Debate on ID: Need help
Offline Having a debate with ID proponent could use tips. Here is debate so far.
Me-1.Do you feel it should be taught in science classes along side
evolution?
2.If so, what would be taught? For example what would the lesson plan
be?
3.If teaching ID in science class how do you teach the theory
using the
scientific method?(hypothosis,observation,testing,repetition,fallsifiabilty,etc...etc..)
4.What scientific discoveries has ID given us?
5.If ID is the explanation for anything Evolution cannot explain,
whatis the point of investigating? What mysteries about the way
life cameto be should be explored in light of ID? In other words: What's the point of Science if god did it?
ID- 1. In my opinion i beleave that evolution shouldn't be taught at all because its a false teaching that takes away all the credit from God creating life My answer as a whole may sound harsh and i dont intend it to be, but what i said is pretty much the oppisite of what it is today with evolution being taught and ID not bein gallowed what so ever in the classroom. So yes i
beleave ID should be taught in the classroom but no i don't think it should be taught along side evolution because i dont think evolution should be taught.
2. Seeing that evolution has all ready been taught in our culture
one of the
main points of the lesson plan should be how ID is what really
happened, not
what they were taught about evolution. (i hope i chose the right
words
there) You can use bibically reasons along with scientific reasons
or you
can just stick with scientific reasons with this lesson. One
scientific
point that comes to mind is that evolution explains the natural
selection of
life evolving, but there is no sound theory that life came out of
no where
and was made by chance.
3. This can be a tricky one because to learn about ID one must
first believe
there is a God or else it is pointless for that person to be in
class cause
they would refuse to learn. Also as Christians we are not supose
to force
things on people, God wants us to have faith in him with free will
not be
forced into it. So maybe those who dont't beleave if they choose
can take a
class where a teacher train in apologetiucs or theology or the
like can help
them find evidence for a God if they so choose, if they choose not
to its
their free will not to, thats fine but options were made to help
them if
they so choose. on that note i have more to add to this one just
please give
me a day or so to add more.
4. Well ID is the teaching of God creating everything. Throu God
all things
are possible, even thou i tmay be a gerneric answer i would have
to say God
has given us everything.
5. If for some reason evolution can explain something then it is
wrong
because The Lord did not use evolution he created. Just because yo
uput God
in the picture doesn't take away mystery, Genises never said how
he brought
the universe in existence but we have learn its very posisble he
may of been
the Creator of the Big Bang. its important to remember that
evolution is
just one part of science. By evolution being wrong doesn't destroy
science,
science is still there, theres medical science, bioligy,
chemistry, physics
and much much more. Removing evolution is not destroying science
as a whole
it would just be what science has allways done. Witch is get rid
of theories
and such that dont add up. In close im not starting a debate over
evolution more saying if evolution was taken out of science it would not
destroy it but it would do what it normaly does witch is maintains itself with checks and balances.
ME- >I agree, I will not argue for evolution since this is about ID.
>
>1.It surprises me that you don't think a scientific theory such as
>evolution should be taught in a science class. I know you think it's
>wrong, but I guess I don't understand how that means no one should
>learn about it.
>2.I will again evade the argument from evolution here in favor of
>something about your answer that disturbs me greatly. Doesn't it seem
>like you propose a complete breakdown of separation of church and state
>when you say teach biblical reasons? In a science class? And I don't
>understand the something from nothing reference. Isn't that how God
>created the universe? From nothing? It seems dubious the argument works
>only in aggreance with your point of view no?
>3.I'll refrain until more is added as you've noted.
>4.Very generic indeed, but maybe I should have phrased the question
>more specifically. What scientific discoveries has ID made since the
>theory came into light?
>5.In concordance with your answer as ID being a scientific theory that
>should be taught instead of evolution, how is ID falsifiable? And I'm
>not arguing for evolution here, but since you mention its use and it
>being removed from science, you know you'd have to remove other fields
>of science then too right? For example you mention medical science
>which is due in great part to evolution.(can explain further if you
>like)Again not arguing the validity of evolution but the application as
>you brought up.(don't want any confusion of our agreement not to debate
>evolution.)
ID-
| 1 Like i stated this is just my opinion, pretty much dreaming how I Me- >1.What other theories have been throwing out of science because they ID-
ME- I Don't really know much about the protein stuff here and any helping hand would be great. Thanks. |
I suck at signatures.
- Login to post comments
Well to start, you can inform this person that ID has been completely ridiculed and thrown out of the scientific community. The only thing about it which is in any way scientific is the concept of Irreducible Complexity. A subject based on the idea that if stripped to it's component parts, an organ or vital feature of life would cease to function. There has not been one single demonstration of irreducible complexity in life. Since it is testable, it is scientific. But it's also false, since it has never been witnessed.
Second, evolution doesn't try and disprove a god. At best, or worst depending on your point of view, it just proves christianity or parts of it is a lie.
And third, his idea on the chances of things happening is crtiically flawed. His assumption is that there is one of every molecule/atom in existance, and that by some fluke all these single molecules have to come together in a specific order. When this is not even remotely similar to reality. If one person rolls a thousand dice, his or her chances of rolling a six on every single die are near impossible. So small as to not be worth calculating. But if two people are rolling their own set of a thousand dice, the chances of it happening has just doubled. If a thousand people are each rolling their own sets, then the chances of someone hitting all sixes has increased by a factor of 1000. Since the universes size and contents vastly outweigh this, the chances of life forming somewhere in the universe are far higher than the chances of life not forming somewhere in the universe.
His thoughts on probability are scewed horribly.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Would he be happy if the Flying Spaghetti Monster's creation story and all the other creation stories were also taught?
Also, science is naturalistic (or at least biology), therefore it is focused on naturalistic answers.
Invoking the supernatural poses a problem: it explains the unknown with an even greater unknown.
Finally, LOL at all of the non sequiturs.
"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought
The problem with intelligent design as stated by the fundamentalists is that the intelligent creator apparently created a race of people of which he expects to abandon their intelligence.
My Artwork
Nice to see this coming from a theist.
I can understand why you get flack from both sides: because you probably make good points like this.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I can handle rhetorical jabs from most anybody. The attempted exorcism freaked me out, though.
My Artwork
Thanks for the help so far guys. And sorry for the format I just cut and pasted.
Well from a rhetorical rather than biological standpoint, the first step in getting somebody to come around to your position (or at least understand it) is to find some common ground you can agree on.
I can see that you already started in on the guy's assertion that "evolution is a false teaching" but let him sidetrack into the evolution as a Darwinian conspiracy idea. Until he accepts that there is legitimate scientific evidence that evolution is true, it's going to be hard to argue that it should be taught.
Secondly all the way to the end he's still asserting "ID proves there is a God" (although he's also asserting conflicting things like that God is outside of science). Until you can move him toward the idea that ID is not scientific, it will be hard to argue that it should not be taught. I think this is the direction you're going with the specifics, but I suggest don't let the opponent bog you down in details. Stay with the bigger issues of why ID is not scientific.
Those are my suggestions anyway.
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
Wavefreak, sometimes you make me laugh out loud.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Do you think there is any hope of reaching this individual with reason, facts or science?
He claims,". . . The reason i say ID is a fact is because of my Face to face encounter with Christ . . . "
Medication before conversation with this type, I am afraid.
Then again, you never know. Maybe you will reach him, but don't hold your breath.
Thanks everybody. I got him to admit ID ,"May not be science."
And, "Maybe it should be taught in a different class." I consider this a minor victory thanks in part to the pointers given here that I used in my conclusion.
I suck at signatures.