• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 4.7%

  • no

    Votes: 61 95.3%
  • Total voters
    64
StillBallin75 said:
The effects of what is theorized to be the big bang can be observed. Don't get me wrong, it's still a theory and far from being fact, but it's the best current paradigm for the observations astronomers are currently making about the universe.
Click to expand...

Coming from astronomers who invented dark matter fudge numbers I'll take that with a grain of salt, just like I take what I read in the bible with a grain of salt.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Looks like you didn't comprehend your own definition, sawyer.
Click to expand...

Ya know stillballin, this post does nothing to advance the conversation, it is uncivil and confrontational and does nothing to advance the conversation. You of all people should try to keep a certain standard in here. What you could have said was something like, I think your definition negates the ID theory meeting the standards of scientific theory and then gave me your reasons why, then I could say I disagree and heres why or I could even say you have a point on this that or the other thing. That would be how adults discuss things in a civil fashion. Now I have work to do, have a good day.
 
Matt Foley said:
Coming from astronomers who invented dark matter fudge numbers I'll take that with a grain of salt, just like I take what I read in the bible with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...
Dark energy? Ehhh, that one's a little iffy at this point.
Dark matter? It's pretty hard to explain away the effects of gravitational lensing.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Ya know stillballin, this post does nothing to advance the conversation, it is uncivil and confrontational and does nothing to advance the conversation. You of all people should try to keep a certain standard in here. What you could have said was something like, I think your definition negates the ID theory meeting the standards of scientific theory and then gave me your reasons why, then I could say I disagree and heres why or I could even say you have a point on this that or the other thing. That would be how adults discuss things in a civil fashion. Now I have work to do, have a good day.
Click to expand...

It had nothing to do with civility. You pointed out that ID fits the definition of scientific theory according to the definition you provided. I pointed out that you were flat-out wrong, and why. You clearly failed to read the definition carefully, or comprehend it.
 
Last edited:
NoC_T said:
And hence exterior to even consciousness? I think not. Such facts as exist, are ones defined both by ourselves, and the means we contrive to both measure and label them. A belief becomes more than that, where it goes goes uncontested. Especially where no one believes otherwise.
Click to expand...

Yes, exterior to consciousness. Gravity exists whether there's anyone around to observe it or not. If humans had never existed, animals would still fall out of trees because of gravity.

We now know it was never a fact. Previously, we knew nothing else. It was accepted as fact.
Click to expand...

That's because human knowledge is always provisional. We only "know" what we "know" based on current understanding. It's always open to revision as we learn more about the universe around us. At the time people believed in a flat earth, their "science" wasn't very rigorous. Many ancient people knew the Earth wasn't flat, they could see it every time they looked at the moon. In fact, most of the people who believed the Earth was flat did so for religious, not scientific reasons. Once science came on the scene, it became clear from the evidence that the planet was, in fact, relatively spherical. It just took throwing religion out the window for the actual facts to come to light.
 
Matt Foley said:
...I learnded something today.
Click to expand...

yes, you did.

Several members of the NASA Goddard COBE team work on WMAP. Like COBE, WMAP scans the sky over and over again, soaking up the ancient light from the Big Bang known as the cosmic microwave background. Microwaves are a low-energy form of radiation but higher in energy than radio waves. The cosmic microwave background blankets the universe and is responsible for a sizeable amount of static on your television set--well, before the days of cable. Turn your television to an "in between" channel, and part of the static you'll see is the afterglow of the big bang

NASA - Background on the Background Explorer and the Science of John Mather
 
Kandahar said:
No. Religious doctrine should not be taught in public schools at all (except perhaps as part of a course on comparative religion), and students certainly shouldn't be misled to believe that it's an equally plausible alternative to ACTUAL science.

Evolution is the scientific view for how life on earth came to exist in its present state, and anyone who doesn't "believe" it is simply wrong about the evidence for it. Period. Our schools should try to produce graduates who can think critically, and that's impossible to do if people intentionally try to prevent them from learning the scientific method.
Click to expand...

I like the idea of teaching comparative or teaching religion objectively in schools. Like it or not, we all have to deal with religion on a daily basis, and an understanding of the worlds religions aids in that dealing. Whether or not objective teaching is possible is another matter. The closest I can come to an answer is to form a panel of leaders of various religions, and present all sides.
 
jimbo said:
I like the idea of teaching comparative or teaching religion objectively in schools. Like it or not, we all have to deal with religion on a daily basis, and an understanding of the worlds religions aids in that dealing. Whether or not objective teaching is possible is another matter. The closest I can come to an answer is to form a panel of leaders of various religions, and present all sides.
Click to expand...

The problem is, you'll never get that because all religions want to be the only religion and you'll just get fights. It's best to just leave religion entirely out of schools, which are supposed to be teaching facts, and leave it to churches.
 
Cephus said:
The problem is, you'll never get that because all religions want to be the only religion and you'll just get fights. It's best to just leave religion entirely out of schools, which are supposed to be teaching facts, and leave it to churches.
Click to expand...

I happen to agree with Jimbo. Nothing wrong with teaching comparative religion or religious history. It can and is done objectively all the time. In fact, as a history major, I'd say the study of history in general is vastly incomplete if you keep religion out of it.
 
jimbo said:
I like the idea of teaching comparative or teaching religion objectively in schools. Like it or not, we all have to deal with religion on a daily basis, and an understanding of the worlds religions aids in that dealing. Whether or not objective teaching is possible is another matter. The closest I can come to an answer is to form a panel of leaders of various religions, and present all sides.
Click to expand...

I think it's possible if it's done in a "This is what Religion X believes" manner, rather than a "This is the truth" manner. I took an introductory comparative religion class when I was in college, and my professor made a good point: "If you can figure out what my religious views are from the way I teach this class, then I'm not doing my job correctly." If people adopt that attitude toward classes on religion, then I really don't have a problem with it being taught...even in public schools.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I happen to agree with Jimbo. Nothing wrong with teaching comparative religion or religious history. It can and is done objectively all the time. In fact, as a history major, I'd say the study of history in general is vastly incomplete if you keep religion out of it.
Click to expand...

That's done at a college level, I was assuming we were talking high school or below, where I don't think you're going to have anything but problems. Colleges teach adults who choose to be in the class. High schools have to deal with parents.
 
Cephus said:
That's done at a college level, I was assuming we were talking high school or below, where I don't think you're going to have anything but problems. Colleges teach adults who choose to be in the class. High schools have to deal with parents.
Click to expand...

So just to be clear, your argument is that teaching comparative religion isn't a good idea because of the potential backlash or controversy it might create, rather than anything wrong with teaching comparative religion in and of itself?

And just from my personal experience, some of these types classes are offered at the high school level as electives.
 
Matt Foley said:
Coming from astronomers who invented dark matter fudge numbers I'll take that with a grain of salt, just like I take what I read in the bible with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

There is observational evidence of dark matter.
 
Cephus said:
That's done at a college level, I was assuming we were talking high school or below, where I don't think you're going to have anything but problems. Colleges teach adults who choose to be in the class. High schools have to deal with parents.
Click to expand...

I think it should, and could, be taught at a far lower level than college. The key would be objectivity. Selecting objective teachers probably would be an impossibility. The only way I can think of would be a number of scholars, each presenting their own view. It would be up to the student to sort them out. Somehow, I think we should find a way.

50 years ago, politics was the driving force in the world. Today it is religion, often masquerading as politics, or vice versa. Yet kids emerge from high school without even a limited knowledge of the worlds religions.

You're right about the parents. Most parents do not want their children to know anything about any religion other than their own.
 
Redress said:
There is observational evidence of dark matter.
Click to expand...
Yes, as difficult as "dark" matter is to "see". ;)

Nevertheless, it is evidently there .. and is "home", so to speak, to one of the cosmological "constants" known as the zero-point field(s), the arguable spiritual "soul" link per unique frequency of the field between our unique brain-body frequency "receiver" and "the universe", the seat of our "I am" experience.

Einstein and the gang used to leave the zero-point field(s) out of their equations because its constancy cancelled equally on both sides of the equation, in theoretical effect.

Lately, however, what with "spiritual" books making much to do of "The Force", physicists are taking another look.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Dark energy? Ehhh, that one's a little iffy at this point.
Dark matter? It's pretty hard to explain away the effects of gravitational lensing.
Click to expand...

Dark energy isn't well understood, but from what we have observed it's necessary for the dynamics of the observed universe.
 
Cephus;1060435 The problem is said:
I don't know, nor care to, your religion, but how many muslim, catholic, baptist, shinto, buddha, atheist, hindu, churches have your children attended in the past year? Religion is a fact. Academic fights are generally a good thing.
Click to expand...
 
With regard to the OP, I have a counter-question: Is there any settled consensus on what a scientific theory is? Who decides?
 
ashurbanipal said:
With regard to the OP, I have a counter-question: Is there any settled consensus on what a scientific theory is? Who decides?
Click to expand...

A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena.[1] Scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and tested for accuracy through observations and experiments.[2]

Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

. . . a scientific theory is a tested and expanded hypothesis that explains many experiments and fits ideas together in a framework.

Scientific theory - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

scientific theory

noun
a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

Scientific theory | Define Scientific theory at Dictionary.com

I don't think there is much debate on what it is, really. And those in the field of science decide.
 
I tried to read Of Pandas and People a while back, and it was filled with misrepresentations, false assumptions, and a complete misunderstanding of both the fundamental tenets of science, and for established scientific theories (other than evolution, I mean). I have searched far and wide for any real scientific data put forth by ID supporters in its favor. I have thus far found none. I beseech anyone in this thread who supports ID to provide some.
 
Cephus said:
Yes, exterior to consciousness. Gravity exists whether there's anyone around to observe it or not. If humans had never existed, animals would still fall out of trees because of gravity.
Click to expand...
And yet gravity itself is a phenomenon we both investigate and label by means of that which we ourselves contrive. And not while we're either unconscious, or not in existence.

That's because human knowledge is always provisional. We only "know" what we "know" based on current understanding. It's always open to revision as we learn more about the universe around us.
Click to expand...
Then a fact may be amended? As if to suggest that facts are by no means insuperable?

At the time people believed in a flat earth, their "science" wasn't very rigorous. Many ancient people knew the Earth wasn't flat, they could see it every time they looked at the moon. In fact, most of the people who believed the Earth was flat did so for religious, not scientific reasons. Once science came on the scene, it became clear from the evidence that the planet was, in fact, relatively spherical. It just took throwing religion out the window for the actual facts to come to light.
Click to expand...
Actually 'most people' weren't in a position to 'know' either way. They were the ignorant and unschooled masses. And even for the learned gentry of that time, it was theory only.

And the postulate of a spherical earth predates secularisation.
 
One note interesting to me. We have a poll currently 33 votes, not one believing that intelligent design is scientific theory. Yet there are many who advocate its teaching in schools. Where are the believers?
 
jimbo said:
One note interesting to me. We have a poll currently 33 votes, not one believing that intelligent design is scientific theory. Yet there are many who advocate its teaching in schools. Where are the believers?
Click to expand...

It might be that the most basic tenant of intelligent design is being overlooked: Intelligent design a.k.a., creationism, is FAITH based, not scientific theory. While historic information does support some of the Christian religion, it's certainly not scientific, nor was it or is it meant to be. :shrug:
 
jimbo said:
One note interesting to me. We have a poll currently 33 votes, not one believing that intelligent design is scientific theory. Yet there are many who advocate its teaching in schools. Where are the believers?
Click to expand...
I support only the position that such design includes features we identify as both replicable and ordered.

I'll not push my religious beliefs, since it would be inappropriate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom