Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Friday, January 14, 2011

No Need to Teach Intelligent Design

-
That's right, I said there is no need to teach intelligent design. All that needs to happen is to stop telling students that our existence is an accident, ie living organisms spontaneously arose from non-living matter, and stop telling them that all genetic changes are errors/ mistakes/ accidents. IOW stop the lying bullshit.

Tell them the truth- tell them we don't know.

When pressed provide valid options and tell them that one of the basic questions science asks is "how did it come to be this way?"

Then you have a discussion using the evidence and data to try to determine which option is the best fit for that. Then you devise ways to test your inference.

You can even discuss what options are valid and why they are valid. Even discuss why some alleged options are not valid, ie not an option.

Get down to cause and effect relationships- (get down on it- get down on it)- given this effect can you determine the cause.

Tell them why not every death is considered a homicide nor every rock considered an artifact.

IOW stop with the indoctrination and teach science, not materialism.

5 Comments:

  • At 12:41 PM, Blogger Eugen said…

    Hi Joe

    materialist worldview should be called vacuumist worldview because most of atom is vacuum. Atom is 99.9999999999999 % empty.
    :)

     
  • At 2:36 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I believe they are beyond atoms and playing with strings and branes these daze...

    Of course all that within a 10^500 multiverse scenario.

     
  • At 4:22 AM, Blogger Richard Forrest said…

    So, as a matter of idle curiosity, if you wish to reject the assumption of naturalism which is fundamental to all science in every field, how do you propose we engage in a scientific investigation?

    Scientists are very happy to say "I don't know". It's because we don't know that we do science. We don't know how life originated, but that is not a reason to abandon science when we are investigating the origin of life, it's a reason to carry on looking.

    If you want to believe that GodIMeanAnIntelligentDesigner pouffed life into existence using non-naturalistic methods, fine. That's your prerogative. But don't kid yourself or anyone else that such a belief is supported by science, or can be investigated using the tools of science.

     
  • At 8:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richard Forrest:
    So, as a matter of idle curiosity, if you wish to reject the assumption of naturalism which is fundamental to all science in every field, how do you propose we engage in a scientific investigation?

    Hi Richard and welcome to Intelligent Reasoning.

    OK- naturalism is not fundamental to all science, reality is.

    Ya see Richard natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for nature's origins and science says nature had an origin.

    So right off the bat naturalism is a failure for science.

    As for how do we investigate in the absence of naturalism, just as I said, we try to figure out the actual cause(s). We use pretty much the same methodology as archaeologists, forensic scientists and SETI.

    Richard Forrest:
    Scientists are very happy to say "I don't know".

    Great then there shouldn't be any issue with telling that to the students.

    Richard Forrest:
    We don't know how life originated, but that is not a reason to abandon science when we are investigating the origin of life, it's a reason to carry on looking.

    We have abandoned science by saying living organisms originated by accident when in fact we don't know.

    Richard Forrest:
    If you want to believe that GodIMeanAnIntelligentDesigner pouffed life into existence using non-naturalistic methods, fine.

    As opposed to your believing the blind watchmaker poofed it into existence?

    Ya see Richard it all goes back to cause and effect relationships. All YOU have to do to refute any given design inference is to demonstrate that blind, undirected processes can account for it. But you have failed to do so when it comes to living organisms, the solar system, galaxies and the universe.

    Your position relies on a 10^500 multiverse scenario! How the fuck is that science?

    Richrad Forrest:
    But don't kid yourself or anyone else that such a belief is supported by science, or can be investigated using the tools of science.

    But it is OK for you to kid yourself that your position is supported by science or can be investigated using the tools of science?

    No Richard, your position doesn't have anything to do with science. And that is why people like you refuse to answer the following questions:

    1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

     
  • At 8:20 PM, Blogger Eugen said…

    To continue ...
    remaining 0.0000000000001 % of an atom volume is something we call matter.When scientist look what is this matter made of they find preciselly condensed energy bundles. These bundles are actually just a minor sideshow of a deeper reality. Physicist Frank Wilczek calls this reality the Grid. It comes in several interacting layers.At this level only pure mathematics and logic run the show. How could materialism possibly explain this?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home