Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

[J-Proof]

You guys are inadvertently proving Stein's overall objective that the freedom to believe what we want is significantly ridiculed in today's society. But whatev'.... call me a moron for believing what Stein believes

Do you believe in ID/Creationism? Do you expect it to be accepted without peer review and its proponent be given money to teach it as science? If that is the case then unfortunately you are a moron.

But I rather fancy that's not the case, we've said time and time again this isn't about belief but about what is and what is not scientifically valid, that is not a question of either theology or opinion.

Until science can prove an answer to all of the empty holes we are presented with, then the question will continue to be one of theology and philosophy and that is inescapable. That being said, should a public school teach intelligent design? I see no reason why not -- I see nothing but well-informed graduates that can speak peacefully with each other walking the aisle into college if this is the case. Teach them Christian thought on the origin of species but teach them what other faiths believe as well, and teach them what religious evolutionists believe to boot. Then show them how all of these ideas could adequately fit into the scheme of how the millions of notes in the grand symphony of the universe were created, and we might actually have a free-thinking society that doesn't depend on dumbing down its standards tests and exit exams.

[PlayMSTie]

Nicely said, J-Proof.

TripeHoundRedux, you're barking up the wrong tree; the majority of IDers WANT peer review.

[Bairman]

That being said, should a public school teach intelligent design?

Not with my tax dollars you don't.

[bettertomorrowamy]

You guys are inadvertently proving Stein's overall objective that the freedom to believe what we want is significantly ridiculed in today's society. But whatev'.... call me a moron for believing what Stein believes

Do you believe in ID/Creationism? Do you expect it to be accepted without peer review and its proponent be given money to teach it as science? If that is the case then unfortunately you are a moron.

But I rather fancy that's not the case, we've said time and time again this isn't about belief but about what is and what is not scientifically valid, that is not a question of either theology or opinion.

Until science can prove an answer to all of the empty holes we are presented with, then the question will continue to be one of theology and philosophy and that is inescapable. That being said, should a public school teach intelligent design? I see no reason why not -- I see nothing but well-informed graduates that can speak peacefully with each other walking the aisle into college if this is the case. Teach them Christian thought on the origin of species but teach them what other faiths believe as well, and teach them what religious evolutionists believe to boot. Then show them how all of these ideas could adequately fit into the scheme of how the millions of notes in the grand symphony of the universe were created, and we might actually have a free-thinking society that doesn't depend on dumbing down its standards tests and exit exams.

Again, science doesn't kill God.  Religion and Science are not at odds with each other.  If you want to believe in irrationalities to help you understand the universe you live in you can do that.  Science tries to find the most logical and reliable explanation for a problem or event.  That's it.  These explanations will and do change as more information is known and there is more data to test.  That's the beauty of science.  Religion is dogmatic and stagnant, and depends far to much on outdated concepts.  Religion and Science are not two sides of the same coin.  They are completely different coins.  Actually, one's a coin, the other is a burrito.

[BathTub]

Nicely said, J-Proof.

TripeHoundRedux, you're barking up the wrong tree; the majority of IDers WANT peer review.

You just submit your paper then.

You realize there is a ID Journal?

They just haven't actually published anything in 3 years.

[J-Proof]

You guys are inadvertently proving Stein's overall objective that the freedom to believe what we want is significantly ridiculed in today's society. But whatev'.... call me a moron for believing what Stein believes

Do you believe in ID/Creationism? Do you expect it to be accepted without peer review and its proponent be given money to teach it as science? If that is the case then unfortunately you are a moron.

But I rather fancy that's not the case, we've said time and time again this isn't about belief but about what is and what is not scientifically valid, that is not a question of either theology or opinion.

Until science can prove an answer to all of the empty holes we are presented with, then the question will continue to be one of theology and philosophy and that is inescapable. That being said, should a public school teach intelligent design? I see no reason why not -- I see nothing but well-informed graduates that can speak peacefully with each other walking the aisle into college if this is the case. Teach them Christian thought on the origin of species but teach them what other faiths believe as well, and teach them what religious evolutionists believe to boot. Then show them how all of these ideas could adequately fit into the scheme of how the millions of notes in the grand symphony of the universe were created, and we might actually have a free-thinking society that doesn't depend on dumbing down its standards tests and exit exams.

Again, science doesn't kill God.  Religion and Science are not at odds with each other.  If you want to believe in irrationalities to help you understand the universe you live in you can do that.  Science tries to find the most logical and reliable explanation for a problem or event.  That's it.  These explanations will and do change as more information is known and there is more data to test.  That's the beauty of science.  Religion is dogmatic and stagnant, and depends far to much on outdated concepts.  Religion and Science are not two sides of the same coin.  They are completely different coins.  Actually, one's a coin, the other is a burrito.

Therein lies the problem - we agree that science doesn't kill God, and we agree that science and religion aren't at odds, you and I. The problem is that right after you state this, you call my beliefs an irrationality, that science is more rational, and that religion is simply a stagnant set of regulations.

I see nothing wrong with students sitting in a classroom discussing scientific theory and how it applies to Shintoism. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this, and feel like the implication would be a radically positive move for society, especially in America which is a grand enlightenment experiment at its roots. Do I believe traditional classroom texts like Biology and Chemistry and Physics should be burned and replaced with Bibles, Qurans, and manifestos from every religion known to man? Absolutely not.

I simply believe that the education system, and the future of the world, would benefit from promoting philosophical thinking of this nature in classrooms east to west since science alone cannot explain the millions of questions that stand before it.

[Bairman]

I simply believe that the education system, and the future of the world, would benefit from promoting philosophical thinking of this nature in classrooms east to west since science alone cannot explain the millions of questions that stand before it.

Neither can religion, IMO.  But at least science has a shot at it.

[PlayMSTie]

Nicely said, J-Proof.

TripeHoundRedux, you're barking up the wrong tree; the majority of IDers WANT peer review.

You just submit your paper then.

Don't need to; it's been done already. Besides, I'm not a scientist.

[BBQ Platypus]

Things like ID, Creationism (in its various forms) and whatnot should not be taught in a science class because they are not supported by the scientific method.  Now, including them as topics in, say, a social studies or comparative religion curriculum is a different story.  However, it shouldn't be taught as science owing to the very nature of science itself.

[Tyrant]

Again, science doesn't kill God.  Religion and Science are not at odds with each other.  If you want to believe in irrationalities to help you understand the universe you live in you can do that.  Science tries to find the most logical and reliable explanation for a problem or event.  That's it.  These explanations will and do change as more information is known and there is more data to test.  That's the beauty of science.  Religion is dogmatic and stagnant, and depends far to much on outdated concepts.  Religion and Science are not two sides of the same coin.  They are completely different coins.  Actually, one's a coin, the other is a burrito.

  I have to respectfully disagree with you in regards to religion being stagnant. No, the message thereof shouldn't change because, God knows, everything else around us changes. But remember that many religious people not only reconsider their religion in the light of science, but even challenge and reinterpret it because of science. I wouldn't say it's as flexable as science can be, but it's not as rigid as many may think it is.

[bettertomorrowamy]

How can you believe in God in a rational way?  It is a leap of faith.  You suspend your rational mind, and ignore what your senses tell you.

[bettertomorrowamy]

Again, science doesn't kill God.  Religion and Science are not at odds with each other.  If you want to believe in irrationalities to help you understand the universe you live in you can do that.  Science tries to find the most logical and reliable explanation for a problem or event.  That's it.  These explanations will and do change as more information is known and there is more data to test.  That's the beauty of science.  Religion is dogmatic and stagnant, and depends far to much on outdated concepts.  Religion and Science are not two sides of the same coin.  They are completely different coins.  Actually, one's a coin, the other is a burrito.

  I have to respectfully disagree with you in regards to religion being stagnant. No, the message thereof shouldn't change because, God knows, everything else around us changes. But remember that many religious people not only reconsider their religion in the light of science, but even challenge and reinterpret it because of science. I wouldn't say it's as flexable as science can be, but it's not as rigid as many may think it is.

Well just the way you said that implies that religion has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the direction that science leads it in.

[DarthChimay]

...should a public school teach intelligent design? I

No. At least, not as science, because it isn't science.

[BathTub]

Nicely said, J-Proof.

TripeHoundRedux, you're barking up the wrong tree; the majority of IDers WANT peer review.

You just submit your paper then.

Don't need to; it's been done already. Besides, I'm not a scientist.

Not you personally, anyone who wants 'Peer Review'.

Here is the ID Journal btw.

http://www.iscid.org/

[J-Proof]

Things like ID, Creationism (in its various forms) and whatnot should not be taught in a science class because they are not supported by the scientific method.  Now, including them as topics in, say, a social studies or comparative religion curriculum is a different story.  However, it shouldn't be taught as science owing to the very nature of science itself.

This is probably the best summary of what most of us probably believe.

And as for how I could believe in God in a rational way : I look at the holes that aren't filled and cannot be filled by science but only filled by God. Call me moronic for it if you will. The leap of faith idea pertains a lot to convictions of the heart that compel us one way or another, but I guarantee that those who have true faith have found it through a pivotal, initial experience - an event or observation that made sense to the one experiencing it.