anthrosub
Posts: 843
Joined: 6/2/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail
quote:
ORIGINAL: anthrosub
Intelligent design as an elective is not what's being proposed. It's being forcefully introduced in a science class. Science deals with empirical evidence. Intelligent design is based on conjecture. It has no place in a science class. If someone is interested in examining the concept by choice...that's fine; just don't push it into fields of study where it can be mistaken as having credibility by association. Again, the whole thing is really a rather poorly veiled attempt by creationists to get their belief into the school system.
anthrosub
While I agree in a profound sense with this sentiment it is not strictly true.
Three scientists are riding the train in scotland...
The astronomer seeing a sheep out the window exclaims, "Look, sheep in Scotland are black!"
The mathematician adjures, "There is one sheep in Scotland known to be black."
The physicist with a deep sigh intonates, "There exists in Scotland at least one sheep, of which one side appears to be black, viewed from a train, at a distance and in motion."
Science still holds as universal truth things that are still conjecture, Einsteins theory of relativity being one of them.
The fact that most every measurement in this area has agreed with the theory does not elevate it to truth, since it cannot be held in your hand.
The ponderable universe as it is understood today does not flow from entropy to organization, rather; it flows the other way. How can this be so? Supernatural being(s) is a theory that has been innate in mankind throughout the recorded and un-recorded ages (via artifact, for you pedantics).
Here's the news! That just don't make it so.
Knowing the things that we do know, I could answer Einstien's rhetorical question "Does God play dice?" thus:
God in the fullness of time will play every combination of the craps game and in that way is omnipotent.
This would pretty much exclude the reality of any religion yore or hence.
That's my view. You may have had other experience to which I am not privy.
Ron
First, I didn't make any statements about scientists holding anything to be universal truths and I sincerely doubt any scientist would agree with your statement.
Second, I can take everything you've said, I've said, and what everyone else has said or is saying and say this...
"It's all in your head."
What we know exists within our mind. Does that make it true? No...but anything we can repeatedly observe will have a greater sense of being real (even an illusion is real as an illusion). When we die, so does what we know (as far as it applies to our comprehension of things). It continues for others but only as they understand it and when they die, their understanding goes with them. The problem with the question of God's existence is based on separating belief in God (which does exist) with the actual existence of God (which has never been proven).
In other words, the belief that God exists, exists to the extent someone holds this to be true inside their head. The only thing you can say regarding what's outside their head is that others may agree. A million, billion people all in agreement, doesn't make what they believe true...it makes their agreement true and that's where people seem to be getting things juxtaposed.
anthrosub
_____________________________
"It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled." - Mark Twain
"I am not young enough to know everything." - Oscar Wilde
|
Intelligent Design Controversy - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread