the end of christianity

[gharfish]

Well, actually

Don't mind the snark, and I mean this in the best way really, but you don't know what your talking about. Intelligent Design, from the onset of its conception, has been about sneaking creationism back into public schools.

And you google creationism. No offense. I said that the science of it *does not identify - *cannot identify - any God, already named or unnamed and unknown. That is my point, and you know it. You pretend to not know what I am talking about. You talk about a movement and Of Pandas and People, and that's fine, but I am talking about how scientific work has demonstrated that the starry universe out there, right on down to us, definitely do show clear signs of being created and designed by a thinking God being. That proponents of I.D. have attacked Darwinian evolution should be another matter between us, Jaecp, because I talked only about the intelligent designer conclusion (God as a designer) from parts of the overall science put forth by various men.

There's not a chance in hell that Christian (or Muslim) creationism is going to be taught in schools, ever. Christian creationsim, nor that of any theistic religion's, has ever been in the public schools, and eradicated, and is in a position to make a comeback.






>

[Jaecp]

Ghar, I gave you a google of "cdesign proponentists". The entire point of "ID Theory" has been sneaking creationism back into schools. The ambiguous language was used to attempt to avoid supreme court rulings.

And no, what little science is even attempted, I am guessing your referring to IC, doesn't pan out.

"Has ever been in schools" is a typo? I'm on my phone, so I can't give you too much detail. Please just click my NCSE link, its got my quote and a couple pictures of drafts. I can post more later, but it would be easier on us both if you just read over some of what happened at Dover vs Kitzmiller, big expert witness fest, lots of nifty stuff.

[gharfish]

Ghar, I gave you a google of "cdesign proponentists". The entire point of "ID Theory" has been sneaking creationism back into schools. The ambiguous language was used to attempt to avoid supreme court rulings.

And no, what little science is even attempted, I am guessing your referring to IC, doesn't pan out.

"Has ever been in schools" is a typo? I'm on my phone, so I can't give you too much detail. Please just click my NCSE link, its got my quote and a couple pictures of drafts. I can post more later, but it would be easier on us both if you just read over some of what happened at Dover vs Kitzmiller, big expert witness fest, lots of nifty stuff.

What is maybe going to be sneaked back into schools ?! It's creationism, you say. Creationism was being taught in schools ? I'd like to know where and when. It certainly was not taught to me, and I was in high school in the late seventies. We were taught Darwinian evolution; period.

No, this is what creationism really is, (below), and so why should I have to argue that it was taught in U.S. schools ?! Nope, this never was taught and neither will it ever be taught in U.S. schools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science

It's really really unfortunate that I.D. has become a movement, but - but, the science that was there from "early on" and continued puts it completely apart from the creationism you are talking about. Yes, the main proponents - the half dozen or so men, are Christians, but the science itself they will tell you does not identify the Judeo-Christian God as the God (intelligent creating God). How can it ?! How could it if it were taught in school ??

I find it annoying that scientists who have 'worked out' I.D. things, such as complex specified information - like, say, in DNA, and our fine-tuned (so to speak) universe, and irreducible complexity, are met with disdain. Disdain for these ? No. It's about the notion that lies down the intellectual road, that there might be a great and brilliant God with a mind who thinks and acts.


And yes that was a typo on my part; the "...has ever been in schools." I meant to write, "has never..."



>

[Jaecp]

It was not a universal requirement, it was in a number of schools in your era. Even now there are schools who try and pull a fast one.

If it wasn't taught anywhere, the Supreme Court wouldn't have ruled it unconstitutional in '87, they never would have even seen the case.

Anyway,

There was no science there from early on, ID is creationism rebranded. One of the most important facts uncovered when the drafts of the book was subpoena'd was that the creationism books were, quite literally, gone through with a word processor and changed into Intelligent Design books. The 5 pictures I posted at the bottom of this thread are photocopies of the relevant sections, culminating in the famous "cdesign proponentists" slip up.

The big names of ID were at Dover vs Kitzmiller. Michael Behe (Of Irreducible Complexity "fame") was there.

Check this out where Behe, admits that there is nothing peer reviewed supporting his statements.

Q.[Defense] And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?

A.[Behe] That is correct, yes.

Ghar,

The entire point that we get from this,

Yes, the main proponents - the half dozen or so men, are Christians, but the science itself they will tell you does not identify the Judeo-Christian God as the God (intelligent creating God). How can it ?! How could it if it were taught in school ??

First off, that there isn't any science behind it. From the pictures below, that we know it was simply a re branding of creationism.

If you really truly think I am wrong, lets take it to the people on this forum most likely to know, make a post in the Natsci forum(just change the 15 on the main apologetics page to a 12 to get their quick) and I can discuss this with you in more detail there. I spent a considerable amount of time going over this with people last year,

Cheers,

J

edit: my pictures didn't post in a straight line, this is the order,

1 2
3
4 5

In 1983, 1986, 1987, 1987, 1987 respectively. You can get a clear view of these with more explanation here

[gharfish]

Intelligent design is not Christian creationism "rebranded." No. It does not address the book of Genesis or anything else Bible.

You might not know what creationism is, but no matter; anyone on this thread can easily look-up what Christian 'creation science' is/was. Hades, just click on one or both of the informative! and accurate links I provided!

You have insisted two or three times that I.D. proponents - even the scientists themselves, are trying to get old-style creationism back in the schools. Rubbish! First of all, it never was in the public schools in the U.S. If it had been here and there for periods of time and been stamped out, say in the South (probably), then that is not the same as it having been in "the schools." Let's not blow this out of proportion. And let's not act as if that creationism now stands any chance of coming back anywhere in any quantity. Secondly, I.D. basics, and beyond, are entirely different from that creationism.

I.D. science has no God - No God of any holy text. It is separate from Christian creationism, as that which can be understood by anyone with a PC and search engine.



>

[Jaecp]

No.

I have not said old style creationism,

Read what I have been saying, stuff like "rebranded", notice the change in terminology immediately after the supreme court decision that shut creation science out of science classrooms. Heck, I provided pictures of the textbook pages.

If you think I am wrong, just go make a thread in the natsci forum and people will help you prove me wrong. I invite you, because I know you are misinformed, but you believe you are right, obviously, so where better to go than the science forum on TWeb, I'm sure all the people there will set one of straight, no?

[gharfish]

Then what creationism ?! Tell me it's not expressly Biblical, or we have nothing more to discuss here. I.D. is not.


>

[Steve007]

The ID movement is creationism in disguise

The entire point of "ID Theory" has been sneaking creationism back into schools.

we know it was simply a re branding of creationism

ID is creationism rebranded.

Fail.

[Jaecp]

ID is, as I've said, rebranded creationism. With the terms made nuetral. Did you look at the pictures I posted? They can't put traditional creationism/creation science into science classrooms, which is why ID exists. I've already given you some information linking them. That they don't use the same terminology is the point. Its the sme concepts rebranded. The NCSE has a wealth of information on this. Ken miller has given talks about it. He was an expert witness at Dover.

Prove me wrong though, go ask the natsci people, if you believe I'm wrong. Repeating stuff I've addressed won't help you. If you [b]know[\b] you are right, this will [b]shut me up conclusively[\b] I implore you, start a thread in natsci about it. This is not intended in some negative idea, there are simply people in that forum that have a huge wealth of knowledge in these areas, dwarfing my own, and I have investigated the creation of ID extensively

[gharfish]

What creationism ?! Answer the question already. It's your deal, afterall. Speak up.

You telling me to do this and that is getting old. I made my bloomin point way back on p. 2, in post 27. You dragged me off that topic into what you wanted to talk about instead, and now you tell me what I should do to satisfy you in this expanded debate. You popped in with your own agenda in post 45 and I have already spent a good bit of my time, in three substantial posts, trying to settle this out flat. It's your mess-up....and Steve007 is right up there about those assertions. Fail.

Sooo...what creationism, then, Jaecp? (I'll ask one last time).


>




>

[Jaecp]

You linked to the wiki page about the kinds of stuff I was referring to. Your question makes no sense to me. As far as I can tell, your aware of what I was referring to.

I only brought this up because the OP is "in the matrix"

How about this, since we seem to be having a communication error. I'll post the question, I won't refer to you by name, and see if some of the local science experts can assist us in hashing this out. From my perspective, I've brought the link of the banned creationism that people used to try to have put into science classrooms with the current ID. Likewise from my perspective, all I see is your personal opinion and a simple unawareness of ID's history.

So anyway, if I make the thread, will you check it out, see if other peoples replies make more sense to you? I'm really just trying to figure out an effective way of enlightening you in this respect.

[The Pixie]

gharfish

You have insisted two or three times that I.D. proponents - even the scientists themselves, are trying to get old-style creationism back in the schools. Rubbish! First of all, it never was in the public schools in the U.S. If it had been here and there for periods of time and been stamped out, say in the South (probably), then that is not the same as it having been in "the schools."

Up to the late sixties it was illegal to teach evolution in schools in some states in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio...blic_education

In 1967, the Tennessee public schools were threatened with another lawsuit over the Butler Act's constitutionality, and, fearing public reprisal, Tennessee's legislature repealed the Butler Act. In the following year, 1968, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas that Arkansas's law prohibiting the teaching of evolution was in violation of the First Amendment.

I have not found anything about how widespread the teach of creationism and evolution together would have been at that time.

This web site gives a good summary of how the creationists have changed their tactics in a continuing effort to get their claims taught as science, with the arrival of "creation science" in 1970, and, when that failed in the Edwards v. Aguillard court case, the appearance of "Intelligent Design".
http://site.pfaw.org/site/PageServer...ne_creationism

[Jaecp]

Posting from a cellphone makes it hard to find citations :(

Thanks Pixie

You might like the NCSE link I postesd at the bottom of page 4

[The Pixie]

There is an interesting paper, the first few pages of which are available on line:
Athel Cornish-Bowden and María Luz Cárdenas in Biological Research 40, 113–122 (2007)

Virtually all biologists now accept evolution as a reality that is no longer worth discussing. In the words of Medawar, as quoted by Carroll (2006), "for a biologist, the alternative to thinking in evolutionary terms is not to think at all".

In most areas, people are happy to accept those claims that "virtually all" the experts agree on. Vrtually all chemists accept atomic theory, virtually all physists accept relativity and quantum mechanics. No one bothers to check these claims anymore; if the experts agree, we accept it. And yet many people reject evolution.

As far as I know the only reason to do so is religious (anyone who thinks they have a real, scientific reason, please give it; but please explain why "virtually all" biologists disagree with you). So when ID proponents reject evolution, I am going to think the reason there is religious too. Bear in mind here that overthrowing a theory that is universally accepted by the experts is the way to a Nobel prize.

The trial of John T. Scopes in 1925 is often regarded as a de facto victory for the rational teaching of biology in the USA, because, although the fundamentalists won the case, their spokesmen made themselves so ridiculous in the process that other states were discouraged from proposing laws similar to the Tennessee law that Scopes had violated. This is the conventional view of the story, but it gives a wrong reason for the lack of conflict in the USA for a generation after 1925: this is better explained by the fact that there was essentially no teaching of evolution in schools in the USA during this period, and consequently no laws to forbid it were perceived as necessary.

This indicates that the teaching of creationism was universal across the US for much of the last century.

[gharfish]

Aw, don't bother to tell me the answer. This isn't 'about' you and me anymore - not by now anyway. The creationism you are talking about can be laid out in detail, and pretty quickly so, by anyone with a PC word search. Those wiki articles are good enough. Let the participants and visitors find out for themselves. Christian creationism/YEC creationism can be found out about in a jiffy.

I.D. science is not this - not, the preceding *Biblical* creationism. If you want to talk about the history of the I.D. movement and the exploits of the men, feel free; but that'll have to be with someone else besides me.



You wanted to argue something I did not go into. You have hijacked my time and attention.

No, what I said and kept on saying was the unnamed God that I.D. science affirms is unnamed.

The theory of Intelligent Design posits that there is a creator God - a living God being and not an impersonal force. Technically speaking, I.D. can indeed include more than one God, who worked/still work in concert as creators of the universe. My point, back on page two and which I carried forward, was that no particular God or Gods are named and promoted AT ALL by I.D. science.

The God being (or beings?) is super-powerful and super-intelligent, says I.D. science, but the evidence in nature does not really tell us about their moral character and larger personality.

The God "of I.D." could be anyone. Unlike Christian creationism that has gone before (like say In Arkansas and Louisiana), I.D. science hasn't to do with a specific deity of any religion or affirming this and that of a/some holy text. Evidences of - signs of, intelligent design mean that a supernatural being(s) were/are at work. I can appreciate how that conclusion is offensive to atheists. Atheists believe that there is not a God; period.



>