Big Bang?

[Otto]

The context ist America, where Darwin still is a problem in some places. 
Not Australia or Europe. Our point of view is different, and we're not 
under the threat of a religiously motivated fundamentalist government 
that needs some kind of "belief" to get people to die for its sinister 
purposes.

Of course ID is unscientifically proposed as an alternative to evolution:

Bush Remarks On 'Intelligent Design' Theory Fuel Debate
By Peter Baker and Peter Slevin, Wednesday, August 3, 2005
President Bush invigorated proponents of teaching alternatives to 
evolution in public schools with remarks saying that schoolchildren 
should be taught about "intelligent design," a view of creation that 
challenges established scientific thinking and promotes the idea that an 
unseen force is behind the development of humanity.
Although he said that curriculum decisions should be made by school 
districts rather than the federal government, Bush told Texas newspaper 
reporters in a group interview at the White House on Monday that he 
believes that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution as 
competing theories.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201686.html

It is no scientific theory, it is belief!

Otto

jbor at bigpond.com wrote:

> From what little I've looked at, and it hasn't emerged as an issue in 
> this country so I haven't really been following the uproar over it, 
> but Intelligent Design isn't contesting the theories of evolution or 
> quantum physics or the expanding universe, or suggesting that these 
> things should be removed from the science curriculum. Is it? If it's 
> correct that these scientific theories and the concepts and methods 
> associated with the discipline will still be taught, then the claim 
> that ID is "an attempt to keep people stupid" is a straw man.
>
> As I understand it, and I could be wrong, the only difference is that 
> ID proposes "God" as a first cause, whereas traditional science either 
> can't or won't address that (pretty momentous) issue of a first cause. 
> Not that there's anything wrong with that; agnosticism is a 
> refreshingly honest and healthy stance to adopt in the circumstances.
>
> I agree that proposing the theories of biological evolution or 
> astrophysics as proof of the existence of "God" is unscientific. I'd 
> also argue that proposing these theories as proof of the non-existence 
> of god/s is equally unscientific. And that's leaving aside the issues 
> of tolerance of and respect for people's beliefs, which I think are an 
> enormously important aspect of this debate.
>
> best
>

	

	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de