nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW
461
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 67:
Line 67: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Intelligent design controversy (view source)
Revision as of 20:44, April 8, 2008
, 20:44, April 8, 2008no edit summary
::Hope this helps you understand where I'm coming from, even it if is all a flimsy tissue of rationalizations over my seething hatred of God and America fnord.
::Hope this helps you understand where I'm coming from, even it if is all a flimsy tissue of rationalizations over my seething hatred of God and America fnord.
::I'd better go edit something now. Don't want a 90/10 block for <s>disrespect towards my betters</s>unproductive edits, after all. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 15:25, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'd better go edit something now. Don't want a 90/10 block for <s>disrespect towards my betters</s>unproductive edits, after all. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 15:25, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
To add since this was removed from the original Intelligent design talk page during the moves of the article...
<blockquote>
The International Society for Science and Religion (ISSR) says that “intelligent design” is neither sound science nor good theology. Intelligent Design theorists do not have proper research programmes to make their points. In fact, what they believe is against science, according to the seven scientists who prepared the statement for the ISSR, a scholarly body devoted to dialogue between science and world faiths.
The whole of the society’s membership, many of whom are Christian, were involved in a consultation about the statement. The ISSR says it “greatly values modern science, while deploring efforts to drive a wedge between science and religion.”
</blockquote>
Whereas Gulik provided much research to support evolution, Intelligent Design has yet to produce research or a mechanism outside of the mechanisms of evolution to support their hypothesis. Something to add is that most new concepts of science begin in the collegiate academic environment where they undergo testing and verification before being trickled down to the general public and secondary and primary education systems, therefore intelligent design is suspect of circumventing this practice do to a failure of meeting the standards necessary to be a competing theory in the aforementioned environment, which leads many to conclude that the proponents of intelligent design are trying to indoctrinate instead of allowing the application of rational debate for defense of their hypothesis. The major concern is that by allowing the circumvention of the testing and debate in the academic environment sets a standard for other untested, non qualified concepts to be taught with a scientific label. I personally feel it is fine for intelligent design to be taught in a theological setting not a scientific one. This debate with evolution is a bit unreasonable due to evolution's stance in the biological sciences, if intelligent design wanted to replace evolution then it should have followed the standard, much like string theory has been for the past 20 years. This motivation is also suspect since when has a scientific concept not taken more than 10 years to reach the public? Why push intelligent design on school children with less than 10 years of development, let alone testing and research? Like I said the motivations behind the intelligent design proponents are suspect.
--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 16:44, 8 April 2008 (EDT)