Slashdot Mirror
Intelligent Design Ruled "Not Science"
blane.bramble writes "The Register is reporting that the UK government has stated there is no place in the science curriculum for Intelligent Design and that it can not be taught as science. 'The Government is aware that a number of concerns have been raised in the media and elsewhere as to whether creationism and intelligent design have a place in science lessons. The Government is clear that creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science National Curriculum programs of study and should not be taught as science.'"
Lets hope not. We need free thinking still here.
excellent mention of the incompatibility of faith and proof- i was raised in the church and now that ive moved on, i find myself explaining this over and over to many christians who don't see the problem with looking for "proof" (eating from the tree of knowledge, anyone?)
...has their 'science' cured cancer yet?
No? Call me when they do and I might convert.
Religion is for people who want to believe in fairy tales, live in trees, eat berries and die of the first trivial infection, anything else is hypocritical. Meanwhile, those of us in the real world will use science to improve our lives.
The trouble as I see it is, the religious types feel free to enjoy the moral high ground of being 'enlightened', but are still perfectly happy to enjoy the advancements of infidel science. Hypocrites.
Muller's argument is essentially "of course it's a clock; the parts that weren't clock-like are removed." It does nothing to explain the genesis of life, which is the fundamental difference between intelligent design and spontaneous evolution. All it does, to switch analogies back to football, is rebutt one defense while ignoring the wall on the 5-yard line.
Darwin was right -- there is no conflict between the simple concept of evolution and the teachings of a divinely-created religion. The conflict arises when someone takes Darwin and attempts to push an agenda, either way or the other, and substitutes a state of agnostic curiosity with a faith in some predetermined outcome.
Sure, he had lots of data. As much data as he could at the time. The Greeks had a whole lot of data, too, you know, and look at some of the theories they came up with. Arguing about the amount of data really does nothing. Darwin didn't even know about DNA and the complexity of it... I'm sure you've read somewhat recently about the first entire human genome... it took, what, 2 DVDs to contain it all? THAT is a lot of data... complex data, at that. And I'm sure you know all about how DNA works in the cell, how it is produced, moved, used to create proteins and other necessary components of cells, and how this goes on all the time in every single one of your trillions of cells (of which there are about 210 distinct types, Google tells me). Darwin had NO idea about the complexity of each cell and the complexity of the DNA that governs the reproduction of them. He thought the eye was too complex for his theory at the time, I wonder what he would have thought about DNA.
Its called faith you stupid jackass. Some people have it and others don't. Deal with it.
What is faith but belief? I realize it makes all the science-types feel better to call it anything differently but faith is simply the conviction one finds in their understanding of the evidence. Evolution Theory is a system of faith. There's no absolute proof and it can't be "proven" but there is sufficient evidence to convince some of its validity. We've conveniently bastardized the idea of faith as some sort of conviction despite faith primarily because it allows us to label it as silly and juvenile.
Yes, it's true that Intelligent Design and Creationism cannot be accepted purely based on scientific reasoning (although there sure is a lot of science out there that backs up the creation theory). Ultimately, it must be accepted by faith.
The same goes for evolution. The first thing I learned in my 7th grade science class was this: Science must be (1) Observable, (2) Measurable, and (3) Repeatable. It seems to me that neither the Big Bang nor Creation fit into any of those three categories.
So, instead of making all this fuss about why Creationism and Intelligent Design shouldn't be taught in the science classroom... you might as well skip evolution, too!
Sorry... go flame a religious zealot, loser. I am not one - just one sick of the debate and your ilk.