UMC Prohibits Teaching ID

Jose Fly

Jose Fly

New member
Selaphiel said:
A phylogenetic tree cannot be explained by ID
Click to expand...

Actually it can, but it demonstrates the inherent non-scientific nature of ID creationism. Since it's easily established that "designer" is merely a pseudonym for the Christian God, ID creationism is effectively "God did it". Thus, no matter what your data set or discovery, it can always be explained by "God designed it that way". Phylogenetic tree A? "God designed it that way." Phylogenetic tree that's the exact opposite of A? "God designed it that way." Any tree you can imagine? "God designed it that way."

since ID postulates random interventions into the natural order.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure ID creationists ever postulated such a thing. Do you have a source?
 
User Name

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
Stripe said:
And since you like links so much:


What is the Center for Science and Culture?
The Center for Science and Culture is a Discovery Institute program ... that encourage schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution.

Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?
It depends on what one means by the word “evolution.” If one simply means “change over time,” or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory.


http://www.discovery.org/id/faqs/
Click to expand...

That's right, the Discovery Institute states:

"ID...does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry..."​
 
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
User Name said:
That's right, the Discovery Institute states:

"ID...does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry..."​
Click to expand...
That's right. That's what I posted.
Now that you've shown you can read, show us that you can act with integrity.

Evolutionists, apparently including your example of the Discovery Institute, celebrate the suppression of ideas and discussion.

Darwinists hate anything that stands against their precious religion.

User Name said:
Why does the Discovery Institute oppose the teaching of YE Creationism in schools?
Click to expand...

Because they're a pack of evolutionists, you raving moron. :hammer:
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

New member
Stripe said:
Evolutionists, apparently including your example of the Discovery Institute, celebrate the suppression of ideas and discussion.
Click to expand...

Ah, so now the ID creationists at the Discovery Institute are part of the great evolution conspiracy!

We'll file this away for future reference, just in case any creationist here dares cite the Discovery Institute. :think:
 
Selaphiel

Selaphiel

Well-known member
Jose Fly said:
Actually it can, but it demonstrates the inherent non-scientific nature of ID creationism. Since it's easily established that "designer" is merely a pseudonym for the Christian God, ID creationism is effectively "God did it". Thus, no matter what your data set or discovery, it can always be explained by "God designed it that way". Phylogenetic tree A? "God designed it that way." Phylogenetic tree that's the exact opposite of A? "God designed it that way." Any tree you can imagine? "God designed it that way."
Click to expand...

Was deducing from their understanding of irreducibly complex structures. If it is inconceivable that certain structures evolved in step by step (because according to them there is no function until the fully completed structure and thus nothing for natural selection to work on, which is nonsense, but that is besides the point here), then they must postulate that somehow some other mechanism causes these structures to appear. That is, there is an intervention of some sort into the normal process of mutations and natural selection.

This would render phylogenetics problematic, since phylogeny is based on genetic similarity. If some structures are irreducibly complex, it becomes hard to map the relationship between hypothetical species A (who has light sensitive spot for vision) and hypothetical species F (who has a primitive "camera eye"), because the shift from A to F is not according to the mechanisms otherwise operating in nature, because they claim the camera eye is irreducibly complex, so there cant be any intermediate steps in between them.

Guess you could make a tree of some sort, but it would be one with massive holes in it whereever there is an irreducibly complex structure appearing.
 
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Jose Fly said:
Ah, so now the ID creationists at the Discovery Institute are part of the great evolution conspiracy!

We'll file this away for future reference, just in case any creationist here dares cite the Discovery Institute. :think:
Click to expand...
That's another symptom of Darwinist bigotry: Nothing is a reason for rational consideration, it's only considered valuable when it might become ammunition for a "gotcha."

You're a dishonest, anti-science loser. :loser:
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

New member
Selaphiel said:
Was deducing from their understanding of irreducibly complex structures. If it is inconceivable that certain structures evolved in step by step (because according to them there is no function until the fully completed structure and thus nothing for natural selection to work on, which is nonsense, but that is besides the point here)
Click to expand...

That's based on the definition of "irreducible complexity" Behe first posited in Darwin's Black Box. However, since then there have been a couple of other definitions offered by ID creationists.

I believe Behe settled on the "number of unselected steps" definition, which is nothing more than "Even if evolutionary biologists produce a step-by-step pathway for something, I'll still claim that God was involved somehow".

then they must postulate that somehow some other mechanism causes these structures to appear. That is, there is an intervention of some sort into the normal process of mutations and natural selection.
Click to expand...

Yup, and they can't even do that (name a mechanism for "design"). The closest to that I've heard of is Behe's "puff of smoke".

This would render phylogenetics problematic, since phylogeny is based on genetic similarity. If some structures are irreducibly complex, it becomes hard to map the relationship between hypothetical species A (who has light sensitive spot for vision) and hypothetical species F (who has a primitive "camera eye"), because the shift from A to F is not according to the mechanisms otherwise operating in nature, because they claim the camera eye is irreducibly complex, so there cant be any intermediate steps in between them.

Guess you could make a tree of some sort, but it would be one with massive holes in it whereever there is an irreducibly complex structure appearing.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and well put. Of course, seeing as how ID creationism has been dead for some time now, it's all moot anyway.
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

New member
Nonon said:
intelligent design is against young earth creationism how? isnt it the same thing lmao
Click to expand...

It's helpful to understand the history and climate in which ID creationism arose.

In the 1980's, young-earth creationists were very active in trying to get YEC taught in public school science classes. They developed classroom materials and curricula and referred to it all as "Scientific creationism". But a series of federal court rulings put an end to that. Basically, the courts ruled that "scientific creationism" was clearly a religious belief and not science, and as such could not be taught in public schools.

In response, a subset of creationists came up with a new strategy. They took the basic arguments of "scientific creationism", but took out all references to the Bible, Adam and Eve, "kinds", the flood, and anything else tied to Christianity. They also replaced God with vague references to a "designer". They figured all that would remove the religious context from their arguments, thereby clearing the way for them to be taught in public schools. The Dover, PA trial put an end to that.

But the reason that irked young-earth creationists should be obvious. To them, the whole point is to glorify and teach the validity of scripture and God. By removing all references to scripture and replacing God with "designer", ID creationists have betrayed the entire reason behind the cause!

IOW, YEC's see ID creationists as caving in and conceding that scripture and God have no place in public school science classes. That's why they don't like them.
 
User Name

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
Jose Fly said:
In the 1980's, young-earth creationists were very active in trying to get YEC taught in public school science classes. They developed classroom materials and curricula and referred to it all as "Scientific creationism". But a series of federal court rulings put an end to that. Basically, the courts ruled that "scientific creationism" was clearly a religious belief and not science, and as such could not be taught in public schools.

In response, a subset of creationists came up with a new strategy. They took the basic arguments of "scientific creationism", but took out all references to the Bible, Adam and Eve, "kinds", the flood, and anything else tied to Christianity. They also replaced God with vague references to a "designer". They figured all that would remove the religious context from their arguments, thereby clearing the way for them to be taught in public schools. The Dover, PA trial put an end to that.

But the reason that irked young-earth creationists should be obvious. To them, the whole point is to glorify and teach the validity of scripture and God. By removing all references to scripture and replacing God with "designer", ID creationists have betrayed the entire reason behind the cause!
Click to expand...

Right. In other words, they created a kind of "Frankenstein's Monster" that is now out to destroy them.
 
6days

6days

New member
Nonon said:
I don't believe in evolution at all sir
Click to expand...
Evolutionists like to use the fallacy of equivocation with the word 'evolution'. As Christians, we believe God created organisms to survive and adapt to various environments. We observe things such as selection, mutation rates etc. IOW.... the evidence is consistent with God's Word.
Where evolutionists equivocate is calling what we observe - "evolution"; then they use the same word to describe their beliefs that a microbe could evolve into a microbiologist.
 
Last edited:
6days

6days

New member
User Name said:
Why does the Discovery Institute oppose the teaching of YE Creationism in schools?
Click to expand...
I don't think any Christian wants beliefs about the past taught as part of the curriculum in science class, in secular schools. However a teacher should have the academic freedom to discuss all the evidence for and against different ideas, so long as the course is being taught.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top