Atheist Indoctriniation? Part II?

Question

Okay, based on your answers to my first question I don't think I stated my original quesiton correctly. Apparently what I think intelligent design is, is not what you think it is. What I am trying to say is by taking the intelligent designer option out of the equation you are teaching that God doesn't exist. Am I wrong in thinking that? That's what I have a problem with.

Technically there isn't really anything to teach. What I have in mind is to teach evolution, and then say "some people think a god started the process, and moved it along, and some people don't." That's it. Evolution and the Big Bang Theory may be true, but they still don't explain the origin of the universe.

Answer 1

Exactly, you are not even allowed to teach evolution and say THAT.

And why are teachers not allowed to present any evidence that might put evolution in a poor light?

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with T. Wallace:
"A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)"

I love the circular logic often employed by evolution's proponents: no "real" scientist supports Intelligent Design... because the minute a scientist expresses any doubt in evolution, he or she is no longer classified as a "real" scientist.

Again (from my last answer), so many people are confusing biblical creationism with intelligent design. "Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence" (Dr. William Dembski). That's it; it says nothing of who the creator is and how he/she/it/they did it.

I have found that most Christians I know don't want biblical creationism taught in science classes. What we want is for molecules-to-man evolution to be taught with all its warts, and we want intelligent design to at least to be presented.

And let me just give a little commercial for ID since I'm here:

Life is more than just physics and chemistry; life is built on information. Tightly coiled up inside the center of every cell, this information is contained in that molecule of heredity, called “DNA” which has a digital code inscribed alone its spine.

Now, information is something different from matter and energy. For example, a book contains information, but the paper and ink are not the information—they can only transmit it.

Life is an information-based process in which the DNA contained within each cell is based on a genetic language using four nucleotide bases. It has been said that if transcribed into English, the DNA in the human genome would fill a 300-volume set of encyclopedias of approximately 2,000 pages each.

And, of course, an order of letters is meaningless unless there is a language system and a translation system already in place that makes it meaningful. The language system that reads the order of the molecules in the DNA is itself specified by the DNA.

It has also been said that if the amount of information in just a pinhead volume of DNA was written into paperback books, it would make a pile 500 times the distance from here to the moon. The knowledge currently stored in all of the libraries of the world would only take up about 1% of that. Living things have by far the most compact information storage and retrieval system in the known universe.

And we know from experience: If you have a computer program, you need a computer programer. Any time we find information, whether it is in the form of a hieroglyphic inscription or a newspaper article, there was invariably an intelligent agent behind that information.

Evolutionists have not been able to explain the origin of information in cells; information has not been shown to spontaneously arise from matter and energy. The existence of the information can only be explained through a pre-existing intelligence that put it there.

Dr. Werner Gitt, Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, said, “A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) … It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required ...There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.”

I think we can therefore deduce that the huge amount of information in living things must have originally come from an intelligence, which had to have been far superior to ours, as scientists are revealing every day.

-Edit:
To Tucking Fypos above, some scientists like Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov proposed the oscillating universe theory to avoid a beginning. This theory states that the universe acts like a yo-yo; it explodes and then gravity pulls it back in, and then the process repeats itself over and over. But the second law of Thermodynamics still refutes that idea, since each cycle would exhaust more and more usable energy. The universe is not eternal!

Answer 2

My theory (and I'm not the first person to think of this) is that the universe is in an infinite cycle of collapsing and expanding.

The problem with this is that the universe is accelerating, so how can it slow down...well I don't have that answer, but since it can never reach light speed (theoretically) it has to have a maximum speed, and if there becomes a gravity pull that grows it is quite possible for the universe to collapse.

So to answer your question, the universe doesn't have an origin just like "God" doesn't have a beginning, see how simple that was.

Of course it's not proof by any means, but there are suitable alternatives to God.

Answer 3

"intelligent design" is not a term which is useful for you to redefine. There is certain group vocal group of people who already occupied this term in the public perception with their definition, and so if you mention the term "intelligent design" it does come with a lot of baggage along.
You have to understand how science works. Science is concerned with testable hypotheses. The existance or non-exitance of god is not testable. This does not say anything whether god exists or not. It only says that we don't really have a scientific way to find out. Maybe god did create the universe, but as long as we can't test this hypothesis, it is not a scientific hypothesis, that's all scientists say.

In addition the term intelligent design implies by itself that everything in nature is built the best possible way. That's just not true. It is built so it can function adequately. But there are plenty of examples of e.g non-functional eye remnants in species which became cave dwelling to make it clear that not every creature is constructed in the best possible way.
Another favorite example against intelligent design is the counter-intuitive way our retina is constructed (the photoreceptors point away from the light). It does work perfectly fine, but no designer would construct anything this way.

Answer 4

Taking the intelligent designer option out of the equation doesn't say that god doesn't exist, it simply doesn't mention god. God can still exist, it just isn't necessary to teach such a belief in a science class.

As to saying in that class that some people think a god started the process, there's really no point in saying that in a science class, now is there? It isn't a scientifically verifiable position, so it shouldn't be taught as part of a science curriculum. If you want to teach it in social studies, in a class on the "controversy" itself, fine.

And how can you say that if the big bang theory is true, it doesn't explain the origin of the universe? Isn't that a contradictory statement?

Answer 5

When you add god, your 'theory' becomes unprovable and untestable therefore removing it from the realm of science. Believe what you want just don't insist on it be taught as a scientific theory........because SCIENTIFIC theories have been tested and are holding up to those standards.

When you say a god did something all questioning about that subject ends because that answer can never be shown to be wrong. Science holds to the notion (and human history supports it) that ALL things can be explained rationally, we just need to take the time to figure it out.

Answer 6

Evolutionists do not say anything, one way or the other, about whether or not God exists. They are only telling us what the evidience is that living things mutate and become other kinds of living things. They do not TAKE God out of the equations, God takes himself out of the equations by not providing any physical evidence for his existence. Scientists can only measure what is physically present and God is Not PHYSICALLY present.

Intellignet design is NOT Science because it poses a "theory" based on evidence that is NOT measureable and is NOT Physically present. Intelligent Design is just another word for Creationism. The creator left no measureable evidence therefore no way to prove or disprove.

Raji the Green Witch

Answer 7

What you mention is not "Intelligent Design." You mention the possibility of theistic evolution, which most people (even scientists) do not have a problem with.


"Intelligent Design" is the wrong belief that what we don't know of science *proves* there must be a god (of the gaps). It is a much stronger statement, and it has been shown time and again to be wrong.

Those opposed to ID are not saying that God does not exist, but they *are* saying that the baloney pseudo-scientific arguments put forth by the ID people are wrong. And in fact, ID is wrong.

Answer 8

But that is not science.

Science says how things happen, not why.

Would you explain Hook's law, or Maxwell Equations with a "some people think God set up the universe this way and some people do not." Why would you do this for one aspect of biology, but not for any other aspect of science?

"Why" questions are left to philosophy and religion.

Answer 9

"God" doesn't explain anything at all.

I just looked at your other question. You seem to have been taken in by the creationist lie that atheists are trying to prevent teaching of creationism. In fact, creationism is taught in hundreds of thousands of churches in the United States, and I don't know of any case in which an atheist tried to prevent a church from teaching creationism to its members.

The proper question is "Why are creationists trying to prevent educators from teaching evolution?".

You can try to turn this around and pretend that it's us who are trying to censor things, but in fact that's just plain false.

Answer 10

i would focus on finding God myself . Is there or isn't there? satisfy myself when i had this knowledge. as this is the most important question with the most benefit and/or consequence to you that you will ever have to answer in your life. the stakes are big and time is ticking ... this question should be the priority , then y ou can worry about the rest of the details other questions in your life.