With about 70 billion stars and as many as 100 million life forms (at least here on Earth), the universe is a stunningly complex place. Did all of this matter evolve independently, or was it guided by a larger force – as proponents of intelligent design believe? With the debate raging in living rooms, classrooms and courtrooms, the stakes are high when it comes to determining intelligent design’s merit.
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
--Casey Luskin--
First, The Ayn Rand Institute’s arguments offend the First Amendment’s protections on religious freedom: scientists have freedom of religion and their scientific views should not be disqualified due to their alleged religious motives or beliefs. Moreover, as I explain in my third opening statement, the religious beliefs and motives of a scientist are irrelevant to whether they are scientifically correct:
--
That is true, but in case of ID, it is the combination of the well described motivations of the Discovery Institute combined with the lack of scientific content of Intelligent Design which makes this an issue beyond academic freedom. While ID proponents surely have the right to voice their position, they, given the above facts, do not necessarily have the right to be heard in public schools under the pretense of 'academic freedom'. The lack of scientific relevance and the strong religious motivations cause ID to be entangled with its creationist history
- PvM
September 12, 2008 1:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
This objection highlights one of the problems with public education: the government should not be in the position of deciding what people ought to believe about science anymore than they should decide what people ought to believe about religion. We should have a separation of education and state for the same reason that we have a separation of church and state. So long as education remains in the government's hands, however, it must not introduce religion into public education. As ARI makes clear, ID is nothing more than religion with a pseudo-scientific veneer. It does not belong in the public schools.
- Ardsgaine September 17, 2008 8:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: No
......your half right.
- F2XL November 14, 2008 8:23PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
5
11
15
13
11
6
10
8
6
6
9
7
6
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
It's Bait and Switch
- From Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights
By Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights - Advancing Objectivism
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
ID's bait and switch.
The Ayn Rand Center and I agree, for once, about the fact that ID is nothing more than bait and switch and that ID at best is a religiously motivated attack on science, as the DI seems to admit in their own Wedge Document.
As a Christian myself, I have a hard time understanding why 'bait and switch' would further a Christian message. But perhaps I am missing something here.
- PvM
September 12, 2008 7:31PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hypocrisy.
If ID is bait and switch, then so is evolution , considering that it's proponents tend to sell it off starting with the least extreme definition and just move on up from there:
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/enclosure/2007-01-05T12_05_59-08_00.mp3
I like the concepts Ayn Rand promoted. This is sad.
- F2XL
November 14, 2008 8:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Contradictory arguments
In science, testing a hypothesis or theory means deriving predictions from them. Thus, if I hypothesize that species have changed over time, then I predict that million-year-old fossils will indicate similarities with species today but with stark differences. It follows, then, that if predictions cannot be derived from the supernatural, then neither can if-then arguments be developed against it. For example, one could not logically argue that if God is all-good, then there would be no evil because this is deriving predictions from the supernatural.
Nevertheless, every atheist who passionately opposes theism, religion, and ID has made these arguments. In "God: The Failed Hypothesis", physicist Victor Stenger even proposed to develop a scientific model of God that he claimed could be used to test the God hypothesis. Naturally, he found that his model did not hold and therefore God does not exist. But did the scientific community chastise him for baiting-and switching, for pretending like science can make statements about God when it really can't? Of course not! This is because his conclusions concerning the hypothesis were in the negative. What matters to atheist scientists is not the evidence, but whether the evidence can be interpreted as atheistic. If it can, then the evidence is strong. If it cannot, then it is weak. These are my predictions using self-verification theory. Let's see if my predictions are supported by evidence.
- ufcarazy
January 21, 2009 9:40AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ufcarazy - What Contradictions?
You are using the common tactic of forcing someone to disprove a negative. There is no "if-then" argument required for something which has absolutely no evidence. According to your reasoning I am justified in inventing anything that pops into my head and it is incumbent upon you to disprove it. This is not science.
P.S. - Characterizing atheists as "passionate" is like calling a rationalist "emotional".
- Rearden
February 7, 2009 12:21AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response
There is nothing wrong with asking someone to disprove a negative, that is, with asking someone to provide evidence contrary to a claim. You call it a tactic, I call it reason.
I agree that "if-then" arguments against God are not required. Nevertheless, many atheists develop them with great enthusiasm. If you have a problem with them doing this, then please take up your complaint with them.
You are justified for inventing ideas. This is what philosophy is all about. We use our imaginations to try to figure stuff out, and we invent explanations or concepts to help us deal with problems. If the invented idea sounds reasonable to some, but not me, then if I want to persuade people to abandon that idea I will have to use my imagination to invent an idea that conflicts with and/or is better than the idea they have adopted.
Here are the two contradictory statements:
1) "The supernatural cannot be tested."
2) "If the Judeo-Christian God exists, then there should be no gratuitous evil. If God is perfect, then the world should be perfect. If God exists, then no one should be a disbeliever because God would make his existence obvious to everyone, etc, etc. Therefore, the God hypothesis is false or probably false."
p.s. Atheists are human beings, and as such are passionate about some things. I don't know why you think they are not emotionally attached to anything. Perhaps it is because you have never debated with them?
- ufcarazy
February 7, 2009 5:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.