I don't want a leftist slant when a someone is studying history at a school. Likwise, I don't want a creationist slant when someone is studying biology at a school.

It's important to keep high and universal standards in all subjects, while at the same time teaching students to be sceptical and critical and to encourage them to do their own independent research.

iveseenitall:

Vilified professors don't always have to be conservative. My wife worked for a prominent university and saw a moderate/somewhat liberal professor slammed for disagreeing with a high-level, well known professor who is a member of the "Liberal Academic Aristocracy".

Yes, the academic liberal intelligentsia are vicious beasts when questioned how their ideological basis effects their studies and research.

The last experiments to create organic matter from inorganic matter was a failure until they added just the right ingredients...including a smidge of organic material. If I am wrong please direct me to the study because I am very interested.

Pig yes, clever no as this "a proven phenomenon is a dumb idea" indicates.  If life originated a certain way then it can and will be duplicated in lab conditions yes?  Reminds me of teh old saw when the Evolutionist said to God anyone can create life out of dirt and he would prove it.  God said ok you are on.  God said btw get your own dirt. 

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

You do realize that we can do that, right now, in a lab, right?   They get amino acids, so long as they are not exposed to UV light. If the atmosphere they use to create these amino acids are exposed to UV light, the experiment dont work. That said, where on this earth can you go and not be exposed to UV light? IF there assumptions about the early atmosphere are correct, UV rays would have been much stronger than they are now, with a methane atmosphere. The experiment can not be reproduced with the presense of UV light.

P.S.

Stars, (i.e. the sun) give off vast amounts of UV light.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

True- there are aspects of ID that are not "scientific". But the exact same thing can be said about Darwinism- it is also not "scientific". For a theory to be scientific, it has to be falsifiable, and experiment (or experiments) would need to be designed and constructed to prove/disprove the theory. If these experiments are not possible to design/construct, then the theory is not scientific. OK Darwinists- where are the experiments?

JasonC, in his previous life he was a lawyer, law professor and a whitehouse speech writer, among other things. He went to Yale Law School and one of his classmates was Hillary Clinton. He graduated valedictorian in 1970. A little more than what you give credit for. And it seems, smarter than Hillary Clinton.
 

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Why is inteligent design so anathama to science? That is like claiming gravity should not be included in science because you can't see it. Science is knowledge based on assumptions. In the case of Darwinism these assumptions are out of control.

I can understand that science would not be interested in clarifying or quantifying the designer, but the logic of the need for design is another story.

I love how you wish to shut-down thought that you believe to be false without giving any chance for debate. That is what the movie is about.

If ID is not needed for the creation of life and the rules that govern our Universe please prove it to me.

Whether Ben Stein is a scientist or not matters as little as if I am a Catholic or not when we discuss the history of the church.

When are we on the right going to cease to play this game, of which the left are the present masters, of deciding who is "qualified" to speak on an issue instead of listening and debating with an open mind and addressing the issue ?

Hey, Reagan was an "actor". And so was John Paul II.

You want to understand intelligent design, which IS NOT creationism, thank you ?

You can read a book by a "well-qualified" scientist, Priviliged Planet, by a Ph.D. in astrophysics and a theologian.

Then, read the 900 page bio of Isaac Newton, Never at Rest, and come to understand just how long this war of the atheists against the Deity has been going on.

Newton decried this, what Leibniz was doing, the promotion of atheism, centuries ago. And Ben Stein is more than intelligent enough to do a good job on this, and I intend to see the film.

Hermano asks: "OK, Everyone - believers in God, Intelligent Design and other methods: Where did the material for the Universe come from?"

Science doesn't answer this question of how the nothing of empty space gives birth to matter and energy, either.

Their answer, the "Big Bang", is great as theater but ignores how a nothing universe of empty space creates matter and energy in just such a way as to make life possible.

As Privileged Planet demonstrates, the smallest change in any of the constants of any of the basic equations "ruling" the Universe, and life on Earth would just not be possible.

Intelligent Design's case is circumstantial, but what a case. And the materialists and the reductionists are stuck with the reality that they cannot explain the universe, only describe it.

That is what Newton discovered about gravity a long time ago: that he could describe and use that explanation to account for the movement of the planets, but he could not explain gravity itself, its origins in matter or its ability to transmit itself across empty space, all of which violated the principle notions of Cartesian science of "action at a distance".

We still don't explain gravity.

Just imagine if Borat would've gotten a hold of these guys. 

*****

"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will 

Perhaps "Theories which he has CHANGED since he confidentally predicted 20 years ago in a A Brief History of Time that he/they were close to a unified theory" in close he means as in a calculus explantion.  There is a point where the distance btween two lines is infinitely close but never touching?  So a unified field theory is close?  

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

"Science" Is What "Scientists" Do

Let's put it this way. We all see stuff and decide if it is a product of nature or a product of an intellgence that intend the creation of that thing.

When you really understand the Universe, you see that a case can be made for intention, a very good circumstantial case.

Atheism, by the way, is the ultimate white-male Eurocentric concept, the one that nobody of color around the world in their historic culture has any respect for, but which, ironically, the anti-Eurocentric white male left loves to death, almost literally.

ID doesn't follow the scientific method though, here's why:

Observation: Life exists, how did this come to pass?

Hypothesis: An intelligent designer created it.

Methods to verify: Oops... there is no way to show an intelligent designer created life, in fact, there is no way to show that one even does or does not exist.

Conslusion: Not science.