Dawkins dissed again and again (Introduction)

by David Turell , Friday, April 25, 2014, 16:10 (3865 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained


> > 
> > Romansh: You did not answer my question ... let me reformulate it ... I have no problem with various religions being being taught in schools as religions ... including intelligent design. Would you have intelligent design taught in the science classroom?
> 
> 
> Tony: My two cents here: Ok, suppose for a moment that there IS(are) a god(s). If that were true, would it make good science any more or any less valid? No. Does it stop people from asking questions? No. Does it stop people from trying to reach as far back into the past as they can? No. Does it negate the possibility of evolution? No. Does it negate the possibility of the Big Bang? No.
> 
> What does it do then? It allows for a different framing of the questions. It allows a scientist to shelf unverifiable speculation in favor of the gradual uncovering of knowledge. In short evolution does not HAVE to be true. It reverts back to its proper place as a theory that still needs a lot of work. It allows the BBT to revert back to its proper place as a theory that still needs a lot of work. It removes the impetus for making unfounded claims or overreaching the explanatory power of a given theory out of some misguided attempt to disprove god. So yes, I think it should be taught.-I don't think it should be taught as 'intelligent design'. Instead as your discussion implies it should be taught as current proposals, not truths, and the controversal points of view should be clearly defined. The ID folks have clear criticisms of Darwinism. Simply present them as a valid point of view, God not intended.