Nothings wrong with that actually.

Not to ME at least.

But, I'm agnostic and am not willing to try to second guess what or how God might have set things up.

It's called humility.

Which we see very little of here. A lot of arrogance and faith in self and/or "science" though.

The game is over. In Kitzmiller, Judge Jones did not express an opinion on the validity of Intelligent Design as a “supernatural explanation”; however the court did find that it was “not science.” Id., at p. 745. The court went on to rule that under the Lemon test, the teaching Intelligent Design was in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and Art. 1, Sec. 3 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Id., at p. 766. What was more telling in the court’s opinion was the level of dishonesty of the defendants, and the lengths that they were willing to go in order to impose their religious beliefs on others.

Captain Tripps

You may disagree with the tone and condesention, but this part may be "bit" harder to argue with:
You can't continue to try to gain a foothold in the scientific community with your new ideas by trying to poke holes at the established ones and attempting to introduce it in schools. Ultimately, your hypothesis has to stand on it's own body evidence and predictability. Intelligent Design is no where near that.

__________________
Fortunatus sum! Pila mea de gramine horrido modo in pratum lene recta volvit!

The condescending crap makes it (and this is very common on forums on the internet on many subjects) mostly not worth bothering with.

Which is irritating. Because I don't mind discussing it, even with those that disagree with me. But when someone never addresses anyone else and goes on to frame those that don't agree with HIM as "fools" or "charlatans" or some other insulting terminology, it tells me that they're interacting only for one purpose. We all know what they're called... starts with a "T".

Here, the subject is whether or not "intelligent design" should be "taught in school". I don't know why this is even being brought UP here.

We could argue about whether or not "intelligent design" should be taught in school, what CLASSES it should be brought UP if it IS taught or even just mentioned or, we could discuss the subject matter of the thread:

"Is creationism anti science".

Religion and science can, in no way be related in my view. We can study the dimensions and the matter we occupy with science. "Creationism"-religion deal with philosophical questions of "Why ?" or "Why are we here ?" or "Why is the universe here and why is it the way it IS ?", "What is the purpose of life?", "Is there a God ?".

Trying to introduce one into the other, only waters down and makes BOTH meaningless. Seems to ME it may weaken motivation to really study, understand and consider either one of them very well.

They need to be kept separate for best understanding in my view. This doesn' mean that they are "anti's" to one another. It just means that they are incompatible trying to teach together.

Nothing at all. That wasn't what I commented on.

ah ok then i misread it.

My personal belief is best described as theistic evolution. Evolution happened as far as i have looked into the subject, but i believe God was the one directing it.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

Well, it's my fault if that is the impression you got. However, the actual reason for posting what Nemo quoted was directly related to the topic.

Again:
In my view, it is not science, but as you said, it is not "anti-science" either. It can be more accurately described as "pseudo-science".

__________________
Fortunatus sum! Pila mea de gramine horrido modo in pratum lene recta volvit!

I don't think it is. It's about whether or not it should be taught in public school science classes (of one kind or another) as a scientific "option". To ME, that's an entirely different, unrelated topic.

Well, yes. I wouldn't even say that though. It makes about as much sense as trying to teach a foriegn language in, say, a TRIGONOMETRY class at the same time. The subject matter(s) don't "dovetail" together in ANY way that I can see.

Like I said before:

Religion and science can, in no way be related in my view. We can study the dimensions and the matter we occupy with science. "Creationism"-religion deal with philosophical questions of "Why ?" or "Why are we here ?" or "Why is the universe here and why is it the way it IS ?", "What is the purpose of life?", "Is there a God ?".

Trying to introduce one into the other, only waters down and makes BOTH meaningless. Seems to ME it may weaken motivation to really study, understand and consider either one of them very well.

That is something I have considered myself as well.

Maybe, in Genesis, when God said "Let there be light" the entire universe was "born" and the ball started rolling ?

Just a way to look at it. One of many ways.

Which could take this discussion into an entirely different direction :-)

I'm agnostic. Which means I'm willing to admit "I don't know."

I always find strange, people who claim TO "know". One way or the other.

Faith is faith.

KNOWING is a different "animal".

There are obviously opposites of "faith" being argued here. Neither side truly KNOWS.

Respecting anothers "faith" is GOOD. When one (from EITHER side) is willing to admit that it IS a FAITH.

Say what?

I think you meant to say that we DON'T all have the same education an life experiences...


And about the Catholic Priests... You sure about that?

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

Who are "we"?

Of course it doesn't require a PhD. It does require some 8 years of study, some of which can be a college degree and the rest are at theological seminaries. But graduation does not require any doctoral dissertation (PhD).

Anyhow, now that your false statement is out the window (yet another), what are you actually trying to say? That 8 years of Catholic theology studies qualify as some sort of science education? Or what?
Have you ever seen the curriculum at a theological seminary? And, speaking of anti-science, are you actually trying to equate a theological curriculum with those of the natural sciences?

Also, what on earth does learning languages, to the extent of fluency or not, have to do with any issue concerning this thread??

Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District - Expert Report Robert T.

I was referring to your not so polite wording: ~Snip~ “Can you provide your definition of a transitional fossil? And don't just say "a missing link".
It stage set’s implication and gives mind set…There you go doing it again. I have an arts degree okay, I understand more then education can give you. I can see a clock as another would read a gage on there car. I see it measuring something. Forget the 60’s jingle of; “We just don’t get it!!!”. You guys have used it in every single movement for 40 freaky years…
Look, you give me a grant and I can prove to you that stars are really forming planets from full black holes that slingshot back out and eject all the material it accumulated into it’s own orbit, the orbit keeps it from going back into the black hole while the hole starts filling again with space shit, the ejected material cools and forms -say Mercury and offsets the stars gravitational pull to where all the planets orbits become larger. It’s done it ten times so far including the asteroid belt.

This is what science is so stop claiming to have facts, it’s all about supportive arguments, not absolutes. This is what the thread is about. These ass-clowns are stacking there little guild with only what supports there arguments and labeling everything else as creation science. Why can’t you people see this? I mean. there doing it right now to your generation on global cooling/warming any bad weather/warming again… there gonna de-certify meteorologist that don’t give in to global warming supportive arguments for goodness sake. Aaaaahhh!!!Grasp this (Yes, I‘m shooting back.).
Look, I can grasp quite a bit. A hypothesis fitting or manufactured to fit evidence proves shit if you stop there and were only looking for a way to explain your hypothesis in the first place.
You exhibit symptoms of sightlessalcreedulas syndrome. We are the ones with hard facts and you guys never had anything but counterfeit truths and if you look at it this ways… Ask me any question on Darwinism vs. functional tracked propose and You will go down in flames…

__________________
Only a liberal would know how hard it is to get a nicotine patch to stick to a monkey.

“We must not omit to notice that the followers of this doctrine, anxious to display their talent in assigning final causes, have imported a new method of argument in proof of their theory - namely, a reduction, not to the impossible, but to ignorance; thus showing that they have no other method of exhibiting their doctrine. For example, if a stone falls from a roof on to some one's head and kills him, they will demonstrate by their new method, that the stone fell in order to kill the man; for, if it had not by God's will fallen with that object, how could so many circumstances (and there are often many concurrent circumstances) have all happened together by chance? Perhaps you will answer that the event is due to the facts that the wind was blowing, and the man was walking that way. ‘But why,’ they will insist, ‘was the wind blowing, and why was the man at that very time walking that way?’ If you again answer, that the wind had then sprung up because the sea had begun to be agitated the day before, the weather being previously calm, and that the man had been invited by a friend, they will again insist: ‘But why was the sea agitated, and why was the man invited at that time?’ So they will pursue their questions from cause to cause, till at last you take refuge in the will of God - in other words, the sanctuary of ignorance.”
- Benedictus (Baruch) de Spinoza, The Ethics, Part I, “Concerning God,” Appendix (1677)

I beg to differ. Whether or not creationism is able to manifest itself as anti-science is depending on whether or not attempts are being made to preach it in science class. Thus, the answer to the question posed by the thread title is directly connected to the issue of science education.

It's one thing that individuals like Michael Behe can write a book about creationism/ID as a hobby or, probably more like it, to compensate financially for lack of professional recognition. That's not anti-scientific per se (it's only anti-scientific when he applies it to his work himself since he, quite peculiarly, happens to be a scientist by education).
However, it's another thing if that book, and others like it, becomes a textbook in science class. Then it goes from one man's unscientific ideas to posing as an educational authority on science and is therefore, I'd almost say per definition, anti-science.

Shortly put, "whether or not it should be taught in public school science classes" is definately as on-topic as discussing whether or not the same mumbo jumbo should be applied, or, since it can't actually be applied, attempted to be applied, in the science labs.

I certainly agree. But matter of the fact is that creationism IS being deliberately disguised and introduced as science. The disguise itself is what I call pseudo-science. But the act of disguising it and the act of attempting to pass it as science is what I'd call anti-science. The understanding of science is being displaced by religious dogma. The introduction of dogma is not made unrelated to, parallel to or coexisting with but at the cost of scientific understanding.