Well done Copp!  Always to good to get those things out of the way eh?  Can relax (a bit) now

As for the Evolution/ID debate ... hmmm, see I'm far too jaded a scientist (a rubbish one, but one none the less) to believe in ID verbatim.  Especially when you see the crap the aforeposted Dr Gish spews forth.  Oh, and if you are interested I'd recommended finding a few of his works ... I came across him thanks to Dave Gorman, I thought (when I read his book) that "no body could lie that blatantly", but they can.  I've now read some of his work and I truly believe him to be evil

As I see it, and this is purely my opinion, evolution is the only sensible explaination for the things around us.  It makes sense.  There may be holes that need filling but I am more inclinded to think that these will be filled rather than evidence of a God being produced soon.

I kind of agree with JDK on the difference between ID and Creationism.  ID suggests that the process of evolution was designed rather than the finished product.  However, given that this seems to be a Bush intiative I doubt it would be taught as such, I feel it's bascially been given a better name to hide it's true nature.  In this case.

It is perfectly acceptable in my mind for ID and evolution to both be correct.  Just more evidence, at present, for the latter part.

I'm not knocking anyones religion here, I think everyone should be free to believe what they so desire.  My only criterion is not to try and convert me to your particular casue, I'm happy with my belief system as it is thanks.

I do kinda think ID/Creationism has it's place in education, but it should be in the religious education classes and NOT in the science classes.  But I also believe that religious education sucks in modern schools.  It's, in my experience, less "education" and more "you are wrong, this is the truth".  RE should be an unbiased exploration and explaination of all religions and not, as it was when I was at school, the Bible read over a period of 3 years.

Hope I've not offended anyone here, certainly not my intent, just expressing my poorly worded view.

Well done Copp! have a Cava on me! Hope you found a fellow shirker to slope off to the pub with?

Firstly:  Woohoo!  Nice one Copper!

Secondly:  Darren, please tell me your comments on "Richard Dawkins is Charles Simonyi" were just a misguided attemt at humour or I shall have have to start doubting your skills at English comprehension!

Thirdly:  Got to agree with Copper's "As I have said before, there is nothing about evolutionary theory which explains the origin of the universe, it just explains how/why living organisms change through time.  If you think God started the big bang then fine!".  Yes, not big bang, not origin of life, but evolution, which, let's face it, is happening in front of our noses (& inside them!).  Everything does tend to get thrown in together & confuse things a bit.

Oh do shut up, Stead. Who invited him

Couldnt be more wrong but nice try...

So, extrapolating "Does a tree make a sound when there's no-one to hear it fall?", does a universe bang when there's no-one to hear it come into existance?

Well done copp! thats great news big hugs and congatz all round

When do we get ro read it? (and look at silly pictures of copp making faces)


er.. does this mean your coming back to play city of heros with us? does it does it? please say it does!

(I'm not debating what ever your talking about because I really dont understand it)

-- Edited by Lite at 08:19, 2005-10-05

JonnyStead wrote:

---

Couldnt be more wrong but nice try...

---

Er, OK ... I'll mention that to my astrophysics tutor then shall I?

Don't question me or I may have to bring up the incidents of "Citizen Band" and "The Gold Guiness Cans" ....

So you're saying that the tree doesn't make a sound? 

I thought you said I couldn't have been there...

So either you ain't makin sense or you're saying that as long I wasn't present at the Big Fizzy Woosh (it'll catch on, you'll see) it did make a sound.

-- Edited by ddvmor at 21:59, 2005-10-05

JonnyStead wrote:

---

Not a vacuum you understand but NOTHING no universe - no matter - no gravity - and therefore no person/you/me to 'ear it. If there was anyone present to hear it they MUST have been already inside the expanding universe (that was being created like - due to the nothing being around it I just mentioned) and therefore they were not present at the time of the creation ergo there was no bang, no rushing sound, no woot! or even a pfff like so much gas escaping from a bottle to be heard. It was silent. Thats about the size of it - and I deny the existance of the 'citizen band' or 'gold guinness can' incidents too. Moving on... -- Edited by JonnyStead at 21:39, 2005-10-05 -- Edited by JonnyStead at 21:40, 2005-10-05

---

Dude, you've dropped into the "I wasn't there so it didn't happen" train of thought, I think you need to have a lie down, really.

Oh ... "there wasn't a vacuum there was nothing"?  That's kinda the DEFINITION of a vacuum.

Really, sometimes I dispair, I really do

Without getting too far into anything, because I'm clearly outnumbered here ...

The existence of the supernatural is not scientifically provable, by very definition.  But the non-existence of the supernatural is equally not scientifically provable.  It's a matter of perspective.

If you start from the point of view that an intelligent designer could exist, then it is quite possible to spot objective, scientific evidence that supports this point of view, and objective, scientific evidence that points out weaknesses in the theory of (macro)evolution.

If you start from the point of view that the supernatural doesn't exist, than I very much agree that (macro)evolution is the best we've come up with so far, and that of course renders intelligent design quite silly, ignorant even.

The problem is that proponents of (macro)evolution, and those that argue that intelligent design has no place in the classroom are, at the root of their arguments, saying science = naturalism and supernaturalism = ignorant.  Neither is true.

... I'll stop there in interest of time.

Zem YN3B wrote:

---

The problem is that proponents of (macro)evolution, and those that argue that intelligent design has no place in the classroom are, at the root of their arguments, saying science = naturalism and supernaturalism = ignorant.  Neither is true. ... I'll stop there in interest of time.

---

Fair enough, Descartesian dualism has dominated science for far too long so I agree with this point.  However, since when has philosophy been a core topic in science GSCEs?  Save these discussions for a different classroom, but still a classroom nevertheless.

ddvmor wrote:

---

As I recall, Descartes was only spouting what Aristotle's boys had been saying for like, ages!

---

 

Descartes rejected lots of traditional aristotelian thinking... But the main thing he is famous for is the mind/body split that dominates western scientific methods.  He reckoned the mind was distinct from the body (cartesian dualism), and does not belong to the material world.  Godly peeps tend to like that way of thinking....