...instead of a mandated alternative?
the bible, koran and torah should be mandated as
complements to science.
2006-10-17 06:29:28 · 13 answers · asked by redreverser 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Indeed, Neo-Science for Neo-Students, by Neo-Cons in the new Neo-World order.
2006-10-17 06:43:55 · answer #1 · answered by Victory ! 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
The problem with intelligent design is that there is no species it can't predict. There's nothing conceivable that an intelligent design theory can write off as can't exist. Scientific theories not only attempt to predict what will happen, but what will not happen, also.
The theory that says a rocket will propel a ship forward also states that the rocket will not propel the ship backwards, or upwards, or leave it where it is. Intelligent design does not do this, it simply states "we can't explain it, so it must have been created by a 'higher (coughGodcough) power'"
When you get right down to it, intelligent design isn't much use because it can't be used to predict what will or won't happen. And a theory that can't predict anything is utterly and completely useless (as far as science is concerned).
2006-10-18 15:36:49 · answer #2 · answered by 006 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You simply cannot teach intelligent design in a science classroom because it has no scientific basis.
Seriously, people think the Religious Right aren't trying to turn our nation into a theocracy?
First it was "stop teaching evolution". Now, it's "teach creationism" (but call it intelligent design).
First it was "keep the government out of our churches". Now, it's "give our churches money through the faith-based initiatives act."
I respect that you share space with other religions, and I respect that all religions have a creation story. But it cannot be taught in schools.
2006-10-17 06:40:18 · answer #3 · answered by WBrian_28 5 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Where has this been mandated? Are you suggesting that they be mandated? Are you prepared to mandate every religious writing from any religion? And what the heck is scientific materailism?
2006-10-17 06:41:40 · answer #4 · answered by Answergirl 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Intelligent design is not religion. It is an alternative scientific hypothesis to Darwinism, neccessitated by Evolution's failure to explain the evidence.
Um, and for you nit wits: Science is conditional truth, not truth. Therefore, all scientific belief is based on faith.
-Aztec276
2006-10-17 07:47:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No mandates. Religion doesnt work when its forced on people. Read Adi Da, the authority on scientific materialism--I think he coined the phrase.
2006-10-17 06:38:36 · answer #6 · answered by soulsearcher 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Intelligent design is not science because it has no testible hypothesis. Teach it in church...not in the classroom.
2006-10-17 06:36:22 · answer #7 · answered by Franklin 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
No, it is not useful in a public school for any reason. No matter how you cut it, or streamline it, or disguise it, it still has religion at its base. Science is provable, faith is not. It's as simple as that.
2006-10-17 07:45:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. An agnostic can still believe in intelligent design, and it can generally be taught as an alternative, but I wouldn't recommend using a religious model in public schools.
I myself am completely convinced of Intelligent Design, and I am highly educated.
2006-10-17 06:38:12 · answer #9 · answered by Nels 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Intelligent design is circular logic that should not be considered anything to science, besides "non"-science.
2006-10-17 06:39:17 · answer #10 · answered by Chris J 6 · 6⤊ 0⤋