he countered my challenge - so I told him that, scientifically, theories can only be falsified not proven and it was down to him to prove God did not exist. I've been arguing that for years now, with no one challenging me,  but since, as Emsworth points out, fallacious argument, I'm happy to stand corrected.

Ok then, well, a theory CAN be proven, but you are right it can be falsified as well. First off though, you need to understand that in the scientific world, the word theory does not hold the same meaning that it does in layman's terms. Scientifically speaking, your friend gave a hypothesis(even if he did state it as fact, that is what it is) at best. In science things go hypothesis->theory->law.

Hypothesis is, in basic terms, and educated guess based on observations as to the cause of something. This isn't a wild guess - it has to be based on some real observations, though they aren't the same as empirical observations. In order to become theory, you have to conduct enough experiments or gather enough empirical evidence to show your claim has some credibility.

Theory is like having parts of a puzzle solved, but not having everything in place - there are still gaps and unproven hypothesis within the larger theory. Evolution is a good example of this - we can see that creatures change over time, and we have some evidence as to prove parts of the theory, however it is theory because there are still gaps and unknowns(for instance, how life came to be in the first place is not totally known, though ideas exist).

Finally, there is law - the puzzle is solved, and pretty much all pieces of the puzzle are in place. This is where a theory is proven completely, or at least thought to be. I say thought to be because some laws are downgraded when new discoveries are made - for instance, there used to be a "Law of Gravity" but it was bumped down to theory because we now know it doesn't behave the same under certain conditions(at speeds close to that of light, for instance).

In regards to God, anything stated can at most be hypothesis. The reason for this is that there really aren't any empirical experiments that can be carried out, at least for now, that can even come close to verifying one way or the other. Since data can't be gathered to support a claim one way or another, science must ignore God and should not make claims of truth one way or another.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

While I agree with that statement the curriculum SHOULD have something to do with science and reason as well as blind faith.

Blind faith? 

Do you mean like believing the universe created itself when, according to science, that would be impossible since energy is conserved?

Or, do you mean like believing complex organisms like humans were the result of chance and chaos, even though we can't create even single-celled organisms in highly controlled/organized experimentation? 

IMO, that’s a little different than “blind faith”; it seems more like “self-contradiction”!

---

…In contrast to taking the opening verse of the bible “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” (Gen 1:1)

First, Gen 1:1 asserts that the universe did not create itself, which is in agreement with the law of conservation of energy.

Second, Gen 1:1 asserts that time began when space and matter (heavens and the earth) first appeared, which is also in agreement the theories concerning general and special relativity.

[John Dibble]

While I agree with that statement the curriculum SHOULD have something to do with science and reason as well as blind faith.

Blind faith? 

Do you mean like believing the universe created itself when, according to science, that would be impossible since energy is conserved?

Or, do you mean like believing complex organisms like humans were the result of chance and chaos, even though we can't create even single-celled organisms in highly controlled/organized experimentation? 

IMO, that’s a little different than “blind faith”; it seems more like “self-contradiction”!

Reasoned statement, though I don't see anyone saying we should teach that the universe created itself - science doesn't know exactly how matter came to be.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Genesis is still faith, however, even if it does not contradict said laws and theories.

EDIT - actually, thinking on it, your first point is in contradiction with the law of conservation of energy: if God created the universe, then obviously energy can be created, so either energy and matter can be created or the universe has somehow always existed.

[tarheel-leftist85]

Thanks, for correcting me. Am I right in thinking that it must just be scientific theories themselves, which can be tentatively refuted?


Ok then, well, a theory CAN be proven, but you are right it can be falsified as well. First off though, you need to understand that in the scientific world, the word theory does not hold the same meaning that it does in layman's terms. Scientifically speaking, your friend gave a hypothesis(even if he did state it as fact, that is what it is) at best. In science things go hypothesis->theory->law.

Hypothesis is, in basic terms, and educated guess based on observations as to the cause of something. This isn't a wild guess - it has to be based on some real observations, though they aren't the same as empirical observations. In order to become theory, you have to conduct enough experiments or gather enough empirical evidence to show your claim has some credibility.

Theory is like having parts of a puzzle solved, but not having everything in place - there are still gaps and unproven hypothesis within the larger theory. Evolution is a good example of this - we can see that creatures change over time, and we have some evidence as to prove parts of the theory, however it is theory because there are still gaps and unknowns(for instance, how life came to be in the first place is not totally known, though ideas exist).

Finally, there is law - the puzzle is solved, and pretty much all pieces of the puzzle are in place. This is where a theory is proven completely, or at least thought to be. I say thought to be because some laws are downgraded when new discoveries are made - for instance, there used to be a "Law of Gravity" but it was bumped down to theory because we now know it doesn't behave the same under certain conditions(at speeds close to that of light, for instance).

In regards to God, anything stated can at most be hypothesis. The reason for this is that there really aren't any empirical experiments that can be carried out, at least for now, that can even come close to verifying one way or the other. Since data can't be gathered to support a claim one way or another, science must ignore God and should not make claims of truth one way or another.

exactly...I refer y'all (anyone who's interested) to the article written by George Will in the Jul. 4th edition of Newsweek.

[Cashcow]

As far as I'm concerned the Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design should all be taught in public schools - let students make up their own minds

Really? Then why stop there? If you're going to teach everything, teach everything.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

EDIT - actually, thinking on it, your first point is in contradiction with the law of conservation of energy: if God created the universe, then obviously energy can be created, so either energy and matter can be created or the universe has somehow always existed.

Conservation of energy (energy is not created or destroyed) is a natural law, not a supernatural law.  And the laws of thermodynamics concerning entropy prohibit the universe from being infinite in age.

[J. J.]

Okay, this is what he really said.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not exactly an endorsement of "intelligent design."

[jokerman]

Look, at least 3/4 of Americans support intelligent design or creationism at least being taught along side evolutionism.  It's not an out of main stream idea.  That's just what the secular left wants you to think.

[Gabu]

Here's a question that I don't recall ever getting answered by people in favor of teaching intelligent design: what exactly would you teach?  The whole idea can be stated in, like, one minute flat, and there's no physical evidence, scientific tests, or anything that can be examined to expand upon the idea.  As far as I can tell, all you could do is say "Intelligent design is another theory, and it says that God created the universe and everything in it" and then you'd be done, end of lesson.

[jokerman]

Here's a question that I don't recall ever getting answered by people in favor of teaching intelligent design: what exactly would you teach?  The whole idea can be stated in, like, one minute flat, and there's no physical evidence, scientific tests, or anything that can be examined to expand upon the idea.  As far as I can tell, all you could do is say "Intelligent design is another theory, and it says that God created the universe and everything in it" and then you'd be done, end of lesson.

That's about the same amount we spend on evolution down here.  It's really awkward for everyone during it.

[Gabu]

Here's a question that I don't recall ever getting answered by people in favor of teaching intelligent design: what exactly would you teach?  The whole idea can be stated in, like, one minute flat, and there's no physical evidence, scientific tests, or anything that can be examined to expand upon the idea.  As far as I can tell, all you could do is say "Intelligent design is another theory, and it says that God created the universe and everything in it" and then you'd be done, end of lesson.

That's about the same amount we spend on evolution down here.  It's really awkward for everyone during it.

Well, you could theoretically spend more time on it than that.  What exactly do you learn when you get to the section on evolution?  Don't they tell you about, say, DNA and how the theory of evolution relates to it?

[A18]

Here's a question that I don't recall ever getting answered by people in favor of teaching intelligent design: what exactly would you teach? The whole idea can be stated in, like, one minute flat, and there's no physical evidence, scientific tests, or anything that can be examined to expand upon the idea. As far as I can tell, all you could do is say "Intelligent design is another theory, and it says that God created the universe and everything in it" and then you'd be done, end of lesson.

Um, no. Intelligent design is about probabilities. It says nothing about who created the universe. It does not state that God created the universe. It could be an alien race as far as intelligent design is concerned.

[Gabu]

Here's a question that I don't recall ever getting answered by people in favor of teaching intelligent design: what exactly would you teach? The whole idea can be stated in, like, one minute flat, and there's no physical evidence, scientific tests, or anything that can be examined to expand upon the idea. As far as I can tell, all you could do is say "Intelligent design is another theory, and it says that God created the universe and everything in it" and then you'd be done, end of lesson.

Um, no. Intelligent design is about probabilities. It says nothing about who created the universe. It does not state that God created the universe. It could be an alien race as far as intelligent design is concerned.

Okay, technically intelligent design is not specifically about the book of Genesis in the Bible, and only says that something created the universe, but I don't think you'll find all that many proponents of intelligent design who want a version other than that of the one in the Bible taught in schools, so intelligent design as it's referred to today might as well be synonymous with that.

Either way, there still is not a whole lot to say about it.

[A18]

No, the theory doesn't get into God, and neither should the material. Intelligent design is not a counter-theory to evolution. It just examines probabilities and comes to the conclusion that evolution can not fairly be said to have happened through natural processes.

That's it. That's all you teach. You make no mention of God or theistic creationism whatsoever.

[MonkeyPooo4U]

sh**t even the Catholic Church is pro-evolution. Why must we have such a ing backwards President? Get this creationist idiot out of office ASAP.

Bush is not taking an anti-evolution stance.  He wants schools to say that it's not a perfect science, and that there are still some points of contention in the theory that make for legitimate disagreements.  Most Christian groups point to the lack of adequate missing links as proof that man did not evolve from monkeys, which is part of the evolutionary theory.  There is no doubt that evolution is possible, but it's just not entirely probable.  It's a legitimate belief to say that many people believe that this extremely improbable process of creation and evolution was guided by some non-specific higher power.  The science isn't entirely perfect, and it shouldn't be taught as a monolithic and absolute scientific belief.

But judging by your harsh rhetoric you've already decided to be a partisan about the issue and no argument will have much effect.

[Giant Saguaro]

Well, I think that if one puts his/her faith in science to answer the big questions, then that's a leap of faith, of course. If one puts his faith in religious convictions to answer the big questions, that's faith too. So faith kind of works both ways because science clearly has a lot left to exaplain and always will because one answer raises ten more questions, usually. A biologist once remarked to me that there is a certain kind of bee that really should overheat in flight but doesn't and they have no idea why. There's a lot science can't explain, but it's certainly useful to us - it still lets us make sense of the world based upon what we can see right in front of our faces even though we can't answer the big questions.

Also, I would say that science doesn't necessary always find itself within the realm of the empirical. Theoretical sciences often are about grad students coming up with wild ideas and then attempting to justify them with math. So you have an idea and go back and work the math to make it work. Sounds more like philosophy than science to me.

I think this should be up to states, actually. And one would need to see how they'd plan to implement it. I mean Intelligent Design is not opening the doors for the clergy, the Pope, Pat Robertson to come into the schools and start evangelizing, but I have no problem at all with positioning Intelligent Design alongside theories that lean toward natural selection.

[MODU]

As far as I'm concerned the Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design should all be taught in public schools - let students make up their own minds

Really? Then why stop there? If you're going to teach everything, teach everything.

Now THAT is funny.  hehehe

[Redefeatbush04]

As far as I'm concerned the Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design should all be taught in public schools - let students make up their own minds

Really? Then why stop there? If you're going to teach everything, teach everything.

Now THAT is funny.  hehehe

LOL!!!! AND IT PROVES A POINT

[Democratic Hawk]

Re- this. The other night on Special Report some guy from The Washington Times was talking about Intelligent Design being the issue in 2008 - like gay marriage was in 2004 - and it would somehow find it's way onto state ballots

This would motivate evangelicals and fundamentalists, who'd by-and-large vote Republican

Dave