Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
What is the no-God version? Space aliens? Minor deities? Demigods? It still requires magical thinking and is not falsifiable and not testable, so it's not appropriate for science class.
Certainly there can not be an entity that designed matter. That would be silly, right?
And the uphill, increasingly complex chemical reformulations that occurred until the existence of sentient life. This all surely must have been through chance, right?
Nothing can exist beyond our reality, because our reality is all that can exist, right?
And even allowing researchers to review supposed evidence in the areas cannot be allowed. We cannot have free speech in this one area. Right?
I think we should allow people to at least study the evidence and critically consider it.
The problem is that it doesn't stand up to critical thinking at all, NOR will those who propagate Intelligent Design ALLOW it to be criticized. They want to say that everything is perfectly balanced because it was CREATED that way. But there is no PROOF that things were CREATED that way - applying logic says that those things that PERHAPS breathed krypton and xenon are now extinct because those (now) trace gases were no long plentiful enough for them to survive and they couldn't adapt quickly enough to breathe nitrogen or oxygen. Those creatures that would easily survive in a 1000 degree temperature (which the earth was at one time) froze to death when temperatures cooled to 800F. There's a good chance that they had no skeletal remains at all - perhaps they were blobs with no structure that simply wafted through the hot, light helium filled atmosphere. I personally find that FAR more logical (along with the dinosaurs) than some guy sitting up there going BANG! "LIGHT!" (and it was good ...).
That being said, I find some really phenomenal teachings in the bible, and great principals to live by. The problem is we have all these people who just want everyone to believe what THEY believe - and want their religious beliefs instilled into OTHER people's children when the their parents aren't around. THAT, my friend, is what those who insist that "intelligent design" be taught in schools are REALLY trying to do. And that's HIGHLY immoral, and (thankfully) still illegal in this country.
As sillynilly said, ID can't be considered critically, because ID cannot be falsified, so it can not be examined using the scientific method. Hence it has no place in science class. If you want to teach ID in religion class or alien studies or whatever, that's fine... but whatever ID is, it's not science. And yes, you are correct, nothing exists beyond reality.
[1 point]2 years ago by plawlerReplyEdited 2 years ago by plawler
And there is NO reason it should be favored over, say alien abductions. But if the proponents insist it should be in schools, let's put it there--as a an example of what is NOT (to use the proper terminology)a cogent argument.
def: An argument is cogent if and only if the truth of the argument's premises would render the truth of the conclusion probable (i.e., the argument is strong), and the argument's premises are, in fact, true.
Note the last phrase. It is the heart of the matter here.
ID gets the special case because it's all about critical thinking when you cannot know the final outcome. Social pressure demands you go against logic. That makes it the best for critical thinking - you learn to stand up to those who insist you are wrong even though they have NO proof that they are right. It makes you a stronger individual, and better at thinking for yourself.
[1 point]2 years ago by sillynillyReplyEdited 2 years ago by sillynilly
Because, unlike alien abducteds, cattle mutilators, astrologers, and psychics, they are demanding to be taught in schools. As conservative religion is a powerful and well-funded lobby, we have to listen to them. So, give 'em what they want--teach it in schools-but teach it as an example of poor thinking, which it is, instead of science, which it is not.
I wouldn't even go so far as to say it's "poor thinking," it's just not scientific thinking. But most religion (or things that are based on religion) don't qualify. The main reason is that they can't be falsified (i.e., "All swans are white" is falsifiable by finding one of a different color. This is not the same as an assertion which cannot be shown to be false by an observation or physical experiemnt, such as, "People have souls.")
Absolutely. Both sides of the issue must be presented.
No one was there to see the beginning of the world. Therefore, we can't know for sure. Therefore, people must be presented with both sides so they can make up their own mind.
United States
In religion class, sure.
If you are willing to consider various possible origins of it, not just the God version.
Yes, the no-God versions have to be included.
What is the no-God version? Space aliens? Minor deities? Demigods? It still requires magical thinking and is not falsifiable and not testable, so it's not appropriate for science class.
Certainly there can not be an entity that designed matter. That would be silly, right?
And the uphill, increasingly complex chemical reformulations that occurred until the existence of sentient life. This all surely must have been through chance, right?
Nothing can exist beyond our reality, because our reality is all that can exist, right?
And even allowing researchers to review supposed evidence in the areas cannot be allowed. We cannot have free speech in this one area. Right?
I think we should allow people to at least study the evidence and critically consider it.
The problem is that it doesn't stand up to critical thinking at all, NOR will those who propagate Intelligent Design ALLOW it to be criticized. They want to say that everything is perfectly balanced because it was CREATED that way. But there is no PROOF that things were CREATED that way - applying logic says that those things that PERHAPS breathed krypton and xenon are now extinct because those (now) trace gases were no long plentiful enough for them to survive and they couldn't adapt quickly enough to breathe nitrogen or oxygen. Those creatures that would easily survive in a 1000 degree temperature (which the earth was at one time) froze to death when temperatures cooled to 800F. There's a good chance that they had no skeletal remains at all - perhaps they were blobs with no structure that simply wafted through the hot, light helium filled atmosphere. I personally find that FAR more logical (along with the dinosaurs) than some guy sitting up there going BANG! "LIGHT!" (and it was good ...).
That being said, I find some really phenomenal teachings in the bible, and great principals to live by. The problem is we have all these people who just want everyone to believe what THEY believe - and want their religious beliefs instilled into OTHER people's children when the their parents aren't around. THAT, my friend, is what those who insist that "intelligent design" be taught in schools are REALLY trying to do. And that's HIGHLY immoral, and (thankfully) still illegal in this country.
As sillynilly said, ID can't be considered critically, because ID cannot be falsified, so it can not be examined using the scientific method. Hence it has no place in science class. If you want to teach ID in religion class or alien studies or whatever, that's fine... but whatever ID is, it's not science. And yes, you are correct, nothing exists beyond reality.
And there is NO reason it should be favored over, say alien abductions. But if the proponents insist it should be in schools, let's put it there--as a an example of what is NOT (to use the proper terminology)a cogent argument.
def: An argument is cogent if and only if the truth of the argument's premises would render the truth of the conclusion probable (i.e., the argument is strong), and the argument's premises are, in fact, true.
Note the last phrase. It is the heart of the matter here.
Sounds like a stupid idea ...
This comment was deleted by sillynilly .
[1 point] 2 years ago byI think it would make an excellent platform for introducing logical fallacies in a critical thinking course.
Yes, but why should ID get a special pleading here. Why not alien abductions, or cattle mutilations or astrology or psychic powers, etc.
ID gets the special case because it's all about critical thinking when you cannot know the final outcome. Social pressure demands you go against logic. That makes it the best for critical thinking - you learn to stand up to those who insist you are wrong even though they have NO proof that they are right. It makes you a stronger individual, and better at thinking for yourself.
Oh, I'm all for teaching critical thinking skills... don't get me wrong. But there are so many woo woo things to choose from. ;o)
Because, unlike alien abducteds, cattle mutilators, astrologers, and psychics, they are demanding to be taught in schools. As conservative religion is a powerful and well-funded lobby, we have to listen to them. So, give 'em what they want--teach it in schools-but teach it as an example of poor thinking, which it is, instead of science, which it is not.
I wouldn't even go so far as to say it's "poor thinking," it's just not scientific thinking. But most religion (or things that are based on religion) don't qualify. The main reason is that they can't be falsified (i.e., "All swans are white" is falsifiable by finding one of a different color. This is not the same as an assertion which cannot be shown to be false by an observation or physical experiemnt, such as, "People have souls.")
Falsifiable, quantifiable, reproducible.
Hmmm... sounds almost like a mantra. ;o)
In "Sunday" schools.
Or, possibly, in a class on comparative religions.
Absolutely. Both sides of the issue must be presented.
No one was there to see the beginning of the world. Therefore, we can't know for sure. Therefore, people must be presented with both sides so they can make up their own mind.