Discussion with buddhists....hope fellow Christians here can
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[2] say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[3]
An overwhelming majority[4] of the scientific community views intelligent design as pseudoscience[5] or junk science.[6] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[7]
A key strategy of the intelligent design movement is in convincing the general public that there is a debate among scientists about whether life evolved, seeking to convince the public, politicians, and cultural leaders that schools should "teach the controversy."[49] However, there is no such debate within the scientific community; the scientific consensus is that life evolved.[50][51][52] Intelligent design is widely viewed as a stalking horse for its proponents' campaign against what they claim is the materialist foundation of science, which they argue leaves no room for the possibility of God.[53][54]
According to critics, intelligent design has not presented a credible scientific case, and is an attempt to teach religion in public schools, which the United States Constitution forbids under the Establishment Clause. They allege that intelligent design has substituted public support for scientific research.[62] Furthermore, if one were to take the proponents of "equal time for all theories" at their word, there would be no logical limit to the number of potential "theories" to be taught in the public school system, including admittedly silly ones like the Flying Spaghetti Monster "theory" (a deliberate parody of intelligent design). There are innumerable mutually-incompatible supernatural explanations for complexity, and intelligent design does not provide a mechanism for discriminating among them. Furthermore, intelligent design is neither observable nor repeatable, which critics argue violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability. Indeed, intelligent design proponent Michael Behe concedes "You can't prove intelligent design by experiment."[63]
Furthermore, books printed doesn't means anything
Religion pays well and u only need money to print book. And the author does not represent any organisation. No one up till tis point of time show any reputable scientific website tat shows evolution and creationism r still in dispute. If it is really still in dispute why is it so hard to show tis ? -
Wow... It seem no end to such discussion. Just wanna to make some points here. As to whether Creationism, currently disguised as so-called "Intelligent Design" belongs in a school setting, the answer is a resounding, no! It is not scientific theory, it is religious belief. If people want to teach it to their children at home or in church, they are absolutely free to do so. Let me repeat i think it is alright if people want to teach it to their children at home or in church. But i think government should remain secular & impartial, it must resist the insidious encroachment of religion into the public school system. The theory of intelligent design is a relgious theory, not an empirical theory, and has no place at all in the schools.
-
Hi,Originally posted by neutral_onliner:Wow... It seem no end to such discussion. Just wanna to make some points here. As to whether Creationism, currently disguised as so-called "Intelligent Design" belongs in a school setting, the answer is a resounding, no! It is not scientific theory, it is religious belief. If people want to teach it to their children at home or in church, they are absolutely free to do so. Let me repeat i think it is alright if people want to teach it to their children at home or in church. But i think government should remain secular & impartial, it must resist the insidious encroachment of religion into the public school system. The theory of intelligent design is a relgious theory, not an empirical theory, and has no place at all in the schools.
no end to discussion? agree, it was not started just here, and it won't have its ending here (as if anyone here can influence anyone else)
ok, agree on the part of separation of religion and state, as to whether creation or intelligent design is a science, is what is being debated here, which is not concluded.
btw, do they still religious study in school? loast touch liao, last time secondary school have religious study, still remember my school offers Christianity and Buddistism and Moral Ed (students can choose any one of the three somemore).
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Last post from me SIS, coz the academic world has been debating this for 80 yrs, i dun see how u or me can change this. anyway wiki is not an acedemic source either. but that being said, there are a lot of academic journals to support the idea of evolution. And like your post, u mentioned that ID cannot be proven because u cannot conduct experiments on it. This seems to be the main problem as there's no way anyone can fanthom how to even get started on such an experiment. i can't even start to imagine the variables u have to control. So maybe's it's not a problem of ID but of the limits of the human mind? u get my train of thoughts here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[2] say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[3]
[b]An overwhelming majority[4] of the scientific community views intelligent design as pseudoscience[5] or junk science.[6] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[7]
A key strategy of the intelligent design movement is in convincing the general public that there is a debate among scientists about whether life evolved, seeking to convince the public, politicians, and cultural leaders that schools should "teach the controversy."[49] However, there is no such debate within the scientific community; the scientific consensus is that life evolved.[50][51][52] Intelligent design is widely viewed as a stalking horse for its proponents' campaign against what they claim is the materialist foundation of science, which they argue leaves no room for the possibility of God.[53][54]
According to critics, intelligent design has not presented a credible scientific case, and is an attempt to teach religion in public schools, which the United States Constitution forbids under the Establishment Clause. They allege that intelligent design has substituted public support for scientific research.[62] Furthermore, if one were to take the proponents of "equal time for all theories" at their word, there would be no logical limit to the number of potential "theories" to be taught in the public school system, including admittedly silly ones like the Flying Spaghetti Monster "theory" (a deliberate parody of intelligent design). There are innumerable mutually-incompatible supernatural explanations for complexity, and intelligent design does not provide a mechanism for discriminating among them. Furthermore, intelligent design is neither observable nor repeatable, which critics argue violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability. Indeed, intelligent design proponent Michael Behe concedes "You can't prove intelligent design by experiment."[63]
Furthermore, books printed doesn't means anything Religion pays well and u only need money to print book. And the author does not represent any organisation. No one up till tis point of time show any reputable scientific website tat shows evolution and creationism r still in dispute. If it is really still in dispute why is it so hard to show tis ?[/b]
Anyway, i guess everyone has their own opinion and will probably think they are right. so why not we juz move back to the original topic; discussion with Buddhist. since the creation vs evolution debate will nv come to a conclusion since both parties come from opposite dichotomies. -
agree. me back off on this...Originally posted by ben1xy:Last post from me SIS, coz the academic world has been debating this for 80 yrs, i dun see how u or me can change this. anyway wiki is not an acedemic source either. but that being said, there are a lot of academic journals to support the idea of evolution. And like your post, u mentioned that ID cannot be proven because u cannot conduct experiments on it. This seems to main problem as there's no way anyway can fanthom how to even get started on such an experiment. i can't even start to imagine the variables u have to control. So maybe's it's not a problem of ID but of the limits of the human mind? u get my train of thoughts here?
Anyway, i guess everyone has their own opinion and will probably think they are right. so why not we juz move back to the original topic; discussion with Buddhist. since the creation vs evolution debate will nv come to a conclusion since both parties come from opposite dichotomies.
-
Hi i think if i'm not wrong no more religious study in school in sg liaoOriginally posted by vince69:btw, do they still religious study in school? loast touch liao, last time secondary school have religious study, still remember my school offers Christianity and Buddistism and Moral Ed (students can choose any one of the three somemore). 
-
No more fight?
Awwww
-
Thank you for the reply. Of course. It is afterall, a cock and bull theory to me. Just asking, in case i miss out anything that you as its proponent know about. My slant in this questioning is about the collaboration of the human condition and how each of us grow from a baby to a full grown adult and so forth. Without another, trying to explain is like a real fool.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I am saying human behavior has nothing to do with evolution. And tat is it. Evolution is not meant to explain human behavior. Full stop. Tat is it. Using it to explain human behavior is the same as using medicine to solve a problem of gravity. Why don't u use the theory of atomic to solve maths problem like 1+1 ? U r confused with the scope of evolution
You just missed the point, thats all. Dont have to get so agitated.
1 + 1 ? Ya, you really sound like a 1 + 1. Come across to me as someone who though very much wish to believe in "item A" yet fear to embrace it.
Full stop ? Sure. Have a good day. -
my school had compulsory bible class. no other choice.Originally posted by neutral_onliner:Hi i think if i'm not wrong no more religious study in school in sg liao
and the vice-principle would teach.
kns. i no guts to pong. -
I took moral ed, no exams, those taking christianity and buddistism have to take exams...hahaha..Originally posted by Ito_^:my school had compulsory bible class. no other choice.
and the vice-principle would teach.
kns. i no guts to pong. -
hope moral ed is still around though, since cannot teach what to believe, at least teach responsible behaviour.Originally posted by neutral_onliner:Hi i think if i'm not wrong no more religious study in school in sg liao -
Not sure if Moral Ed is taken over by National Education nowadaysOriginally posted by vince69:hope moral ed is still around though, since cannot teach what to believe, at least teach responsible behaviour. -
Buddhism larOriginally posted by vince69:I took moral ed, no exams, those taking christianity and buddistism have to take exams...hahaha..
-
PrincipalOriginally posted by Ito_^:my school had compulsory bible class. no other choice.
and the vice-principle would teach.
kns. i no guts to pong. -
i know St. Pats has religious moral education (RME)Originally posted by laurence82:Not sure if Moral Ed is taken over by National Education nowadays
not sure how it works though, but i think non-Christians can take ME -
Now now, St Pats used to have this principal, should be retired by nowOriginally posted by ben1xy:i know St. Pats has religious moral education (RME)
not sure how it works though, but i think non-Christians can take ME
Something wrong with his back, and he prolly used to teach Maths
I think they called him Mickey Mouse as well
You know him? -
how can tat be. I tot tis is up to the choice of students. I think u should feedback to ur parent. I think tat people cannot be forced to accept faith. They cannot be persuaded to accept what they do not understand, or what they do not like. That is politics, not religion.Originally posted by Ito_^:my school had compulsory bible class. no other choice.
and the vice-principle would teach.
kns. i no guts to pong. -
i oso agree. Tis kind of debate is not fruitful. As Buddha had explained tat speculations about a Creator God or the origin of the universe, nor on a heaven world ever after never bring us happiness and solve main cause of human problems and sufferings. Rather we should focus on getting complete solution to the problems of life and attain everlasting happiness.Originally posted by vince69:agree. me back off on this... -
yes, yes, effort is better spend on helping others...Originally posted by neutral_onliner:i oso agree. Tis kind of debate is not fruitful. As Buddha had explained tat speculations about a Creator God or the origin of the universe, nor on a heaven world ever after never bring us happiness and solve main cause of human problems and sufferings. Rather we should focus on getting complete solution to the problems of life and attain everlasting happiness. -
yes i think both parties should take half time and rest.Originally posted by vince69:yes, yes, effort is better spend on helping others... 
-
Last post from me SIS, coz the academic world has been debating this for 80 yrs, i dun see how u or me can change this.
All the while I am trying to tell u the debate has long been over And u still can't show me a reputabl;e scientific website tat show the debate is ongoing. If u doubt the authencity of wikipedia, u can go down to the reference and see if it uses crap infoMy slant in this questioning is about the collaboration of the human condition and how each of us grow from a baby to a full grown adult and so forth. Without another, trying to explain is like a real fool.
Frankly I do not understand wat r u saying here -
i have to bump tis up
-
thread goes wild!!
And i thought the guy(darwin?) hu invented this theory evolution regretted it b4 he died and after he believed in Christ??? -
Proof?Originally posted by davidche:thread goes wild!!
And i thought the guy(darwin?) hu invented this theory evolution regretted it b4 he died and after he believed in Christ??? -
why would Darwin "regret" it juz before he died? Why not when he was healthier? All these attempts by Christian LIARS to try to keep people to their faith. I wonder if the LIARS will go to Heaven? Will u wanna spend eternity wif LIARs?Originally posted by davidche:thread goes wild!!
And i thought the guy(darwin?) hu invented this theory evolution regretted it b4 he died and after he believed in Christ???
Take note of POINT 2...
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html
Response:
1. The story of Darwin's recanting is not true. Shortly after Darwin's death, Lady Hope told a gathering that she had visited Darwin on his deathbed and that he had expressed regret over evolution and had accepted Christ. However, Darwin's daughter Henrietta, who was with him during his last days, said Lady Hope never visited during any of Darwin's illnesses, that Darwin probably never saw her at any time, and that he never recanted any of his scientific views (Clark 1984, 199; Yates 1994).
2. The story would be irrelevant even if true. The theory of evolution rests upon reams of evidence from many different sources, not upon the authority of any person or persons.