align-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcamerachatcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-crosscrosseditfacebookglobegoogleimagesinstagramlocation-pinmagnifying-glassmailmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonplusImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartwitteryahoo

The Cleveland Freethinkers Message Board The Cleveland Freethinkers Discussion Forum General Discussions › Intelligent Design (A.K.A. Creationism in a stolen Lab Coat)

Intelligent Design (A.K.A. Creationism in a stolen Lab Coat)

A former member
Post #: 1
[I would like to start a few blogs with specific Topics. Perhaps we can get some discussion out of the mailboxes and into the Blog where they really belong.]

This first one is Intelligent Design (A.K.A. Creationism in a stolen Lab Coat)

At one time in American History Biblical Christianity was taught openly in secular schools. Most of us are not old enough to remember this. We entered the period of American history when the Religiously motivated are trying to sneek it back into schools by calling it other things. [ Creationism, Intelligent Design, "whatever-they-call-it-next"]

I start with the blogs main question "Why is it wrong to teach intelligent Design along side Science in the Schools?" Jump right in. I'll be back with some of my own thoughts later.....

CLICK "sign in" to be able to make a comment or start a blog then click "Messages­" on the menu.
Mark T.
user 4783078
Cleveland, OH
Post #: 4
As far as I know, there is not a single shred of tangible evidence- that is, evidence derived from direct observation- that would indicate the existence of an "intelligent designer". Therefore, whatever-it-is-named cannot be considered science at all.

Patterns are evident just about everywhere in Nature. There is no reason that I can think of as to why these patterns could not exist independently, without the help of any "designer". Take the intricate pattern of a snowflake, for example- so the ID believers would say that God designs each & every one? And no two exactly alike (supposedly)?

ID doesn't even "hold water" when it comes to theoretical science. A valid scientific theory must have SOMETHING to go on- either a few pieces of tangible evidence, or at very least it has to be an extenuation of what Humankind has already confirmed through the use of known laws of physics and/or mathematics.

Way back, when I was in the 5th grade, we spent a week or two learning about the world's religions- it was in "Social Studies" class. (Do they still have that?) That was fine- today's ID'ers can get their word in there if they want to, but not in science class. Because no matter how they twist it, mask it, rename it, whatever- it still ain't science.
A former member
Post #: 1
Well, way back in 1968 the US Supreme Court ruled that public schools could not ban the teaching of evolution because the purpose of such bans is religious, thereby making them unconstitutional on the grounds of the establishment clause stating that the government shall not "establish" any religion. (Epperson vs. Arkansas; 393 US 97).

Now, I'm not on the US Supreme Court but it would therefore seem to me, that a mandate by a public school to teach Creationism or ID with the same emphasis as evolution would also indicate a religious purpose, which would then seem to me, that such a mandate would also be unconstitutional.

I suppose one could aim to make such a mandate constitutional by also teaching alllllllllll the other ideas of our origin that exist in the world-those of the eastern religions which have nothing to do with god or the bible-those of the Wiccans, the Native Americans and all other tribal groups still in existence today, etc. That way, equal emphasis given to all of these could be argued to not favor any particular religion and therefore, not have a religious purpose. But that never seems to happen-no one ever seems to want to teach the concept that there was simply no beginning (buddhist) or any of the others. So to just teach origins according to creationism and ID with evolution makes it quite skewed toward only the Judeo-xtian religions. Besides, to teach allllllllllll those things would require an awful lot of time in the curriculum for the average second to fourth grade class, when I believe it first comes up in science class, or any other class.

And of course evolution is based on science and can legitimately be taught in science class. Creationism and ID are based only on a belief in what it says in a 5,000 year old book that no one knows the authors of and which presents no valid scientific test to support it's statements.
A former member
Post #: 2
Bravo to the previous comments.

If we follow the religious persons logic, then it ought to be taught in history class that Jesus visited the Native Americans, because that is what Mormons believe.

What if someone (like Bill O'Reilly or Ben Stien) says [Paraphrasing] "Since scientist don't know how it all began, so whats wrong with saying in science class that many people believe that there was an intelligent creator that started it?" People like these guys are searching for the right crack to get religion back into the schools. They are obviously hiding their larger agenda in what sound to most people like a reasonable argument. How would you respond to them?

Ben Stein on Darwinism: on Bill O'Reilly describing Darwinism as a...
"...relic of imperialism in the 19th century., "The theory has so many holes in it and it's such a weak theory", "This is a theory that was a brilliant theory in the middle of the 19th century. This is the 20th century, there are a lot of questions being raised about it."

The context can be found in it's entirety on Youtube.
Mark T.
user 4783078
Cleveland, OH
Post #: 9
Ben Stein may be a somewhat likeable TV personality/comedian, but he's surely no scientist. Then again, neither am I! confused

What Ben Stein has been for quite some time is a GOP operative. That's why I believe that his "great interest" in the promotion of intelligent design is, for the most part, politically motivated. angry

"...relic of imperialism in the 19th century." That kills me. Only a neoconservative can twist & spin like that. Stein relates a scientific theory with plenty of tangible evidence backing it up to imperialism, while at the same time insinuating that imperialism is a thing of the past... brilliant.

We should gear up for some activism on this issue, considering that ID is probably going to be thrust into the public debate moreso in the coming year.
Mark T.
user 4783078
Cleveland, OH
Post #: 10
Though I am not a scientist, I do know enough about science to say that I firmly stand behind my convictions expressed in my 1st post on this thread.

But if I'm wrong, and someone knows of tangible evidence that DOES imply the existence of a "designer", please "pray" tell! We're all ears.
Powered by mvnForum

Our Sponsors

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy