Setting the Bar Higher

[Celsus]

October 22, 2005

By Tom Fairlie

 

There’s a storm on the horizon of our school districts, and its name isn’t Katrina or Rita, but Intelligent Design ("ID" for short). As you read this, the ID tempest is raging across ill-informed parts of the country, taking in misguided school boards and spitting out undereducated youngsters. I doubt duct tape will stop this perfect storm, but a little bit of smarts and a small dose of common sense will work wonders.

 

So what exactly is ID? In a nutshell, it’s either a bold attempt to re-insert creationism into high school science classes—an accusation that ID proponents vehemently deny—or it’s an equally transparent attempt to dumb down our nation’s science curriculum. Either way, this is a traffic accident waiting to happen. Should we opt to make high school biology classes into a lesson in the supernatural, or should we instead let a bunch of underperformers dismantle decades of scientific progress simply because they were kept out of honors science classes when they were teenagers? It’s like picking the door with the tiger behind it, or the door with the other tiger behind it.

 

To be fair, ID has a lofty, pseudo-scientific purpose. In fact, its propaganda is so laden with scientific mumbo jumbo that most citizens will tune out before they hear the punch line. What the ID'ers are trying to get across, naturally, is that Darwin’s theory of evolution falls short of explaining every last detail about us human beings. Thus, instead of following any kind of scientifically sound process to refine or refute Darwin’s work—you know, the kind of intelligent analysis that we simple humans have been using for centuries—the ID crowd has instead come to the conclusion that the whole problem space is just too darned complex and that Darwin’s theory is too blasted simple. Huh?

 

To put it another way, we humans must be so terribly intricate that Darwin must have been crazy to think he could sum it all up in a single, 19th-century book. And here is where the ID crowd goes over the edge. Their solution to this conundrum is to step back, throw up their arms, and plainly declare that something must have designed us—something intelligent! Of course, you already know whodunit—it’s God, of course! Whew, I’m glad that’s over. Close your textbooks children. Take out your prayer books. Turn to page 23 and begin singing the "College Entrance Exam" hymn.

 

If you think this is a cheap shot at religion, you’re wrong. This is actually a cheap shot at people who think that faith alone will get us to the finish line. Faith never invented life-saving drugs, electrical appliances, automobiles, computers, the Internet, or even the telephone that you call your mother with on Mother’s Day. Those were all invented, developed, and improved upon by people who took an interest in science and who didn’t let the unknown scare them from peering into it. Perhaps faith helped them along their illustrious roads, and perhaps God was the most important part of their lives. However, they never traded their faith for hard work, creativity, and hitting the books. There may be no substitute for God, but there’s no substitute for studying and getting good grades either. If you don’t trust me, just ask a teacher.

 

So how do we avoid the damage from the ID typhoon? It's quite simple, actually, and you don’t have to be a science whiz to figure it out. Let’s leave the science classroom alone. Science works best if it follows the principles that have been guiding it since ancient Greece. Let’s not presume to know the answer before the question has even been fully written. Albert Einstein, one of the greatest scientific minds in history, once quipped that he was convinced that God does not throw dice. If you’re like me, isn’t it much more satisfying to think of God as the ultimate architect of the universe rather than someone who has a crib sheet up his sleeve? To me, ID represents the latter approach.

[Huntsvil]

October 22, 2005

By Tom Fairlie

 

 

 

Let’s not presume to know the answer before the question has even been fully written.  To me, ID represents the latter approach.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You have a point. Just remember one thing. It is not just the christians who presume. I think alot of the anger and resentment comes from not excepting each other as we are.

For instance, In biology class we had a teacher who railed against religion and constantly condemned the kids who were raised in it or that believed. He even went so far as failed a couple for no reason other than they would not agree to his interpretation of the data, instead of using facts and data to support his argument ,he just demeaned them.

I want only to be free to think what I want and to share with others in the discussions about life. Is that so much to ask?

 

Sorry, its to early to be getting so serious. LOL

[Dianka]

Bruce has a great point. IDers are expecting to teach thousands of children to throw up their hands and believe in spontanious generation.

 

My question to you is: why should we? Just because scientists don't have all the answers to prebiotic evolution, the big bang, or the evolution of species does not mean they never will.

 

Creationism and ID exist on borrowed time. There will be a time when each explanation will be contradicted by an unshakable finding. Why believe in something that will be proven wrong.

 

The ferocity that goes into pushing ID has already pissed off many scientists. While IDers in Washington are trying to force their idiotic spontanious generation, they are also trying to find ways to gain unethical attention in the scientific community. Stephen Meyers' (founding member of the Discovery Institute)submits articles into scientific journals that have absolutely no research and uses his own books as quoted resources. And how did he get his piece of shit book report published in a scientific journal? The managing editor is affiliated with an ID journal, and is an ID activist. You can read all about it in the latest edition of Skeptic (not a magazine I like much, but I found this article interesting).

 

Why would anyone want to say they believe in a movement who's founding fathers decieve in order to get attention? Face it buddy these people are nothing more than carnies and illusionists!

 

 

For instance, In biology class we had a teacher who railed against religion and constantly condemned the kids who were raised in it or that believed. He even went so far as failed a couple for no reason other than they would not agree to his interpretation of the data, instead of using facts and data to support his argument ,he just demeaned them.

 

Yes, and if I was the teacher I would have failed their asses too! You can't just pick and choose what you want to in biology class, sorry. If these students were in another setting - perhaps church, or Bible study - they could parrot their closed-minded pastors. But when in class, you learn what the class teached you, whether or not you believe in it.

 

Do you think I wanted to learn about Thomas Aquinas' proofs? No, but in order for us to claim to be educated, we have to learn. I couldn't just say "I don't believe in God, so I am not reading this shit." Guess what grade I would get - the same one your friends did.

 

The teacher did not have to take these people seriously. He was right in demeaning them. They are being disrepsectful and ignorant, and he shouldn't have to have a debate with his students. The class is only in session for a fixed amount of time, and the course material is not up for discussion. It would be unfair to the other students if the teacher stopped the class to debate with them.

 

I want only to be free to think what I want and to share with others in the discussions about life. Is that so much to ask?

 

Sorry pal that is unfair. We don't have the freedom to believe what we want. That "freedom" would never have gotten us as far as we have come. We accept verified truths and build on those truths.

 

How far do you think we would get if scientists did not accept each others research because they believe what they believe?

[quicksand]

Huntsvil, Creationism in its "lab-coat" form of ID, is not science. It is not even evolution, but a strict literal application of Genesis. You do realize that, yes?

 

Furthermore, even the Orwellian named "Discovery Institute" acknowledges that ID is not science. The reason why ID is a pressing matter and why Public Schools (funded by the commons) are considering the teaching of this stealth religious doctrine is a strategy conceived by the Discovery Institute and that of Dr. Stephen Meyer. It is called the ”Wedge Document.” Which is a giant red-herring.

 

The Wedge Strategy is simple and quite beautiful really. Instead of testing the validity of ID (which is impossible as ID is not falsifiable, which is a necessary component of all scientific theories) they choose rhetoric instead. From the Wedge Document:

 

”The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy”

 

Never mind the non-sequitur in the first sentence, this a modus ponus argument which is a terribly reductive approach and a specialized kind of strawman argument anyway - meaning, if one is false the alternative must be true by default. Well, this is not a scientific argument, but a rhetorical game. One might call this dishonest. If fact, I will.

 

Phase II of the stragety explains it in better detail. Notice how the scientific establishment is left out of it:

 

The pnmary purpose of Phase II is to prepare the popular reception of our ideas. The best and truest research can languish unread and unused unless it is properly publicized. For this reason we seek to cultivate and convince influential individuals in print and broadcast media, as well as think tank leaders, scientists and academics, congressional staff, talk show hosts, college and seminary presidents and faculty, future talent and potential academic allies.

 

And that is what ID is all about. Create a problem where no problem exists (which is another readily used strawman that the Hovnids of the world use all the time) and propose a solution to the problem by influencing people, and on not the veracity and validity of its claims.

[Huntsvil]

Huntsvil, Creationism in its "lab-coat" form of ID, is not science. It is not even evolution, but a strict literal application of Genesis. You do realize that, yes?

     

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I cannot but agree with what you say ...except what you say does in fact also apply to ID. Evolution , in fact IS a belief system just like religion. It has absolutely no basis in fact at all but has alot of conjecture and possibilities, but no absolute proof. Please do show me if there is, I am open to the truth no matter how damning it is to what I believe. But, alas, I am losing hope in the oposite point of view. I had hoped to find some intelligent and logical thinking on the other views opposed to God but the fact is that all I get are attacks on my own view. With the exception of Hans who seems quite wise in his postings. But, I cannot give up, for it is in me to always expand my knowledge of the other side. It is what keeps feeding my faith!

[quicksand]

I cannot but agree with what you say ...except what you say does in fact also apply to ID. Evolution , in fact IS a belief system just like religion. It has absolutely no basis in fact at all but has alot of conjecture and possibilities, but no absolute proof. Please do show me if there is, I am open to the truth no matter how damning it is to what I believe. But, alas, I am losing hope in the oposite point of view. I had hoped to find some intelligent and logical thinking on the other views opposed to God but the fact is that all I get are attacks on my own view. With the exception of Hans who seems quite wise in his postings. But, I cannot give up, for it is in me to always expand my knowledge of the other side. It is what keeps feeding my faith!

You say agree, however you make an exception... which really means that you do not agree Huntvile. And, your assertion that evolution is a belief system like your pet religion is trite and as played as a counter-argument can come. And you fall into the same rheotrical meandering as the Discovery Insitute that ToE is in some way an opposion to God. Two things, #1: You do not understand the ToE; #2: You are fundie and stricly read Genesis as an actuall historical account.

 

I don't care what bolster's your faith or what confirms it, mostly because you are on this website talking out of both sides of your mouth on this issue. To you, the torture by pedophiles of children or the drowning of victims in the Asian Tsunami or Katrina is just as much confirmation of your worldview.

 

You simply are not open to the truth, but have already closed your mind to it. Fact is, we have plenty of proof and solid empirical evidence to establish that yes in fact, evolution is not only a reasonable but a fully tenable explantion for the diversersity and similarites we see between disparate species and within species.

 

To you, it's God did it and like always the stealth creationist that you represent, envoke the same old meaningless drivel without so much as collecting evidence of your own.

[Ouroboros]

You have a point. Just remember one thing. It is not just the christians who presume. I think alot of the anger and resentment comes from not excepting each other as we are.

An unfortunate truth about humanity as a whole. We have a built in "rejection" for anything that threatens our own worldview. And we have it for a reason, to keep us safe from changes that might cause chaos and destruction.

 

For instance, In biology class we had a teacher who railed against religion and constantly condemned the kids who were raised in it or that believed. He even went so far as failed a couple for no reason other than they would not agree to his interpretation of the data, instead of using facts and data to support his argument ,he just demeaned them.

I'd say the teacher didn't use a very smart way of approaching the subject. He should at least have let the kids argued their POV, and maybe shown them the foundation for the arguments and conclusions science had, to a point that the students could see why the interpretation was the way it was.

 

I was teacher for some years too, and I did screw up a couple of times. For instance I unintentionally mocked one of the students dads for a comment he had made about computers, and I had to talk to the Principal and later go and ask for forgiveness for my inapproriate remark.

 

The best way of making people understand things is to guide them into the epiphany, not force feed them the information and expected outcomes. This is why I in one of the other threads are a bit negative about the school system. It tends to "tell" the students, more than "explain" things. I have some stories and experiences from my teaching years about this fact too. The girl who used the computer mouse the reversed way, or the german exchange student that had A+ in Math, but couldn't deduce or induce on her own. But that's a separate story...

 

I want only to be free to think what I want and to share with others in the discussions about life. Is that so much to ask?

It's true that we want the discussion and debate to be open, but is the scientific studies really the right forum for such a debate? What can really be said in a Biology class when ID is introduced?

 

"Okay class, we're going to start reading about Evolution, and it will take about 10 weeks of hard studies and reading, but first we have to explain ID as an alternative explanation. ID means that maybe a God created it all. That's it, so let's start reading about Evolution...."

 

There's nothing that can be said or discussed, really. Except for the non-falsifiable ideas that ID consists of, but they are far from even being on the level of a hypothesis. So why even discuss it? I'm sure there are many different questionable ideas in Evolution that hasn't been tested or proven yet, but should we start reading and teaching all those different ideas, before they even been confirmed? Should alternative explanations in physics be taught too, like the one about the Ether? Or should we start teaching about Lamarckian evolution too, as an alternative to the standard model, without explaining that it's actually false and has been disproven? Where should we stop this?

 

And if it is true that an intelligent force created the universe and started evolution, it still doesn't crash evolution as a theory. ID is dependent on evolution for its arguments, like the different categories of complexity, where three of them are explain by evolution, and the single irreducible complexity (if even such exists!) is the proof of ID. There's no irreducible complexity that has been 100% proven or accepted yet by theorists, so ID is just smokes and mirrors, and it doesn't explain anything. Will medical research be helped by ID? Can we develop better medicine and do experiments on rats with 11 chromosomes extremely similar to humans, if we accept that they are not part of the same evolutionary tree as humans, but have been designed? We have to drop a bunchload of research and medical experiments in favor of the notion that evolution might not be true anymore, even though these areas have had benefit from the theory for ages. Where will ID lead us?

 

In my opinion ID is just the "wedge" to lead us to "Jesus" and "faith", instead of science, so leave ID to the religion classes instead, and don't introduce it into science.

 

Sorry, its to early to be getting so serious. LOL

Take another cup of coffee!

[crazy-tiger]

I cannot but agree with what you say ...except what you say does in fact also apply to ID. Evolution , in fact IS a belief system just like religion. It has absolutely no basis in fact at all but has alot of conjecture and possibilities, but no absolute proof. Please do show me if there is, I am open to the truth no matter how damning it is to what I believe. But, alas, I am losing hope in the oposite point of view. I had hoped to find some intelligent and logical thinking on the other views opposed to God but the fact is that all I get are attacks on my own view. With the exception of Hans who seems quite wise in his postings. But, I cannot give up, for it is in me to always expand my knowledge of the other side. It is what keeps feeding my faith!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sorry, but evolution happens... that is a fact.

 

We may not have absolute knowledge of HOW it happens, the Theory of Evolution is the best explaination we have, but the fact it happens is not in dispute. It's the Theory of Evolution that lacks the absolute proof, not Evolution itself.

 

 

We've seen new species evolving... as in, can no longer breed with those it is descended from. It's been seen, confirmed and proven that Macro-evolution (as creationists just love to term it) happens... shame they are trying to redefine what a species is.

[quicksand]

We've seen new species evolving... as in, can no longer breed with those it is descended from. It's been seen, confirmed and proven that Macro-evolution (as creationists just love to term it) happens... shame they are trying to redefine what a species is.

Very true. And we have also seen brand new species evolving by the hybridazition of two other species, making evolution one heck of an orgy.

[Huntsvil]

Well said Hans, I for one would not really want ID taught in science class, especially as compitition. It should be set in a religious class with other religions where it can be taught in an expanded way. After all, how is a teacher of science supposed to know all about ID and teach evolution science at the same time. Shame on IDers if they are demanding this.

But is there not something other than evolution science? What I mean is , aren't some teachers teaching more than science when they want to debunk or ban even the mention of ID? I know when I was at UF taking premed courses that some of the things said about evolution should have been discussed in a religious setting. We shouldn't be hypocrits by trying to have it both ways. I am ok with just teaching evolution in a scientific way with experiments and observation. But to teach it as if it were fact when anyone can also point to its contradictions just as some say the Bible contradicts itself. ( I for one, do not see any contradictions in the Bible, but that is from my view point).

This sounds alot like the old NRA view point conserning the "wedge" remark. Is evolutionists theories so weak that they are afraid of ID and not willing to allow even the mention of it? Could we not add that, if anyone would like to know more about ID, that it is better taught in a religious class and then make the study of religion a course to be taught just like art or music?

Hmmm....I am wondering. Are the so called peace people guilty of what they so often claim the believers are guilty of when they say all we do is cause division and hate.

All I would like to see is some way we can all get along without all the name calling and pointing of fingers. It happens too often on both sides of the equation. Any ideas? I am thinking.

[Dianka]

Well said Hans, I for one would not really want ID taught in science class, especially as compitition. It should be set in a religious class with other religions where it can be taught in an expanded way. After all, how is a teacher of science supposed to know all about ID and teach evolution science at the same time. Shame on IDers if they are demanding this.

 

Why should ID be protected from science when the whole point of ID is to discredit evolution - a scientific theory?

 

They should be in direct competition, and scientists of Evolution should be educated in BOTH Evolution and ID because they are experts in their field. If a group of people claim that their hypothesis is stronger than your theory on a given matter, a scientist needs to figure out specific points of the opposing hypothesis. That way the scientist can counter the claim effectively, or maybe retract his own theory if he finds the hypothesis to be more accurate.

 

But to teach it as if it were fact when anyone can also point to its contradictions just as some say the Bible contradicts itself. ( I for one, do not see any contradictions in the Bible, but that is from my view point).

 

Do you mean contradictions, or lack of evidence? If you meant contradictions, then please explain the points of Evolution that contradict each other.

 

This sounds alot like the old NRA view point conserning the "wedge" remark. Is evolutionists theories so weak that they are afraid of ID and not willing to allow even the mention of it?

 

Is the hypothesis of ID so weak that it can't withstand scientific scrutiny? Oh wait, but you can't prove if ID exists or not. You just have to believe, which is unscientific, and it not worthy of attention.

 

All I would like to see is some way we can all get along without all the name calling and pointing of fingers. It happens too often on both sides of the equation. Any ideas? I am thinking.

 

Your solution is to keep creationism out of science. That is unavoidable. I personally don't see how we can get along with the ID debate as it stands.

[Huntsvil]

Why should ID be protected from science when the whole point of ID is to discredit evolution - a scientific theory?

 

They should be in direct competition, and scientists of Evolution should be educated in BOTH Evolution and ID because they are experts in their field. If a group of people claim that their hypothesis is stronger than your theory on a given matter, a scientist needs to figure out specific points of the opposing hypothesis. That way the scientist can counter the claim effectively, or maybe retract his own theory if he finds the hypothesis to be more accurate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

interesting point. I don't know whether to thankyou or just except what you just said. Are you saying that ID should be taught alongside of evolution?

[Dianka]

interesting point. I don't know whether to thankyou or just except what you just said. Are you saying that ID should be taught alongside of evolution?

 

 

Sure, if ID can withstand the scrutiny that Evolution has, why not? If ID can withstand the scrutiny that Evolution has, I have no problem with it being taught.

 

If ID were taught, it would end up being taught in a beginners course in biology. In a beginners course, students are not taught current hypothesis as an educational requirement. They are required to know theories. Until ID is a theory, it should be left out of biology.

[quicksand]

interesting point. I don't know whether to thankyou or just except what you just said. Are you saying that ID should be taught alongside of evolution?

SM gives ID too much credit.

 

IT IS NOT SCIENCE! Jesus, you even admit to this yourself. Therefore, the discussion is over.

[Dianka]

SM gives ID too much credit.

 

IT IS NOT SCIENCE! Jesus, you even admit to this yourself. Therefore, the discussion is over.

 

 

I am not giving ID credit. My opinion is implicated by Intelligent Design's inability to withstand the scientific method.

[quicksand]

I am not giving ID credit. My opinion is implicated by Intelligent Design's inability to withstand the scientific method.

Sorry I must have mistunderstood when you stated that "They should be in direct competition..." One, that is ToE is a supremely demonstrated fact, and the other, ID, is not much more than a loosely tailored objections without so much research to support its own theory - which is an abuse of the word theory in the scientfic sense.

 

IMO, no competition in other words.

[Dianka]

Sorry I must have mistunderstood when you stated that "They should be in direct competition..." One, that is ToE is a supremely demonstrated fact, and the other, ID, is not much more than a loosely tailored objections without so much research to support its own theory - which is an abuse of the word theory in the scientfic sense.

 

IMO, no competition in other words.

 

 

Yeah, bad layout. Sorry.

 

My idea was that ID should be in direct competition if it is ever classified as a theory. BUT we know it won't ever be a theory. Because it cannot withstand the research that would classify it as a theory, it should not be taught as an alternative to evolution.

[Celsus]

ID is not scientific. It is "a magical sky being must have done it" abandonment of discovery. With that kind of approach, we would still be cowering in fear each time it thundered, wondering what we did to anger said magical sky being. Science is the analysis of the natural universe and processes. Deities by definition are not natural, but supernatural and hence will always be beyond the scope of science. A person may have a philosophical position that a magical sky being, blue elves, aliens from Zeti Reticuli, Jesus, Amen Ra or Santa Claus is actually the hidden designer. But the simple fact is if there is/was a designer, it is forever outside the realm of science to discover. Even if I believe that a power (god) is the designer, that in no way adds anything to the study of biology, astronomy or any other science.....how did X being accomplish it? Science is about HOW thinga work, philosophy is about WHY. The two are completely separate issues.

 

As to the "Evolution is not a fact" statement being swung around by a few: Evolution is an observed fact in nature. Evolutionary theory is an incomplete theory to explain the observed fact that life evolves. I am amazed at the incredibly bad understanding of some people here, who do not understand anything but a very global definition of science, absolutely no understanding of philosophy and a clear inability to distinguish between science & philosophy and science & psuedo-science.

 

Bruce

[Dhampir]

For instance, In biology class we had a teacher who railed against religion and constantly condemned...

... That guy was a jackass. What's your point?

[Huntsvil]

I find it hard to believe any of you has studied ID at all by the answers or defences you put forward here. It is most asuredly a theory. But a theory that also includes phylos. There are several well known scientists who are now austrisized by the so called main stream because they found, by experiments and observations, that nothing physical can explain certain things that happen in life. But then I feel, why bother with that road of explanation. I am sure you all have formed concrete opinions about miracles and such as I have seen the ideas expressed else where in the forums. Please don't take this personal, it is only directed at those who say we christians are so rigid as to not think beyond what we believe. Then, because they are getting personal, well, then I guess you could say it is personal.

I assure you, those christians are in the minority and are only held up so that those against us have an easy target. Believe me when I say, I am ashamed of some of them that post here with nothing but dogma as there rational and are not really open to any light or wisdom that "crys out in the streets". But, as Christ once said, becareful when you critisize others, you will be judged by the same measure. ( I paraphrased here cause I don't recall the exact words but tried to convey the meaning.)

While I know you may think I now am judging you, well you are correct. It is not against what I believe Christ taught about judging others but the kind of judgement we all make about a persons ideas, not the person themselves. You may have heard it said" hate the sin, not the sinner" and that is more in line with what Christ really taught.

I so love this forum with its exchage of ideas and such. Thankyou to whom ever started it.

Peace,

Chuck

[crazy-tiger]

I find it hard to believe any of you has studied ID at all by the answers or defences you put forward here. It is most asuredly a theory. But a theory that also includes phylos.

Do me a favour, and just remind me what a phylos is...

I only ask because I can only find references to it being a company or a name.

 

While you're at it, can you direct me to a set of conditions that would prove ID false? If there isn't any such set, then ID fails to be a Theory.

There are several well known scientists who are now austrisized by the so called main stream because they found, by experiments and observations, that nothing physical can explain certain things that happen in life.

To have made that discovery, they would need to know EVERYTHING!

 

Any scientist who makes that claim is going to be ostracized because they've given up on science and gone headlong into delusion...

But then I feel, why bother with that road of explanation. I am sure you all have formed concrete opinions about miracles and such as I have seen the ideas expressed else where in the forums.

Yeah... we have this thing about not believing a claim unless it's got some evidence to back it up.

 

The more outrageous the claim, the better the evidence needs to be.

Please don't take this personal, it is only directed at those who say we christians are so rigid as to not think beyond what we believe. Then, because they are getting personal, well, then I guess you could say it is personal.

Some certainly are, and around here, it's the majority.

 

Come to think about it, it's rare that I've run into a Christian who DIDN'T have a rigid mindset...

I assure you, those christians are in the minority and are only held up so that those against us have an easy target. Believe me when I say, I am ashamed of some of them that post here with nothing but dogma as there rational and are not really open to any light or wisdom that "crys out in the streets". But, as Christ once said, becareful when you critisize others, you will be judged by the same measure. ( I paraphrased here cause I don't recall the exact words but tried to convey the meaning.)

Hey... they're just following the teachings from God and Jesus.

 

You know... to reject any worldly knowledge.

While I know you may think I now am judging you, well you are correct. It is not against what I believe Christ taught about judging others but the kind of judgement we all make about a persons ideas, not the person themselves. You may have heard it said" hate the sin, not the sinner" and that is more in line with what Christ really taught.

You mean he never said that we should hate our families, that he came to set father against son, mother against daughter?

 

Did God check the Bible before declaring it his undying word?

I so love this forum with its exchage of ideas and such. Thankyou to whom ever started it.

  Peace,

    Chuck

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It has it's moments...

[daniel_1012]

Personally, I like the approach of taking lies and statements made as facts that are far from facts (lies), taken out of books. Once that is done, I think evolution will be standing on a very weak leg, and that is being generous.

 

Intelligent design isn't, *in the beginning magic* -- it is in the beginning God. It is no more in the beginning magic than the Big Bang, that's for sure. The problem is because of the scientific mumbo jumbo, many people that don't want to believe in God are cheering all the long as science seeks to explain the resolution they have already accepted in advance -- and accepted by faith. To say that one can, by science, witness the creation of the universe is to greatly decieve oneself.

 

In much of your post, the word Evolution could be substituted for "ID," and it would make just as much sense to me.

[daniel_1012]

ID is not scientific. It is "a magical sky being must have done it" abandonment of discovery. With that kind of approach, we would still be cowering in fear each time it thundered, wondering what we did to anger said magical sky being. Science is the analysis of the natural universe and processes. Deities by definition are not natural, but supernatural and hence will always be beyond the scope of science. A person may have a philosophical position that a magical sky being, blue elves, aliens from Zeti Reticuli, Jesus, Amen Ra or Santa Claus is actually the hidden designer. But the simple fact is if there is/was a designer, it is forever outside the realm of science to discover. Even if I believe that a power (god) is the designer, that in no way adds anything to the study of biology, astronomy or any other science.....how did X being accomplish it? Science is about HOW thinga work, philosophy is about WHY. The two are completely separate issues.

 

As to the "Evolution is not a fact" statement being swung around by a few: Evolution is an observed fact in nature. Evolutionary theory is an incomplete theory to explain the observed fact that life evolves. I am amazed at the incredibly bad understanding of some people here, who do not understand anything but a very global definition of science, absolutely no understanding of philosophy and a clear inability to distinguish between science & philosophy and science & psuedo-science.

 

Bruce

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why didn't you throw "billions of unseen years" into your list of God's? That one belongs right next to Santa Claus... heck... for all you know, we could just scientifically explain that Santa Claus was responsible for some crucial steps in evolution. I mean, he might as well have been -- we are talking about billions of unseen years after all. Which of course, started by a magical even which you must accept by a great leap of faith in order to *believe.*

 

The thing is, that evolution is a fairy tale for adults. I'm not talking about change over time... I'm talking about change without limitations as many of you posting here have accepted, by faith, as an explaination for our origin. The Bible is not anti-evolutionary change at all... in fact, it demands it. In our present state, we couldn't possibly have the varieties or breeds of different kinds of animals without it.

 

Intellegent design is no more or less scientific than "in the beginning nothing/dirt/magic" or however you want to explain billions of unseen years... both require "magic," in the beginning. The science comes into what we can observe, and prove.

 

What you don't seem to understand, is that there are perfectly well minded, thinking, intellegent men who do not accept what you believe... and it's not just because they don't understand the theory as you would like to believe.

[quicksand]

I am amazed at the incredibly bad understanding of some people here, who do not understand anything but a very global definition of science, absolutely no understanding of philosophy and a clear inability to distinguish between science & philosophy and science & psuedo-science.

 

Bruce

Bruce...

 

This is bothering me... have I fuckt something up?

 

 

Thanx.....

[crazy-tiger]

Personally, I like the approach of taking lies and statements made as facts that are far from facts (lies), taken out of books.  Once that is done, I think evolution will be standing on a very weak leg, and that is being generous.

Yep... you think.

 

Of course, if you left in all the stuff that's already been proven correct... well, lets just say you wouldn't be removing much.

Intelligent design isn't, *in the beginning magic* -- it is in the beginning God.

Really? How did God do it then?

 

When you've done that, maybe you can show us how that is any different to magic?

It is no more in the beginning magic than the Big Bang, that's for sure.

You don't know much about it, do you?

The problem is because of the scientific mumbo jumbo, many people that don't want to believe in God are cheering all the long as science seeks to explain the resolution they have already accepted in advance -- and accepted by faith.

Ever heard of this little system?

 

Evidence leads to hypothesis leads to tests leads to theory leads to checking against evidence leads to conclusion...

That's a very simplified example of what science is, and it doesn't allow for the conclusion coming first... unlike your claim which is demanding it.

To say that one can, by science, witness the creation of the universe is to greatly decieve oneself.

 

In much of your post, the word Evolution could be substituted for "ID," and it would make just as much sense to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, if you tried learning something about evolution, then you'd see the difference.

 

Little hint, BBT has nothing to do with Evolution...