Evidence for God from Science

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Thinker wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Thinker wrote:Because you think it is a myth, just because it isn't fully matured (like when evolution was in the day), doesn't make it a myth. It's what people like to call - In Development.

I didn't call it a myth, the University does. Read the posts.

Do you support such Universities that honor statements like this? You think ID is a myth? Because evolution was in development, does that mean it was a myth?

What do you think?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Wow, I wouldn't go so far as to say ID is a modern mythology. This seems more like a reactionary move than a disciplined one.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

mick wrote:Anyhow, would the move by KU be considered a "small victory" for ID in that it is being given a voice in higher education? Or is it a setback in that it is not being presented as part of the Science curriculum?

Thank you.

No problem.
=)
Welcome to the forums btw.

I don't need to be a scientist to know that it is an insult to ID proponents. The term mythology while technically correct has negative connotations.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Wow, I wouldn't go so far as to say ID is a modern mythology. This seems more like a reactionary move than a disciplined one.

"I wouldn't go so far...." but still implies and leaves room for myth in that statement.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:"The term mythology while technically correct..."

Again, used for ID.

Thinker wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Wow, I wouldn't go so far as to say ID is a modern mythology. This seems more like a reactionary move than a disciplined one.

"I wouldn't go so far...." but still implies and leaves room for myth in that statement.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:"The term mythology while technically correct..."

Again, used for ID.

I am entitled to my opinions.
=)

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Thinker wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Wow, I wouldn't go so far as to say ID is a modern mythology. This seems more like a reactionary move than a disciplined one.

"I wouldn't go so far...." but still implies and leaves room for myth in that statement.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:"The term mythology while technically correct..."

Again, used for ID.

I am entitled to my opinions.
=)

Yes, you believe ID is a myth to some extent - BECAUSE IT'S STILL IN DEVELOPMENT.

Thinker wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Thinker wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Wow, I wouldn't go so far as to say ID is a modern mythology. This seems more like a reactionary move than a disciplined one.

"I wouldn't go so far...." but still implies and leaves room for myth in that statement.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:"The term mythology while technically correct..."

Again, used for ID.

I am entitled to my opinions.
=)

Yes, you believe ID is a myth to some extent - BECAUSE IT'S STILL IN DEVELOPMENT.

No, I beleive that it might be categorized as a myth, and I understand it is still in development. However if I were to put it into a curriculum I would have it taught in a high level philosophy class. As the theory adds more meat perhaps we can have lower level classes within the school of philosophy.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Thinker wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Thinker wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Wow, I wouldn't go so far as to say ID is a modern mythology. This seems more like a reactionary move than a disciplined one.

"I wouldn't go so far...." but still implies and leaves room for myth in that statement.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:"The term mythology while technically correct..."

Again, used for ID.

I am entitled to my opinions.
=)

Yes, you believe ID is a myth to some extent - BECAUSE IT'S STILL IN DEVELOPMENT.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:No,

Yes.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I beleive that it might be categorized as a myth

Define "might" and how is it already a myth?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:, and I understand it is still in development.

Right on.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:However if I were to put it into a curriculum I would have it taught in a high level philosophy class.

Maybe right now AND in science to get people learning more about it since I have noticed there are still tons of people that say "ID is repackaged Creationism", which if they weren't so freaking stupid they would see it isn't.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:As the theory adds more meat perhaps we can have lower level classes within the school of philosophy.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:As the theory adds more meat...

Hmm, so you admit it's a theory now and not junk?

Thinker wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:No,

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:As the theory adds more meat perhaps we can have lower level classes within the school of philosophy.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:As the theory adds more meat...

Hmm, so you admit it's a theory now and not junk?

Clearly, the use of theory here is as in the vernacular.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Thinker wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:No,

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:As the theory adds more meat perhaps we can have lower level classes within the school of philosophy.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:As the theory adds more meat...

Hmm, so you admit it's a theory now and not junk?

Clearly, the use of theory here is as in the vernacular.

Clearly you never stated that until now, and clearly by definition look up, that is dodging my actual question by substituting it with this word - vernacular. A theory in general is still a theory. You aren't clear enough in what you post.

I find it humours the the theory of evaluation is taught as fact in science classes.

Isn't that like lying or something Sorry for going OT.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Thinker wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Wow, I wouldn't go so far as to say ID is a modern mythology. This seems more like a reactionary move than a disciplined one.

"I wouldn't go so far...." but still implies and leaves room for myth in that statement.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:"The term mythology while technically correct..."

Again, used for ID.

I am entitled to my opinions.
=)

No you're not, everyone is entitled to MY opinion.

Thinker wrote:Maybe right now AND in science to get people learning more about it since I have noticed there are still tons of people that say "ID is repackaged Creationism", which if they weren't so freaking stupid they would see it isn't.

Although I do realize that ID is not creationism, I think that confusion in terminology is perpetuated by both evolution proponents who have failed to do the research on the topic AND evolution opponents that have failed to do the research on the topic. Just as recently as yesterday on three separate religion/science forums, I came across posters (I should specify...these posters are ID proponents) defining ID as based on a religious view consisting of a belief in God as the designer. I know this is not the correct definition, but for those who don't, things like this help keep the arguments flowing and miseducate every person they come in contact with. The same goes for evolution. If I had a dime for every anti-evolution person I came across who improperly defined evolution or said evolution states that humans evolved from chimpanzees, I'd be a rich man by now. I think we all need to get on the same page first before we can debate effectively.

thereal wrote:

Thinker wrote:Maybe right now AND in science to get people learning more about it since I have noticed there are still tons of people that say "ID is repackaged Creationism", which if they weren't so freaking stupid they would see it isn't.

Although I do realize that ID is not creationism, I think that confusion in terminology is perpetuated by both evolution proponents who have failed to do the research on the topic AND evolution opponents that have failed to do the research on the topic. Just as recently as yesterday on three separate religion/science forums, I came across posters (I should specify...these posters are ID proponents) defining ID as based on a religious view consisting of a belief in God as the designer. I know this is not the correct definition, but for those who don't, things like this help keep the arguments flowing and miseducate every person they come in contact with. The same goes for evolution. If I had a dime for every anti-evolution person I came across who improperly defined evolution or said evolution states that humans evolved from chimpanzees, I'd be a rich man by now. I think we all need to get on the same page first before we can debate effectively.

LOL, ignorance is bliss isn't it. That's why I'm on a forum, so I can see what's right and what's wrong...thought something like that first too, had no clue what ID a while ago.