I don't "believe" in Evolution. I accept the fact that is evolution. Even if I were still a practising Catholic I would still accept evolution, as most theologians and Bishops (and higher) do. It is too well documented for it not to be true, I'm sorry your pastor makes you believe otherwise, but don't pretend your advocacy of ID is anywhere near Scientific. There have been no peer reviewed studies or papers that have come to the conclusion that ID is true.
Science looks for the truth, it constantly tries to prove itself false. This is what "Falsification" means. Guess what? In 150 years and counting, evolution has not been shown to be false. Certain aspects of it have been tweaked in order to conform to new information, but nothing has been found to dismiss it out of hand. Intelligent design is impossible to falsify, thus is not true to the scientific method. Therefore it can not be called science.
My fault for not clarifying myself. I've been arguing that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I accept evolution has occurred as well, I don't accept that we all evolved
from a singularity. That is my argument on "believing" evolution.
First of all Mathematics is a tool, not a science. Incidentally Mathematics is the only thing that can actually "prove" anything. This is why we use the word "Theory" to describe a body of knowledge which supports something taken to be fact. Which you should already know.
Second, whilst computer science is technically described as "hard", it has very little interchange with the natural of physical sciences. This is what I was getting at before.
It's called Mathematical Sciences. The word doesn't make it a science, but it all depends on what you're doing. If you're doing Abstract math, it is very much a science. If you're doing Application, not as much.
As for Comp Sci, you probably don't have a clear understanding of what Comp Sci is. This is why I don't tell people I majored in Comp Sci, because they expect me to be able to fix their computer.
Comp Sci deals with computations, methodologies, algorithms, etc. CS allows us to take a Biological concept (for example) and determine if a goal (given by a Biologist) is computationally possible under certain conditions and if so, the results and conditions. As a computer scientist (under the computation field, which I studied) you become very familiar with what ever subject that you are assisting.
I'm studying now to get in a Masters Neuro-Science program, under Comp Sci, because that's what I researched in undergrad and I enjoyed it. I was using the same upper division math concepts that I was learning from my Math major. If that's not "hard" science, then I don't know what is.
You're using the word "evolved" wrong again. Evolution describes the diversity of life. It does not explain the origins of life. It does not explain how the solar system formed. It does not explain how the Universe started. Do you understand that?
My mistake. I have corrected myself in this post above.
Yep. Looks like you want ID to be given equal weight.
That's not equal weight...There's a difference between fair and equal. Not dismissing one over the other is "fair", but the amount of information given in the class is not equal by a long shot.
Ok, since you claim it's equal. Let's change it around. I mean if x = 2, then 2 = x. Let's only mention what evolution is and then have an entire chapter on ID. Hey, why not make it two sentences on evolution and say how evolution is right and ID is wrong followed by an entire chapter of ID from an ID perspective.
So what if it is not what they believe in? They can not believe it all they like, it does not stop it from being true! People used to believe the Earth was the centre of the Universe! They even locked up Galileo for the last years of his life because he challenged that dogma. Guess what, he was right, just like Darwin was right. Public opinion should have zero impact on what is taught as truth.
The nation's opinion is relevant in that the school is teaching science because it's science and not what they necessarily believe in. You're making a complaint because something that you don't believe is being mentioned next to your belief. If the U.S. behaved the same way, then evolution wouldn't even be taught.
Again, evolution is not a belief. Many Christian scholars and high ranking members of both the Church of Rome and the Church of England accept evolution to be true and find it does not conflict with their belief in a higher power.
Also, the US did behave the same way. Heard of the Scopes trial? How about in Dover, PN when the board of education there tried to get ID taught in schools? Seems like the judge there managed to realise that ID was just creationism re-branded.
The majority of scientists dismiss ID because we know what it is, creationism. Which isn't science. So isn't accepted by scientists. Am I getting through to you?
1. I've argued that already.
2. uhhhhh... if they didn't allow it, that supports my argument.
3. Yes you are, that you're in denial. There are scientists who believe in ID and you just refuse to accept it. I'm sure it's the minority, but to pretend that there aren't scientist that believe in ID is silly.
Exactly what I said. You made an argument that I was pretending that animals don't have homosexual tendencies. My argument is how does that matter? Animals also can be blind, does that change your opinion of people being blind?
How exactly was any of that relevant?
If I saw a man crawling, I'd wonder why he was crawling. I'd make the assumption that perhaps he couldn't walk for whatever reason. I'd think it was strange, I'd probably turn to a friend and say something along the lines of "WTF is he doing?".
The woman eating with her feet, I'd think it was impressive that she was that dexterous with her feet if I'm honest.
Sometimes I've occasioned to pee while sitting down. Mostly when tired. Why is this relevant again?
Some people do sleep with their eyes open, it's weird but doesn't harm me in any way. I've fallen asleep while standing up before. I was extremely drunk at the time, though. Why is this relevant again?
It's relevant because I want you to examine your thought processes. Why would you think that the man couldn't walk. Why do you think the woman was impressive or the people's sleeping habits were weird? The answer is we've examined our bodies to the point where we have created a "norm". We look at our bodies and say, "ok, we have two feet, so we should walk up right on our feet". So when you see a woman using her feet to eat with, that impresses you. You determine sleeping habits to be "weird" based off of what you and society have created to be the norm. It doesn't bother you that the person is sleeping with their eyes open, but you do find it weird.
Soooooooooo the relevance is, how come when people make the same logical connections with homosexuality, it becomes a big deal? How come a person can't just say "Man, that's weird" without being negatively labeled? I mean, the same thinking process that you used to conclude it was impressive for a woman to eat with her feet is the same thinking process that a person uses to determine it's weird for a guy to go anal on another guy.
That's why it's relevant. I'm not comparing the scenarios as the same, but the thinking processes.