Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
Whip gets another spin off!
Published on August 13, 2005 By Dr Guy In Current Events

OK, we have what, a bushel full of articles on Intelligent design (ID)?  OK, here is another, and for the record.

Do I believe in ID?  I believe that it is a possibility.

Why? Because evolution does not address all the questions and there are a ton of inconsistencies.

DO I know it is true?  Hello!  I said it was a possibility, not a fact.

Do I advocate teaching it in science class? NO!  I believe in teaching it in philosophy as I think all my answers are consistent with.

Can it be true? Until we know all the facts, YES!  The simple facts that the theories now taught as facts have holes in them, means that the possibilities exist.

In the end, it may or may not be true.  But this is what I do believe (outside of religion).

We are not alone.  Our solar system is young.  There may be races out there far older than ours and may have visited our planet before.  How would one explain the fact that the Egyptians, Mayans, Incans and Aztecs created pyramids?  Sure random chance plays a part.  IT could be random.  But is it?

I will tell you what I am not.  I am not a human ego centrist.  I don't believe in this vast universe that we are the only sentient beings.  We may be the most advanced, or we may not.

To me, ID has very little to do with a God, and everything to do with seeding the stars. 

just suppose we finally reach out to the stars.  And we find some earth like planets that are a botanical garden, yet with no animal life.  Do you think we are going to just leave it that way?  NO!  We are going to 'seed' it. And seed it with animal life, and perhaps if our TECHNOLOGY is advanced enough, with sentient life.

Why?  It may be to have a bunch of willing farmers to grow food for us.  It may be so that astronauts can have some one to talk to.  Or it may be that a marooned astronaut got horny!

I find it laughable that so many are so willing to dismiss the idea of ID when the fact is the more we learn, the more we realize we plain don't know.

Science (yes that bug a boo!) has traced human ancestry to a woman in Africa about 250k years ago.  So who was the father?  Can anyone prove to me the father was not an alien?  can Darwin explain that?

The answer to both is NO.  It may have been oog the cave man.  It may not have been.  And you know why?

Because we DON'T KNOW.

So to those who are so adamant against ID, I challenge you.  Explain why we can trace humanity to a single female 250k years ago.  And yet we don't know the father.

you do that, and I will abandon this hypothesis.  Until then, I only have one thing to say.

The earth is not flat!  Open your mind to the possibilities!


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Aug 14, 2005
about 250k years ago.

A long time ago ....
everything to do with seeding the stars.

.... in a galaxy, far, far away ...
So who was the father? Can anyone prove to me the father was not an alien? can Darwin explain that?

Vader: Charles, I am your father!
Darwin: Nooooooo! That's impossible!

Sorry, I couldn't resist.
on Aug 14, 2005

I guess we could insist that references to God and religion be purged from any recommended science reading, but you are going to axe a lot on the other side at the same time.

In the end, God is what explains the unexplainable.  I think Science can take us far.  But not all the way. In that, I am yet to be proved wrong.

on Aug 14, 2005

I think this would be remedied if the proponents of teaching it proposed teaching it in a philosophy class, as opposed to "alongside Darwinism."

Ah!  Another point of agreement!  You are going to make a good conservative yet.

on Aug 14, 2005

Which is where they would probably want it, if they didn't feel that the "Darwinian" environment wasn't confusing and hurtful to kids who need to understand that they can believe what they like without their intelligence being called into question. As I said, you can't see this as an random attack, this is created by a particular environment.

In actual fact, Darwinism is as valid as the others, just with more evidence to support it.  However, philosophy is where you learn to think outside the box, and that is what we need.  Not some mind numbed robots that spit out what is already known.

I hated those courses in college as I saw no use for them.  Now, as an adult, I see the very reason for them.  Thinking outside the box is where all great inovations come from.  So why limit it?

on Aug 14, 2005

It isn't right to police the theory because some teachers don't know what they're doing.

As far as I can tell, no one is asking for that, are they?

on Aug 14, 2005

Hmmm... what's that occam's razor thingy?

Kind of getting the short shrift in this debate I think.

on Aug 14, 2005

Did ya'll catch that?

that seems to be just a side note now.  I caught it, and I think I have been advocating it.

on Aug 14, 2005
In time that may be an option. But for now, I want to see it exposed to students so that perhaps one day they can prove or disprove it.


Why is this the only theory to expose students to, though? Why not all theories of how life began?

Now that is cicular logic! Please, dont try that one again as it is very weak.


How is it weak. Baker's statement was that "people don't want to think that the assumption is made that ID is invalid because it's not taught in science class." I just pointed out that just because something isn't taught in one class doesn't mean its invalid.

As far as I can tell, no one is asking for that, are they?


Again, I was responding to Baker's point about teachers berating students with religious beliefs.
on Aug 15, 2005

Why is this the only theory to expose students to, though? Why not all theories of how life began?

Who is maintianing it is?

I just pointed out that just because something isn't taught in one class doesn't mean its invalid.

But limiting exposure is the same as squelching it

 

2 Pages1 2