PKC, Intelligent Design is philosophy. It's assumptions are not based on physical science but on ancient philosophical texts. The opinion that ID should not even be discussed in any form whatsoever is akin to the creationist who wants evolution taken completely out of the classroom. Should ID be taught in the science classroom? NO. Should it be discussed in an appropriate setting? ABSOLUTELY.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton PKC, Intelligent Design is philosophy. It's assumptions are not based on physical science but on ancient philosophical texts. The opinion that ID should not even be discussed in any form whatsoever is akin to the creationist who wants evolution taken completely out of the classroom. Should ID be taught in the science classroom? NO. Should it be discussed in an appropriate setting? ABSOLUTELY.

no its not. its pseudo-science that does nothing but attempt to poke holes in evolutionary theory, accepts the existence of god a priori (so hardly falls into the "questioning" nature of philosophical thought).

again, saying that ID deserves to be taught is akin to saying 911 theories should be taught or "alternative" views on the holocaust should get a look-in.

NO.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN no its not. its pseudo-science that does nothing but attempt to poke holes in evolutionary theory, accepts the existence of god a priori (so hardly falls into the "questioning" nature of philosophical thought). again, saying that ID deserves to be taught is akin to saying 911 theories should be taught or "alternative" views on the holocaust should get a look-in. NO.

A psuedo-science, by definition is a field taught as science which does no adhere to the scientific method. If ID is not taught as science, but just as another philosophy, it should be taught. As for the "questioning" aspect. What ID asks philosophically is, "Does the universe imply a creator intellegence?" No, it's not scientific.

I think your hatred of religion is just as radical as evengelicals who try to have creationism taught in public schools. What is needed is a moderate comprimise, where radicals on both sides don't have it all their way.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton A psuedo-science, by definition is a field taught as science which does no adhere to the scientific method. If ID is not taught as science, but just as another philosophy, it should be taught. As for the "questioning" aspect. What ID asks philosophically is, "Does the universe imply a creator intellegence?" No, it's not scientific.

it certainly asks no such questions of that sort. at all. what it does ask is "does evolutionary theory hold true to explain the richness and diversity found on our planet?" and just as quickly answers it with "no". to compare ID to a real body of philosophical thought is a complete joke.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I think your hatred of religion is just as radical as evengelicals who try to have creationism taught in public schools.

the difference being that i support the teaching of a theory fully supported by a wealth of evidence, and the evangelicals advocate the teachings due to their unsubstantiated "faith".

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton What is needed is a moderate comprimise, where radicals on both sides don't have it all their way.

no. why not teach my new theory that the universe was made from a methane explosion from a giant turd by super dog? im tired of religion expecting special treatment. ID is a farce and people like you that treat it with some modicum of respect are part of the problem. i fail to see how opposing the teaching of any idea we all know not to be true is considered "radical". that's just another example of people being conned by religion's unwarranted place in our societies, when we know damned well ANY other load of nonsense wouldnt see the light of day.

fuck the ID proponents, if they wanna brainwash our children with bullshit they can stick to their sunday sermons.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN it certainly asks no such questions of that sort. at all. what it does ask is "does evolutionary theory hold true to explain the richness and diversity found on our planet?" and just as quickly answers it with "no". to compare ID to a real body of philosophical thought is a complete joke.

How is it not philosophical thought? It is not scientific. It makes assumptions baded upon the axiom that there is a god. All this is philosophical.

quote:

the difference being that i support the teaching of a theory fully supported by a wealth of evidence, and the evangelicals advocate the teachings due to their unsubstantiated "faith".

Sure, but you want don't even want a philosophy class to be taught in high school. I guess to an atheist, examining one's beliefs is dangerous, because they might choose to believe there is a god even after a broad philosophical discussion.

quote:

no. why not teach my new theory that the universe was made from a methane explosion from a giant turd by super dog?

Sure, why wouldn't it have a place in a philosophy class?

quote:

im tired of religion expecting special treatment. ID is a farce and people like you that treat it with some modicum of respect are part of the problem. i fail to see how opposing the teaching of any idea we all know not to be true is considered "radical". that's just another example of people being conned by religion's unwarranted place in our societies, when we know damned well ANY other load of nonsense wouldnt see the light of day.

Special treatment? Special treatment is teaching ID/creationism in a science classroom where it does not belong. Discussing ID/creationism in a philosophy class is not special treatment, but rather a place to just inform students of all philosophies which people believe today. Knowing "why" the universe "is", is hardly testable in a science laboratory. You seem to be very afraid of asking that question, becuase it is a question science cannot answer.

quote:

fuck the ID proponents, if they wanna brainwash our children with bullshit they can stick to their sunday sermons.

And you don't think that is a radical view? You don't disagree with religion, you HATE it. Hatred clouds the mind. Realize that ALL belief systems, including atheism rely on basic unprovable assumptions which are inherently religious. Everyone has faith in something, whether a god, or materialistic.

I think it would be 100% close-minded to say that any views apart from secular humanism should not even be mentioned or discussed in an academic settings, even as an elective philosophy class. On a spectrum of belief, you would be completely on far opposite side of ID proponents which I think is radical. What I'm suggesting is a great idea. ID is kept out of science classrooms, while still keeping an open mindedness in being able to still at least discuss it in a philosophy class.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton How is it not philosophical thought? It is not scientific. It makes assumptions baded upon the axiom that there is a god. All this is philosophical.

by that "logic" anything that isn't scientific is philosophical. calling ID a "philosophy" is an insult to the discipline.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Sure, but you want don't even want a philosophy class to be taught in high school.

i think its a waste, philosophy is a luxury course; people that are interested in philosophy are the type of people that go onto tertiary education, i really can't see enough of a need for it before then to justify culling other units to accommodate it. i think funding and teaching skills should be focusing on the essential subjects instead.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I guess to an atheist, examining one's beliefs is dangerous, because they might choose to believe there is a god even after a broad philosophical discussion.

dont be a dick it has nothing to do with my beliefs. its about people propogating falsehoods under the guise of "broad philosophical discussion". i fail to see why you think promoting lies is in any way "philosophical"?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Sure, why wouldn't it have a place in a philosophy class?

um, how about because its nonsense? a waste of time? completely contrary to what real philosophy is all about?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Special treatment?

you're kidding right? you dont think religion gets special treatment in society? come on now, let's be serious

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Discussing ID/creationism in a philosophy class is not special treatment, but rather a place to just inform students of all philosophies which people believe today.

philosophy is a quest for knowledge and understanding, not some "catch-all" subject for all the kooks and wackos to get on their soapbox. ID is nonsense, and should be treated as such by ALL disciplines. How can you equate the lies and deliberate manipulation spread by the ID proponents with such thinkers as locke, hume or satre? Its insulting.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Knowing "why" the universe "is", is hardly testable in a science laboratory. You seem to be very afraid of asking that question, becuase it is a question science cannot answer.

i think you have a fundamental lack of understanding concerning what ID actually is if you think it in any way deals with the "why". again, its a response to evolution using bollocks pseudo-science to discredit it.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton And you don't think that is a radical view?

no, i dont think "teaching lies to children is the completely wrong way to go about things, and is only designed to placate a small number of ignorant fools" to be a radical view. its called reason.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton You don't disagree with religion, you HATE it. Hatred clouds the mind. Realize that ALL belief systems, including atheism rely on basic unprovable assumptions which are inherently religious.

atheism and religion are completely different. who do we worship, and who is going to punish us if we dont? again, this has nothing to do with my "hatred" of religion, its about changing school policy to accommodate the superstitious views of fools that have been trying to get ID taught in school.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Everyone has faith in something, whether a god, or materialistic.

empty platitudes will get you nowhere with me.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I think it would be 100% close-minded to say that any views apart from secular humanism should not even be mentioned or discussed in an academic settings, even as an elective philosophy class.

yeah, well i think its idiotic to be promoting something we all know not to be true (not the existence of god, but the religious understanding of "evolution"). you still havent justified why you think spreading untruths is somehow ok.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton On a spectrum of belief, you would be completely on far opposite side of ID proponents which I think is radical.

i think it is radical that we are forced to adopt the superstitions of other people just because they say so. philosophy is all about logic and reason, which is why ID has NO place there.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton What I'm suggesting is a great idea. ID is kept out of science classrooms, while still keeping an open mindedness in being able to still at least discuss it in a philosophy class.

fuck i get sick and tired of people substituting "open mindedness" for"stupidity". it really gets my goat. make sure you dont leave your mind so open your brain falls out. if youre in one of your economics classes, and decide 2+2 definitely equals for, are you being narrow-minded when you ignore people that say the answer is 5??

___________________

Last edited by pkcRAISTLIN on Feb-21-2008 at 06:06

I have to disagree with you, Krypton, on the idea that ID is philosophy. Philosophical positions are arrived at by logical deduction in an attempt to provide an explenation for a condition/reality, which is undertaken in the pursuit of knowledge/truth. ID was not developed in this way, rather, ID was developed as a response to the theory of evolution. The goal of those who toiled away developing ID was to find a non-denominational counter position to evolution, or to use softer language, to reconsile the science of evolution with the creation myths of the great religious families. It is more akin to sophism then philosophy.

All that being said, I must ask you PKC... how would you feel if the creation myths of the various great religions were taught in a philosophy class? Anyone not taking a literal view of religious texts could easily interpret the creation myths of nearly all the world religions to be allagories for evolution; exploring these myths could at very least give great insight into how bronze aged cultures interpreted what they observed into a format they could understand given their limited (by our standards) knowledge. If nothing else, the creation myths of the great religions are primitive and unrefined philosophies.

Finally, as I stated before, high school is not the place for philisophical or theological study. Both of these pursuits are better left for university students or independant study as there is far too much other material to cover in high school that is of greater benefit to more people. Philosophy and theology should be studied in a quest for personal growth and understanding... high school is a place for practical instruction.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard All that being said, I must ask you PKC... how would you feel if the creation myths of the various great religions were taught in a philosophy class? Anyone not taking a literal view of religious texts could easily interpret the creation myths of nearly all the world religions to be allagories for evolution; exploring these myths could at very least give great insight into how bronze aged cultures interpreted what they observed into a format they could understand given their limited (by our standards) knowledge. If nothing else, the creation myths of the great religions are primitive and unrefined philosophies.

i dont have a problem with things like that being taught, in classes like "philosophy of religion" or "history of religion", because the FACTS are that "the egyptians believed this..." or "the aztecs worshipped these..." etc. i have a problem with ID because it is KNOWN to be false, and i fail to see the virtue in promoting lies to muddy what is a fantastic field of scientific endeavour. its central(only?) goal is to find ONE organism that contradicts evolution, in an effort to "prove" evolution wrong. it irks me that someone as obviously bright as krypton can confuse that with philosophical enquiry - ie the ID proponents are halfway there already! the more we pander to these interests the more problematic the debate becomes, and the more of a foothold it gets.

i might be too biased these days, pat condell has lit a fire under me haha! i used to be more in line with krypton, but mister opus sorted me out! but im now of the opinion that "toleration" is not the way to go anymore.

ID is no doubt already taught in religious studies in private schools in the US and possibly here too. i think that's enough pandering for one sector of society for a theory that holds ZERO water.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i dont have a problem with things like that being taught, in classes like "philosophy of religion" or "history of religion", because the FACTS are that "the egyptians believed this..." or "the aztecs worshipped these..." etc. i have a problem with ID because it is KNOWN to be false, and i fail to see the virtue in promoting lies to muddy what is a fantastic field of scientific endeavour. its central(only?) goal is to find ONE organism that contradicts evolution, in an effort to "prove" evolution wrong. it irks me that someone as obviously bright as krypton can confuse that with philosophical enquiry - ie the ID proponents are halfway there already! the more we pander to these interests the more problematic the debate becomes, and the more of a foothold it gets. i might be too biased these days, pat condell has lit a fire under me haha! i used to be more in line with krypton, but mister opus sorted me out! but im now of the opinion that "toleration" is not the way to go anymore. ID is no doubt already taught in religious studies in private schools in the US and possibly here too. i think that's enough pandering for one sector of society for a theory that holds ZERO water.

It's strange to see that we are more or less on the same page on this issue... seriously, how rare is that?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard It's strange to see that we are more or less on the same page on this issue... seriously, how rare is that?

haha, i dunno man. outside theology i think we agree on a fair bit!

like, tits are good yes?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN haha, i dunno man. outside theology i think we agree on a fair bit! like, tits are good yes?

indeed they are.





(quick duck, before we get accused of bringing COR influence to the PDD)

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton A psuedo-science, by definition is a field taught as science which does no adhere to the scientific method. If ID is not taught as science, but just as another philosophy, it should be taught. As for the "questioning" aspect. What ID asks philosophically is, "Does the universe imply a creator intellegence?" No, it's not scientific. I think your hatred of religion is just as radical as evengelicals who try to have creationism taught in public schools. What is needed is a moderate comprimise, where radicals on both sides don't have it all their way.

There is nothing to "teach".

Evolution can be taught, because a brilliant man triggered a snowball torrent of information and travelled the world collecting proofs and information.

Intelligent Design is a hack excuse for religious extremists to attempt to wrestle back control of ignorance over the population.

I'm pretty sure we all realize and know that the universe exhibits some natural form of intelligence, since we're here at all somehow. But the fact remains that using that vague idea and turning it into a political hotpoint in order to get votes and power in the name of real sciences attempting to discover our world with actual experimentation is just insulting to the notion of what science is.

Besides, "intelligence" is really just a word that really means nothing in most contexts, simply denoting a heirarchy of sorts of what is more complex than something else. It's smoke and mirrors.