ID is evitable.

Cisco Qid

Active member
The scientific theory of Intelligent Design is not a faith based doctrine but rather a scientific based theory that posits that our existence came from some intelligent agent rather than unguided random processes (naturalism). They do not claim to know the identity of this designing agent and do not pick out any particular religion but claim that the designing influence can be scientifically measured. And, in fact, one of their most prolific writers and advocates is, David Berlinksi, who is an agnostic.


I myself am Bible based and believe that the Creator is Yahweh who expressed Himself in bodily form as Jesus as prophetized in the OT. But naturalism and unguided Darwinism (although I do respect Charles Darwin as a researcher and a scientist) is taking over the mind of our young people in a school system which has outlawed prayer and does not allow anything contrary to neo-darwinism to be taught in the schools. There is a scientific alternative which is more palatable to Christian doctrine, ID, but it too has been outlawed from the school system ( see Kitzmiller v. Dover ). But way, when is the alternative ever outlawed in any forum?
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
. . . . But naturalism and unguided Darwinism (although I do respect Charles Darwin as a researcher and a scientist) is taking over the mind of our young people in a school system which has outlawed prayer
Any student in any school can pray privately at any time.

. . . and does not allow anything contrary to neo-darwinism to be taught in the schools.
We don't allow astrology to be taught in place of or inside of astronomy classes, either. There's no way to get around drawing the line as to what is science and what isn't.
There is a scientific alternative which is more palatable to Christian doctrine, ID, but it too has been outlawed from the school system ( see Kitzmiller v. Dover ). But way, when is the alternative ever outlawed in any forum?
Schools are not a forum in the sense of free speech except during a class discussion, in which any student is still able to endorse or argue for ID inside a class as a matter of freedom of speech and conscience; or, wear a t-shirt promoting ID, again as free speech. It's not outlawed for students, only for teachers - in public schools.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
The scientific theory of Intelligent Design is not a faith based doctrine but rather a scientific based theory that posits that our existence came from some intelligent agent rather than unguided random processes (naturalism). They do not claim to know the identity of this designing agent and do not pick out any particular religion but claim that the designing influence can be scientifically measured. And, in fact, one of their most prolific writers and advocates is, David Berlinksi, who is an agnostic.


I myself am Bible based and believe that the Creator is Yahweh who expressed Himself in bodily form as Jesus as prophetized in the OT. But naturalism and unguided Darwinism (although I do respect Charles Darwin as a researcher and a scientist) is taking over the mind of our young people in a school system which has outlawed prayer and does not allow anything contrary to neo-darwinism to be taught in the schools. There is a scientific alternative which is more palatable to Christian doctrine, ID, but it too has been outlawed from the school system ( see Kitzmiller v. Dover ). But way, when is the alternative ever outlawed in any forum?
The current way ID is taught is not based on quality, peer-reviewed science. As a theist and scientist there arguably is an intelligent designer who is behind all known and unknown causes (aka random causes) influencing our world, to include using the mechanism of evolution, but there is no evidence for an intelligent designer who has gone around the mechanism of evolution and directly manipulated DNA of any animal on planet earth. I empathize with your religious consciousness but you have been misled about evolution. Evolution is definitely part of God's means to produce moral beings presuming God exists. I would not want ID in its current paradigm taught to my children anywhere or anytime.
 

rossum

Well-known member
The scientific theory of Intelligent Design is not a faith based doctrine but rather a scientific based theory that posits that our existence came from some intelligent agent rather than unguided random processes (naturalism).
Currently, Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory; it is a scientific hypothesis. There is insufficient evidence to lift it from a hypothesis to a theory. It lacks too much detail and it lacks necessary experimental work. It can only be considered a theory once that detail has been filled in and the experimental work completed.

As an example of missing detail, when does ID as a whole, say that, for example, Tiktaalik was designed? Specifically, do the Biblical literalist ID adherents accept that Tiktaalik was designed (and constructed) a lot more than 6,000 years ago? If not, then ID has an internal problem with religious beliefs influencing the output, which would be a definite indication that ID is not science.

When he published his theory, Darwin gave examples of things that could not evolve. So far I have not seen any equivalent examples from the ID side. What would it be impossible for the ID designer to design (and, I assume construct)?

As to the missing experimental work, one obvious piece of work is to test the various methods that ID proposes to test for the presence of design. Where are the double blind tests checking that a proposed design detection method actually works as claimed? Is it 95% accurate, 75% accurate or 50% accurate in a double blind test? Unless and until such tests are done, any proposed design detection method is to be considered unreliable.

Not all designs are actually constructed. Many architects may enter a competition, but only one design is built. ID tends to skip over the construction phase of its designs. How does the designer move molecules around to assemble the designed organism? Which of the four standard forces of nature does the designer use? How is ID trying to detect this manipulation of molecules in the present? Are other undiscovered forces being used? Have any such unexplained movements of molecules been detected in ID research labs? All of these are valid scientific question, which ID should at least be starting work on.
 

rossum

Well-known member
but there is no evidence for an intelligent designer who has gone around the mechanism of evolution and directly manipulated DNA of any animal on planet earth.
Here you are mistaken. There is evidence that intelligent designers working for Monsanto and other bio-technology companies have directly manipulated the DNA of some plants and animals.

You are correct that there is no evidence of any such manipulation by non-human entities.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
Here you are mistaken. There is evidence that intelligent designers working for Monsanto and other bio-technology companies have directly manipulated the DNA of some plants and animals.
Good point. I guess I will have to qualify my general statement to except bio-tech companies. Thanks.
You are correct that there is no evidence of any such manipulation by non-human entities.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
The current way ID is taught is not based on quality, peer-reviewed science. As a theist and scientist there arguably is an intelligent designer who is behind all known and unknown causes (aka random causes) influencing our world, to include using the mechanism of evolution, but there is no evidence for an intelligent designer who has gone around the mechanism of evolution and directly manipulated DNA of any animal on planet earth. I empathize with your religious consciousness but you have been misled about evolution. Evolution is definitely part of God's means to produce moral beings presuming God exists. I would not want ID in its current paradigm taught to my children anywhere or anytime.
I have no reply that is sufficient to you or the others.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
The current way ID is taught is not based on quality, peer-reviewed science. As a theist and scientist there arguably is an intelligent designer who is behind all known and unknown causes (aka random causes) influencing our world, to include using the mechanism of evolution, but there is no evidence for an intelligent designer who has gone around the mechanism of evolution and directly manipulated DNA of any animal on planet earth. I empathize with your religious consciousness but you have been misled about evolution. Evolution is definitely part of God's means to produce moral beings presuming God exists. I would not want ID in its current paradigm taught to my children anywhere or anytime.
A theistic evolutionists. Glad to have you on the team. Read more on ID.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
Any student in any school can pray privately at any time.
But you'ld never hear about it.
We don't allow astrology to be taught in place of or inside of astronomy classes, either. There's no way to get around drawing the line as to what is science and what isn't.
Actually astrology is allowed, it just isn't outlawed and doesn't create a fuss.
Schools are not a forum in the sense of free speech except during a class discussion, in which any student is still able to endorse or argue for ID inside a class as a matter of freedom of speech and conscience; or, wear a t-shirt promoting ID, again as free speech. It's not outlawed for students, only for teachers - in public schools.
Teachers who teach in public schools nuff said.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
But you'ld never hear about it.
Why not? They can tell anyone they want that they prayed, they can write a letter to the editor, they can post a TikTok, they can trumpet that as far as they can or want to.

And, prayer is not outlawed then, right?

Actually astrology is allowed, it just isn't outlawed and doesn't create a fuss.
Astrology is not allowed to be taught as fact, in place of astronomy.

Teachers who teach in public schools nuff said.
Of course we have to define what teachers teach in public schools. Are you saying any teacher should be able to teach anything they want to? Muslims can teach the Koran as fact? Scientologists can teach Scientology as fact? Flat-earthers can teach the flat earth as fact in geography class?
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
Why not? They can tell anyone they want that they prayed, they can write a letter to the editor, they can post a TikTok, they can trumpet that as far as they can or want to.

And, prayer is not outlawed then, right?
Outlawing prayer is like asking a baby not to cry. It's just impossible.
Astrology is not allowed to be taught as fact, in place of astronomy.
Astrology is taught as an alternative before astronomy was accredited and is still a subject matter.
Of course we have to define what teachers teach in public schools. Are you saying any teacher should be able to teach anything they want to? Muslims can teach the Koran as fact? Scientologists can teach Scientology as fact? Flat-earthers can teach the flat earth as fact in geography class?
The teacher should teach the class subject material along with the alternatives.
 
Last edited:

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
in a school system which has outlawed prayer
It allowed teacher-led, state-sanctioned prayer.

Do you think this is a bad thing?
Or is the Bible god so weak and narcissistic that he's happy for captive children - not all of whom are even Christian - to be forced to pray to him?
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Of course we have to define what teachers teach in public schools. Are you saying any teacher should be able to teach anything they want to? Muslims can teach the Koran as fact? Scientologists can teach Scientology as fact? Flat-earthers can teach the flat earth as fact in geography class?
Heh - that sauce is not for the gander 😁
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
Outlawing prayer is like asking a baby not to cry. It's just impossible.
Didn't you say that prayer was outlawed in school? But now you're saying that doing so is impossible. That doesn't make any sense (at least how you have phrased your statements so far).

Astrology is taught as an alternative before astronomy was accredited and is still a subject matter.
I originally bought up astrology to make the point that schools properly determine what can be taught as fact and what is not taught as fact, and what you say above doesn't change that, unless your point is below, in which case see my reply below.

The teacher should teach the class subject material along with the alternatives.
Are you saying that teachers should teach astrology, Scientology, and flat-earth, for instance, as an alternative in terms of what is a fact?
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
Didn't you say that prayer was outlawed in school? But now you're saying that doing so is impossible. That doesn't make any sense (at least how you have phrased your statements so far).
I was agreeing with you, you can't outlaw prayer anymore than you can outlaw thought. But public prayer has been outlawed.
I originally bought up astrology to make the point that schools properly determine what can be taught as fact and what is not taught as fact, and what you say above doesn't change that, unless your point is below, in which case see my reply below.


Are you saying that teachers should teach astrology, Scientology, and flat-earth, for instance, as an alternative in terms of what is a fact?
It's like a chess game, only viable alternatives should be considered because the others are just too numerous and some can easily be eliminated which is the case for ID.
 
Last edited:

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
I was agreeing with you, you can't outlaw prayer anymore than you can outlaw thought. But public prayer has been outlawed.
Not for students, only for teachers in their official duties. Students can stand up at say, lunch, and pray all they want, in full view and within hearing range of anyone in principle. A group of students can do that.

It's like a chess game, only viable alternatives should be considered because the others are just too numerous and some can easily be eliminated which is the case for ID.
I agree that when there is sufficient uncertainty about a scientific theory, alternatives could be taught (although how much of that should happen in public K-12 schools can be debated, given that the primary goal is to lay down the basics). But for scientific theories that are very well established, not so much.
 

CrowCross

Super Member
When he published his theory, Darwin gave examples of things that could not evolve. So far I have not seen any equivalent examples from the ID side. What would it be impossible for the ID designer to design (and, I assume construct)?
ID is more complicated that the fossil remains of the Tiktaalik. The Tiktaalik had cells that functioned...or components of the cell that functioned.
The T.o.E-ism doesn't explain how an assembly line of organelle in the Tiktaalik cells could have evolved.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
Any student in any school can pray privately at any time.

We don't allow astrology to be taught in place of or inside of astronomy classes, either. There's no way to get around drawing the line as to what is science and what isn't.
Schools are not a forum in the sense of free speech except during a class discussion, in which any student is still able to endorse or argue for ID inside a class as a matter of freedom of speech and conscience; or, wear a t-shirt promoting ID, again as free speech. It's not outlawed for students, only for teachers - in public schools.
If a teacher is a Christian current policy violates their freedom of speech not that the left cares.
 
Top