Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 51049

Q u o t e:
There are holes in the current theories, yes, that doesn't change the fact that ID is one gigantic gaping hole. There is NOTHING scientific about ID, if you want to teach it in some other class, but keep it OUT of places it does not belong, like science class.




Why not in science classes? We're talking about public schools here. There are religion classes (that I know of) in public schools.

Science questions our existence, and tries to solve this through theories. Creationists put forth the idea of ID, packaged in a way that it can be taught in public schools without discriminating against students' beliefs.

Also, ID can have a scientific component. You guys make note of the chemicals used to create us, and their abundance in the universe and on meteorites. How do we know that another species or lifeform didn't purposefully "plant" us here? In that regard, ID can be scientific. After all, given all the planets in the universe, chances are there is life somewhere else. We could very well be designed.

Cheesecake, WoW Offtopic 39 Comments [11/1/2008 11:12:55 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: L
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
Eden

Fail.
ID cannot be scientific as a scientific theory, as there is no evidence that supports it.
Maybe it is possible that some entity created us, but, as you said, there are religion classes and that is where belief systems like ID belong to.

Give us solid evidence for ID and we might think otherwise.

11/1/2008 11:18:21 PM

aaa

Evidence talks, bullshit walks.

11/1/2008 11:30:22 PM

G Zimmer

How do we know that another species or lifeform didn't purposefully "plant" us here?

A valid question, except until you find actual evidence to prove it, it is nothing more than conjecture.

Science works by discovering evidence and modifying what we DO know. Scientists do not spend their time sitting around making up unprovable questions.

11/1/2008 11:47:25 PM

a mind far far away

ID is not science. There is no proof or evidence to back up ID, only 'cause the bible saiz so'. And this isn't proof at all, because there's no objective evidence to support the bible. However, this quote is quite tame compared to some of the others we've seen here.

11/1/2008 11:54:29 PM



"Creationists put forth the idea of ID, packaged in a way that it can be taught in public schools without discriminating against students' beliefs."

As long as said students are also creationists.

11/1/2008 11:59:48 PM

Nate!

What if aliens *did* put us here? Interesting, and even relevant, but not a useful answer for ID because it posits that complexity CANNOT arise without intelligent intercession... so someone must have designed the aliens, and if you go back far enough you sooner or later have to posit some sort of uncreated creator, essentially a god (who ignores the tenets of ID anyway, making it a deeply unscientific answer).

11/2/2008 12:02:13 AM

WMDKitty

ID is flat out stupid and unscientific.

11/2/2008 12:23:00 AM

DarkfireTaimatsu


11/2/2008 12:24:11 AM

myheadhurts

Chariots of the Gods is not science and neither is ID.

11/2/2008 12:44:17 AM

Papabear

"Why not in science classes?"

Because it's NOT SCIENCE, you moron.


"Science questions our existence, and tries to solve this through theories. Creationists put forth the idea of ID, packaged in a way that it can be taught in public schools without discriminating against students' beliefs."

ID/creationism is not scientific and it comes nowhere close to being a theory. A theory isn't just an idea or a guess, it's a well developed plan supported by credible, testable evidence. You can't teach ID/creationism in science class until you scientifical show the existence of the creator.

You could, I suppose, teach ID/creationism in Make Up a Story class.



"Also, ID can have a scientific component."

Well, when ID DOES have a scientific component you just toddle on back and we can talk about it.

11/2/2008 12:57:23 AM

Joules

The term 'grasping at straws' comes to mind...


11/2/2008 1:02:46 AM

Horsefeathers

"Why not in science classes? We're talking about public schools here. There are religion classes (that I know of) in public schools."

Hence suggesting teaching it in some other class.

"Science questions our existence, and tries to solve this through theories. Creationists put forth the idea of ID, packaged in a way that it can be taught in public schools without discriminating against students' beliefs."

You really cant comprehend the difference?

"Also, ID can have a scientific component. You guys make note of the chemicals used to create us, and their abundance in the universe and on meteorites. How do we know that another species or lifeform didn't purposefully "plant" us here?"

We don't. Until such an entity is even shown to exist, a natural progression is the only viable answer. Even if such a creature did "create" us, there's still the question of where they came from. Again, a natural process is the only answer that science will accept without evidence of a deity.

"In that regard, ID can be scientific."

So you have evidence of aliens or god? Cool. Let's see it.

"After all, given all the planets in the universe, chances are there is life somewhere else. We could very well be designed."

Who then designed the designer? See the problem now?

11/2/2008 1:13:43 AM

Tired Christian

Intelligent Design reminds me of the Aether Model. Of course, the Aether model was a disprovable theory and was (surprisingly?) disproved.

11/2/2008 1:18:24 AM

colonel catastrophe

Why does it have to be in science classes? You still haven't answered that. As you say, there are religion classes... why not there, where it belongs?

11/2/2008 1:29:32 AM

Old Viking

There are few religion classes in public schools. As for ID being science, you'll have to remind me what that recent discovery by ID scientists is. I know it was in all the papers.

11/2/2008 1:37:53 AM

Damen

How do we know that another species or lifeform didn't purposefully "plant" us here?

Aside from the fact that there is no valid evidence to support that assumption? And "how do we know?" is not valid evidence.

In that regard, ID can be scientific.

In that regard, so can Scientology.

11/2/2008 1:38:27 AM

Mrs. Antichrist

"Intelligent design" is barely even a hypothesis, let alone a theory. To call it a theory is an insult to all genuine scientific theories.

11/2/2008 2:01:18 AM

Darwin's Lil' Girl

ID has been described as Creationism in a cheep tuxedo.

ID postulates something superior to us designed us and everything in this world -- not just the world, but many other things as well. They also say, however, that this designer cannot be tested, because his meathods are above the scope of our methods, and above the scope of what our methods can ever be.

A cheep and ill-fitting tuxedo.

11/2/2008 2:32:54 AM

Philbert McAdamia

We could very well be designed.

Or we could be designed, but not very well.

11/2/2008 2:39:35 AM

AuraTwilight

Alright, I'll bite. So the universe was created by God, right? So who created God? No one? So why does the universe need a creator? Oh that's right, there is no reason why.

Suck a dick.

11/2/2008 3:55:34 AM

anonymous

That is the 'god of the gaps' argument.

We have proof that evolution took place.

You don't have any proof that life evolved somewhere else first, and that's not even what you want to teach.

11/2/2008 4:02:33 AM

Michael

There is nothing remotely scientific about ID. It starts with a preordained answer and the "research" consists of finding questions to give that answer.
Science questions? That is what science is all about!
We have a brain and ID suppresses the ability to use it as you already have the "answer" seared into your mind by indoctrination.
Theories spring from ideas which are verified by constant testing. If they don't work out, we start again. If they do work out, other factors are added to see what happens then the theory is either expanded or modified, dependant on the result.
ID discards samples that don't comply, Science takes them into account.

11/2/2008 9:15:23 AM

Ash

Not too fundy, just misinformed.

11/2/2008 9:18:23 AM

arcturus

unless someone can find the "missing link" fossil which leaps from "we don't know how it works" to "intelligently designed", i'll stick to normal science where people actually investigate things and provide their own evidence.

burden's on you, not us.

PS. fuck off

11/2/2008 11:06:16 AM

BlackMageJ

Science has to be open to the possibility of being disproved.

Evolution as it is now is probably wrong- or at least, not entirely right. Scientists freely admit this (whatever you claim), and are searching for the more correct version.

ID claims to be right. Perfectly and completely. Its advocates refuse to test it or allow it to be disproved. That makes it NOT SCIENCE.

11/2/2008 12:52:39 PM
1 2