Evidence for God from Science

Thought this would be of interest. For those of you hesistant about clicking links, this article covers the new intelligent design course being taught at the University of Kansas in the wake of the recent court ruling for high school curricula.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_ ... MlJVRPUCUl

thereal wrote:Thought this would be of interest. For those of you hesistant about clicking links, this article covers the new intelligent design course being taught at the University of Kansas in the wake of the recent court ruling for high school curricula.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_ ... MlJVRPUCUl

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.

At this point ID is more like a modern philosophy. Like humanism, capitalism, or postmodernism.

Human thought is cyclical, during ancient times there was an explosion of ideas when mankind returned to the roots, direct observation. This produced the philosophies of ancient greece, and provided a basis for new ideas and world view.

Following the creation of the Holy Roman Empire and the dark ages which followed, mankind continued to build on these original observations and reached more intricate conclusions. Humanity during the dark ages was far from unenlightened. It is just that direct observation was no longer considered. Eventually however there became a disconnect with ideas and direct observation.

The Renaissance saw a period of renewed skepticism and empirical thought. Again there was a return to base observations. We see today thoughts and ideas based on these observations. However because we have embraced the scientific method, empirical observation continues to this day.

Why isn't it being taught in the Science Department?

mick wrote:Why isn't it being taught in the Science Department?

You can refer to these threads
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... sc&start=0
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... sc&start=0

Thanks for the links; I skimmed them. If your background is in science, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on KU adding it to the curriculum. I'm just a layman and I would be hard pressed to explain either the ToE or ID. . .my guess is that the majority of people are in the same boat, but it doesn't seem to preclude them from having an opinion.

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.

mick wrote:Thanks for the links; I skimmed them. If your background is in science, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on KU adding it to the curriculum. I'm just a layman and I would be hard pressed to explain either the ToE or ID. . .my guess is that the majority of people are in the same boat, but it doesn't seem to preclude them from having an opinion.

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:
I don't need to be a scientist to know that it is an insult to ID proponents.

Capisce. "Damning with faint praise" I think it's called.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

mick wrote:Thanks for the links; I skimmed them. If your background is in science, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on KU adding it to the curriculum. I'm just a layman and I would be hard pressed to explain either the ToE or ID. . .my guess is that the majority of people are in the same boat, but it doesn't seem to preclude them from having an opinion.

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.

If good argument and logic fail to win the day, always resort to ad hominems. And, of course, always chant the same thing over and over.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

mick wrote:Thanks for the links; I skimmed them. If your background is in science, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on KU adding it to the curriculum. I'm just a layman and I would be hard pressed to explain either the ToE or ID. . .my guess is that the majority of people are in the same boat, but it doesn't seem to preclude them from having an opinion.

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.

If good argument and logic fail to win the day, always resort to ad hominems. And, of course, always chant the same thing over and over.

At least you practice what you preach.
=)

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:At least you practice what you preach.
=)

At least you practice what YOU preach - evolution, atheism, secularism, etc...

Thinker wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:At least you practice what you preach.
=)

At least you practice what YOU preach - evolution, atheism, secularism, etc...

In this thread I wrote that the University teaching ID as myth was an insult. How is this preaching atheism?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Thinker wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:At least you practice what you preach.
=)

At least you practice what YOU preach - evolution, atheism, secularism, etc...

In this thread I wrote that the University teaching ID as myth was an insult. How is this preaching atheism?

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.

Thinker wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Thinker wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:At least you practice what you preach.
=)

At least you practice what YOU preach - evolution, atheism, secularism, etc...

In this thread I wrote that the University teaching ID as myth was an insult. How is this preaching atheism?

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.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Thinker wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Thinker wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:At least you practice what you preach.
=)

At least you practice what YOU preach - evolution, atheism, secularism, etc...

In this thread I wrote that the University teaching ID as myth was an insult. How is this preaching atheism?

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?

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.