ID is evitable.

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
If a teacher is a Christian current policy violates their freedom of speech not that the left cares.
A teacher as a person, off the clock, has freedom of speech, but as an employee on the clock, they can rightfully be limited. Freedom of speech isn't absolute either, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater without consequences.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
A teacher as a person, off the clock, has freedom of speech, but as an employee on the clock, they can rightfully be limited. Freedom of speech isn't absolute either, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater without consequences.
Satan clubs, homosexual clubs, and anything but Christian clubs are ok in schools sounds like don’t discrimination to me.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
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.
So, we are in confrontational disagreement.
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.
So Theistic evolution is an alternative even though ID make more sense.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
So, we are in confrontational disagreement.
About what, exactly? Students can pray when they want. Teachers can too except when in their official capacity. Do you want a Muslim or a Scientologist teacher leading a class in their prayer? This protects everyone, including Christians.

So Theistic evolution is an alternative even though ID make more sense.
I don’t know how this relates to our previous discussion. Anything is an alternative. If you think theistic evolution is a viable alternative to evolution, you’ll have to convince science that there is sufficient scientific evidence for that.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
About what, exactly? Students can pray when they want. Teachers can too except when in their official capacity. Do you want a Muslim or a Scientologist teacher leading a class in their prayer? This protects everyone, including Christians.
You are correct, Jesus said, "my sheep hear my voice another they will not follow".
I don’t know how this relates to our previous discussion. Anything is an alternative. If you think theistic evolution is a viable alternative to evolution, you’ll have to convince science that there is sufficient scientific evidence for that.
Theistic evolution is already a viable alternative via Francis Collins, and all the other TE's, That is not in dispute but design without detection is not reasonable.
 
Last edited:

rossum

Well-known member
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.
Thank you for confirming that ID has no specification of something that could not be designed. That puts it behind evolution, which does have such specifications, and has had them since Darwin.
 

rossum

Well-known member
That means it should not be outlawed as an alternative.
It is not an alternative in science lessons, because currently, ID is merely a hypothesis, not a fully supported theory. It is an acceptable alternative in, say, philosophy lessons.

As and when ID can provide the necessary support to its hypothesis, then it can be treated as a theory and included in science lessons.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
Confrontational agreement.
What do you mean by that, as an answer to my question?

A certain percentage and some of your top people and that makes it viable which makes ID even more viable. That means it should not be outlawed as an alternative.
Percentages do not make a scientific case, viable, established, or not. There's a certain percentage of people, some very intelligent and accomplished, who believe in Scientology, but that doesn't make Scientology a viable alternative.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
What do you mean by that, as an answer to my question?


Percentages do not make a scientific case, viable, established, or not. There's a certain percentage of people, some very intelligent and accomplished, who believe in Scientology, but that doesn't make Scientology a viable alternative
That's it. BTW, Scientology is not a scientific theory, and have a good day.
 
Last edited:

CrowCross

Super Member
Thank you for confirming that ID has no specification of something that could not be designed. That puts it behind evolution, which does have such specifications, and has had them since Darwin.
ID has no specification???? I gave you one....an assembly line. Do you not know what an assembly line is?
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
That's it. BTW, Scientology is not a scientific theory, and have a good day.
People right on this very forum say ID isn't a scientific theory, either. Now you've just re-framed the conflict over what to teach to what is a scientific theory.

And percentages still don't make a theory scientific, so there's still problem with you saying

A certain percentage and some of your top people and that makes it viable which makes ID even more viable. That means it should not be outlawed as an alternative.
 

rossum

Well-known member
ID has no specification???? I gave you one....an assembly line. Do you not know what an assembly line is?
Please read my post more carefully. An assembly line can be designed. I asked for a specification of something that could not be designed. Evolution has such specifications, which allow for potential falsifications of the theory. If ID wants to be considered a scientific theory, then such specifications would be helpful.
 

CrowCross

Super Member
Please read my post more carefully. An assembly line can be designed. I asked for a specification of something that could not be designed. Evolution has such specifications, which allow for potential falsifications of the theory. If ID wants to be considered a scientific theory, then such specifications would be helpful.
Evo-ism can't even happen by chance...or can you show an assembly line of organelle can?

You really goyya do better rossom.

Once again I ask....Do you not know what an assembly line is?
 

rossum

Well-known member
Evo-ism can't even happen by chance
It doesn't. Evolution happens by chance and natural selection. If you leave out natural selection then you are not talking about natural selection.

Once again I ask....Do you not know what an assembly line is?
Thank you for confirming that ID cannot currently describe something its designer could not design. Evolution has had equivalent descriptions since 1859. You have some catching up to do.
 

CrowCross

Super Member
It doesn't. Evolution happens by chance and natural selection. If you leave out natural selection then you are not talking about natural selection.

"If you leave out natural selection then you are not talking about natural selection."..... brilliant!!!!

“If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding! How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat!”​

Thank you for confirming that ID cannot currently describe something its designer could not design. Evolution has had equivalent descriptions since 1859. You have some catching up to do.
More brilliance!!! " ID cannot currently describe something its designer could not design". Well if you can't design it...then it's not intelligently designed. How can you have a design if you don't have a designer?
 

rossum

Well-known member
"If you leave out natural selection then you are not talking about natural selection."..... brilliant!!!!

“If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding! How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat!”​

Thank you for pointing out my error. I should have posted: "If you leave out natural selection then you are not talking about evolution."

Evolution is random mutation (i.e. chance) and natural selection. You need to include both in any probability calculation.

More brilliance!!! " ID cannot currently describe something its designer could not design". Well if you can't design it...then it's not intelligently designed. How can you have a design if you don't have a designer?
Again you fail to describe an undesignable organism. To help you, here is what Darwin said:

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." - Origin, Chapter Six.​

What I am looking for is an equivalent statement from Intelligent Design:

"If it could be proved that «... fill in the blank here ...» it would annihilate ID theory, for such could not have been produced through intelligent design."​

So far ID does not appear to have filled in that blank.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
More brilliance!!! " ID cannot currently describe something its designer could not design". Well if you can't design it...then it's not intelligently designed. How can you have a design if you don't have a designer?
Here is the reason why you have to be able to say what ID could not design:
You have to be able to say that some organism or pattern of ancestry would be impossible for the designer to do; otherwise, there's no way to say it's false - whether it is or not - based on any evidence.
 
Top