psyopper wrote:And by this statement, you haven't seen them either then.
True, but I did not start this thread claiming that Texas is going back to the caveman era without even looking at the text in question.
psyopper wrote:I am not trying to discredit ID because it is tied to religious fundamentalists. I am discrediting it because it is not a valid scientific theory and as such it shouldn't be taught as fact to our children. You can't really disprove the existence of the Tooth Fairy either, so why isn't that also included in the Texas school books? Oh, right - you can discredit the Tooth Fairy because it was made up by the imaginations of some thopughtful parents. ID was also made up by the imaginations of some thoughtful parents when their children came home and questioned their faith. "Daddy, Mrs. Smith said we didn't come from Adam and Eve..."
I don't know if you have read all the posts in this thread, or what the problem is in you understanding what I previously said, but at no time did I ever express any reservations about whether humans evolved from micro-organisms. That is a proven scientific fact, and Intelligent Design has no problem with that (links provided in previous threads).
The claim that evolution was completely the result of random mutations
(as opposed to some genetic code, gnomes, or other intelligent design) is what I said is an unproven theory. No one has offered a scientific study to prove this theory of random mutations causing all evolutionary change.
psyopper wrote:True. Evolution has nothing to do with the existence of God. It has everything to do with explaining the existence of the flora and fauna on Earth today. It does this by making predictions on observable facts.
I would generally agree that evolution has nothing to do with the existence of God. However, many in this thread are obsessed with the theory of random mutations as the sole cause of evolution, and they are clearly trying to use evolution to prove that Intelligent Design does not exist. This is true even though there is no real scientific evidence to support this idea of randomness being the sole cause of evolution (it is just a theory).
psyopper wrote:I'm not exactly sure where my religious beliefs come in to play here. Scientists observed facts and made predictions based on those facts. When those predictions fail we don't turn to God for the answer, we turn to the facts to see why our predictions were wrong. In fact a wrong prediction is yet another data point to be considered in the process of understanding the larger universe. Science is not about God, science is about the observable universe and cataloging it, understanding it and more commonly - manipulating it.
I don't have a problem with that. Unfortunately, some believe that the observable universe is the only one that exists or has ever existed. That is the problem and why we are discussing this.
psyopper wrote:[Ummm, didn't you just say you didn't want to talk about that? Or is this some way of not using the word God, or Dog or Designer, some sort of method of not personifying the "designer" because you recognize that as soon as it's personified it falls apart.
Personifying the "designer" ? Not sure what you mean. It does appear that there is some sort of design to many things we see in nature, and that they are not all random. That begs the question of where did such a design come from, or what existed before the physical universe existed, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion, which is whether evolution can be completely explained by random mutations.
Have you looked into the theories surrounding the Multiverse? String Theory? The research into the Grand Unified Theory migh be of interest to you. Scientists are exploring facts into the functioning of the universe:
Yes, I am familiar with them. Some of these may have a truth to them and some may be completely wrong, but at this point they are theories (as you pointed out). The same is true with the idea that evolution can be completely explained by random mutations (it may be true, but is just a theory at this point). ID is also a theory.
psyopper wrote:I would never dare to foist God upon anyone. People choose to believe in God, and when they do they go to Church to discuss Him, similar to how people choose to go to school to understand facts. A minister doesn't talk about World War II and nor should a science teacher talk about myths. Until ID can present facts, or become provable by fact, it shouldn't be taught in the science class.
If schools are only concerned with facts, then they should not teach the theory that evolution of life from micro-organisms to humans was solely the result of random mutations. This is only a theory, not a fact. The vast majority of science dealing with the beginnings of the universe are not facts, they are only theories , many of which mutually exclusive and cannot all be true. Personally, I don't have a problem with discussing theories in school, as long as students understand that they are theories.
Again, you are projecting your idea of God on others who may believe that there is some ultimate reality beyond the realm of nature and science. Reality has nothing to do with religion or a church, which are mere social constructs of humans. If there is a reality beyond science, then it existed before humans, religion, or churches existed, which makes them irrelevant to this discussion. I don't care about labels like God or Science, I am only interested in Truth.
It sounds to me like you believe in God (apologies if I misunderstood), and go to church to discuss "Him" but don't believe that God has anything to do with cosmology or the beginnings and evolution of life forms. On the other hand, I do believe that there may be an existence beyond the capability of science to understand, which is relevant to these cosmological questions, but I never go to church and never read the bible. This is a very interesting juxtaposition of beliefs and actions.
psyopper wrote:Listen to yourself. Say that first sentence out loud. Say it out loud at yourself in front of a mirror and look yourself in the eye when you say it.
"An intelligence... created... the laws of nature"
Nope, you're not a creationist. You're a cdesign proponentist.
It is amazing how people who claim they are intelligent and intellectually sophisticated succumb to name-calling instead of rational argument.
Yes, I believe that there is some order in the universe, which is one reason that science is able to discover it with repeatable experiments. I personally believe it is absurd to rationally think otherwise (unless one has a religious a priori
belief in to the contrary). Science has yet to explain how the universe, or the order in it, came into existence (alhtough some are working on these theories), but I suspect that something exists beyond the physical world and beyond the ability of science to understand it. I don't know exactly what that is, other than it does not appear to be random to me. Obviously, this is just a theory, as is also is the theory that everything (including evolution) is the result of random events.
Regarding the comprehensive explanatory theories that cosmologists are working on to explain the universe, upon close examinations these are mostly dealing with how the universe works, as opposed to explaining what caused it initially came into existence. The theories that do deal with the question of how the universe came into existence, are purely theoretical and/or metaphysical and will always require faith in order to accept them. As I previously mentioned, I am more interested in truth than in artificial categorizations like science and metaphysics.