Homework assignment for proponents of ID

[Gunny]

I didn't mean to degrade all people of faith. My parents and most of my family are catholics but they are not "bible beaters." Bible beaters are the people that I see on campus every day in free speech alley that are wearing cardboard signs on them that say all Mormons, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, etc. are cult members that are burning in hell. I'm talking about the people that ask you if you have been "saved" and tell you that you will burn in hell for eternity if you don't follow their path which is one of strict literal interpretations of the bible. These people are complete lunatics and we should go about our lives with complete disregard for anything anyone this over zealous has to say about anything. I realize most Christians are nothing like these people but if you are one of these people then you can go fuck yourself for all I care because you are no less insane than David Koresh or anyone in his cult was.

Dude, I want you to think for a minute. WHERE, in all of your threads on the topic, have you seen me post any religious doctrine? I haven't condemned anyone to Hell, and the only thing I have condemned you for is not opening your mind.

I've been saying for two days what you finally posted in the other thread. Leave ALL theories of origin out, or include them all. Personally, I think none of them are science, and should be left out.

Evolution IS science and should be taught as such.

As far as condemning people and/or preaching to them .... I believe what is between an individual and his Creator is just that. I will answer for my sins, not yours. What you choose to believe is not my business unless you make it so.

 

[Powerman]

These are also people who I can't stand.

 

[Powerman]

''Dude, I want you to think for a minute. WHERE, in all of your threads on the topic, have you seen me post any religious doctrine? I haven't condemned anyone to Hell, and the only thing I have condemned you for is not opening your mind."

I wasn't talking to anyone in particular. And I certainly wasn't talking to you.

 

[Gunny]

These are also people who I can't stand.

LOL .... I'll tell you straight-up ...... I think homosexuals are abnormal and should not be treated as anything more than that ... like making special laws just for them.

However, what they do in the privacy of their own home is their business. Try replacing that pic of yours with one of a Gay Pride Parade. I can't stand THEM. Not the ones that want equality ..... the ones that want to shove their aberrant lifestyle in my face.

But, it is up to God to judge homosexuals for who and what they are. Again, as long as they aren't making it my business, I'm not going out of my way to make it my business.

 

[Powerman]

LOL .... I'll tell you straight-up ...... I think homosexuals are abnormal and should not be treated as anything more than that ... like making special laws just for them.

However, what they do in the privacy of their own home is their business. Try replacing that pic of yours with one of a Gay Pride Parade. I can't stand THEM. Not the ones that want equality ..... the ones that want to shove their aberrant lifestyle in my face.

But, it is up to God to judge homosexuals for who and what they are. Again, as long as they aren't making it my business, I'm not going out of my way to make it my business.

I agree. But I do believe that giving them equal rights and by that I do mean to include marriage then you'll see less gay pride parades. If you really want them to shut up just give them what they want. Then they'll go back to doing whatever they do.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I have provided evidence that ID is not science. If it is science then there must be some accredited universities that are teaching it. So I propose a homework assignment for you guys. Find me an accredited college that teached ID as part of a science curriculum.

*Note this is not another evolution thread. It's just an experiment I'm concocting here.

In 1820 no major universities or any for that matter, anywhere in the world taught anything whatsoever about electronics. I guess that proves electronics is not science.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Here's the difference, evolution does have 'some' albeit, a small amount of physical evidence to back it up-fossils that show progression towards development. ID has none. At the same time the theory of ID explains some of the 'holes' in evolution, where the development skipped or did not evolve. Yet there is no a 'whiff' of physical evidence, perhaps never can be.

For me, it explains some of the jumps and dregs. For others, not.

There is evidence by default.

You only have two options. A creator, aka ID, or no creator. No creator leads to evolution being the sole method of life coming into existence. If you can prove its impossible, then you have, by default, proof that a creator and ID exist.

The irreducable complexity arguement more than strongly suggests there must be a creator. I discovered that idea on my own one day when reading an encyclopedia on the single cell and looking at a magnificent full page illustration of it.

Im wondering, if animals adapt to their enviorment, why is it that ONLY and ALL of the mammals that "returned" to the sea, have not developed gills as the fish have?

I mean, that seem odd. Not to mention that the "accident" of a single cell coming together in a primordial soup is so astronomically impossible due to the complexity of the single cell, it also must have happened twice? I mean we have both a plant and animal kingdom? AND BOTH TIMES THE ACCIDENTAL DEVELOPEMENT OF THE LIVING SINGLE CELL ALSO JUST HAPPENED TO INCLUDE A DNA STRAND, and pray tell, what the hell is a DNA strand "just appearing" for no reason doing in there? I mean, dna is exclusively for reproduction, and that my dear friends is PLANNED.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Step 1) go to harvard.edu (To help you out since you live in a vaccuum- Harvard is a really good university)
Step 2) Use the search function and type "intelligent design".



?
I don't see a search function on their main page. I even tried using ctrl f to search for the word 'search' and it was only found within the word research. Were you trying to tell me that they teach intelligent design at harvard? If they do and you have proof of it why don't you just direct me directly to the courses page that lists it?


Nevermind I found the search button. Need to get these eyes checked or something

yea, and maybe the "anti religion no matter what" section of your brain too
HEY !!!!!!!!!! just joking !!!!! (kinda)

 

[LuvRPgrl]

My alma mater is LSU. I have a degree in mathematics and I am 17 hours from a second degree in electrical engineering. Which U of C are you referring to?

Those kind of things dont impress me at all when discussing such matters. It would impress me if I had a math or electrical question.

You do realize the unabomber was one of the most brilliant mathmeticians of our day?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Dont worry, the atheists have their own version of this. Recently a group held a demonstration supporting the notion that all girls should lose their virginity asap or some such nonsense. Another exposed her rather large breasts publicly to draw attention to the Iraq war (yea, like nobody knows its going on)

You seem to have a propensity to attack religion and Christianity alot, then claim you dont mean anything personal. Personally, I think you would be better off attacking a religion that supports killing little children with bombs, and blowing up buildings with thousands of civilians in them.

Your hatred of religion is obvious. and it blinds you to the truth. Science is your god, you wont even recognize that science is sometimes wrong and that there could be explanations for things other than science, hence, the term supernatural came into existence (did it evolve or was it a result of ID?)

These are also people who I can't stand.

 

[Shattered]

These are also people who I can't stand.

Look at it this way - even if there is a God (which I seriously doubt), it's not your place to judge those people you hate - it's his/hers/its. You're not behaving any better than they are by slamming everyone elses religion in general...

 

[Gunny]

I agree. But I do believe that giving them equal rights and by that I do mean to include marriage then you'll see less gay pride parades. If you really want them to shut up just give them what they want. Then they'll go back to doing whatever they do.

Are you kidding me? Seems to me we are facing what amounts to the same extortion from radical Islam. Are you suggesting we just "give THEM what they want" too?

Appeasement NEVER works.

 

[Bonnie]

I agree. But I do believe that giving them equal rights and by that I do mean to include marriage then you'll see less gay pride parades. If you really want them to shut up just give them what they want. Then they'll go back to doing whatever they do.

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: Now who's living in a dream world ??? Give an inch take a mile...

 

[Bonnie]

Why intelligent design theory ought to be taught
August 25th, 2005

Of the many reasons why intelligent design – an argument I reject – ought to be taught alongside evolution in our public schools, perhaps none is more compelling than the ignorance and demagoguery which is evident in our current national debate over the issue. Below are four myths you frequently come across while reading the political literature on the subject, followed by the facts.

Myth: The theory of intelligent design is a modern version of Creationism.

Charles Krauthammer (in Time Magazine):

“In Kansas, conservative school-board members are attempting to rewrite statewide standards for teaching evolution to make sure that creationism’s modern stepchild intelligent design infiltrates the curriculum.”

Jerry Coyne (The New Republic):

“‘Intelligent design’… is merely the latest incarnation of the biblical creationism espoused by William Jennings Bryan in Dayton.”

Richard Dawkins (London Times):

“ID [Intelligent Design]… is not a new form of creationism. It simply is creationism disguised, for political reasons, under a new name.”

Fact: The theory of intelligent design goes back at least as far as classical Greece and it has been debated in nearly every century since then.

Our century is no different. Those who advocate intelligent design are not “disguising” anything; they are not furtive men. They are offering for your consideration an idea that has intrigued the minds of everyone from Plato to Kant, an idea that possibly began when Socrates asked:

“With such signs of forethought in the design of living creatures, can you doubt they are the work of choice or design?”

Now, because the design argument can be found in Plato’s dialogues, we can deduce that the theory not only predates the theory of creationism – which was but one religious response to Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859) – it is also not wedded to Judeo-Christian scripture.

Krauthammer, Coyne and Dawkins are wrong here.

Certainly, there have been updated versions of the intelligent design theory – see, for example, Oxford professor Richard Swinburne’s article, “The Argument from Design” in Philosophy, vol. 43 (1968) – but the design hypothesis is no more modern than the Epicurean hypothesis that the universe consists solely of particles in random motion.

Myth: The theory of intelligent design claims that the designer is the God described in the Bible.

Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education (USA Today):

“ID advocates are also coy about the identity of the designer, claiming that it doesn’t have to be God. But, token allusions to the possibility of extraterrestrial or time-traveling biochemists notwithstanding, no one is fooled into thinking that the designer is not the Designer: God.”

Fact: It is a matter of formal logic, not deception, that allows one to consistently accept the intelligent design argument while utterly repudiating the theory of creationism as well as the Bible itself and its God.

Much misinformation abounds on this point. The argument from intelligent design is an argument from the order or regularity of things in the world to a powerful non-embodied rational agent who is responsible for that order, a being or beings that may not be the God of Abraham and Jesus. As David Hume famously remarked, perhaps this world “was only the first rude essay of some infant deity who afterwards abandoned it”; maybe the deity is now deceased and our world is like a battery burning out until we are all dead like our cosmic Author. Be that as it may, you need not embrace the God of the Bible, or its notions of creation, in order to accept the notion that a divine hand, maybe even a devilish hand, is behind the workings of our universe.

Myth: Conservatives and Christians necessarily accept the intelligent design argument.

Jean Chen (Pop & Politics):

“Intelligent design is just another strategy from conservative Christians to ban evolution.”

Fact: You can consistently be a political conservative or a devout Christian and still totally reject the argument from intelligent design.

How many are aware that, of the many critics of the design argument,
none were more formidable than a political conservative, on the one
hand, and a Christian fundamentalist, on the other?

David Hume, an agnostic and a conservative, did not try to censor the
design argument from students, as some now evidently wish to do with America’s youth. As the honest intellectual he was, he advanced the design argument in its then most cogent form – and then critiqued it mercilessly in his classic Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779).

In the following century, the Danish thinker Soren Kierkegaard, a profoundly God-fearing Christian literalist, also jettisoned the intelligent design argument, just as he wholeheartedly repudiated all attempts at proving God’s existence. But he did so for reasons of faith. He thought, and quite reasonably, that any such proof would undermine our freedom to choose Christianity. After all, if God’s existence could be shown to be true like a Euclidean proposition, then what would happen to that other significant article of faith which we call “free will”? If God could be demonstrated like a math problem, then wouldn’t one have to believe in Him by force of logic? Rather than by love, by choice, by gambling one’s very existence with fear and trembling on the Unknown, the very stuff of the human spirit as described throughout the Bible?

Myth: The theory of evolution and monotheism are logically at odds or, at least, inimical.

Jacob Weisberg (Slate):

“But let’s be serious: Evolutionary theory may not be incompatible with all forms of religious belief, but it surely does undercut the basic teachings and doctrines of the world's great religions (and most of its not-so-great ones as well).”

Fact: You can consistently accept the theory of evolution and still be a monotheist, seeing the hand of God in the evolutionary workings of the universe.

In 1930, F.R. Tennant wrote a magnificent book called Philosophical Theology, wherein he developed something called “The Anthropic Principle.” This principle suggested that the cosmos was fashioned for the development of intelligent life. Had there been only a slight alteration in the values of, say, the charge of the electron or the degree of nuclear force in the universe then intelligent life, or any life at all for that matter, would most likely not have developed. Tennant said it was possible to imagine a frenzied world wherein no rules held. But the actual universe was not chaotic and was evidently regulated in such a way that the evolutionary process lead to an environment in which intelligent life – think Albert Einstein, Martin Luther King, Jr., Florence Nightingale – could exist. Such intellect, he thought, suggested evidence of a divine plan. Of course, Tennant’s conclusion might well have been mistaken, but he was right to point out that there was nothing obviously incompatible between the theory of evolution and the notion that a deity designed the evolutionary process itself.

Accordingly, the current idea that the “science” of evolution is logically at odds with the “faith” of intelligent design may rest on a false disjunction.

Conclusion

The dispute between intelligent design versus a randomly ordered cosmos is age-old and fascinating and still unresolved. That smart and honest writers are now busy promulgating sheer fictions about this debate suggests that we are indeed in need of education on this topic. And that is a sufficient reason, in my opinion, for it to be taught in our schools, perhaps not in biology classes, but at least in mandatory philosophy classes, something our school systems do not demand to our national shame.

As I said at the opening, I am not persuaded by intelligent design arguments, not because the theory of evolution is unassailable – it most certainly has weaknesses – but because I don’t think anyone has successfully answered the criticisms of intelligent design offered by Hume, Kant and Kiergegaard. If those secular fundamentalists who wish to gag intelligent design theories are so worried about future generations, let them demand, then, that we also teach Hume, Kant and Kierkegaard in our public schools – rather than censorship! Our students should be exposed to this great discussion in all its dimensions, so that they can make up their own minds.

As President Bush said: “I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.” That is the scientific and liberal attitude.

J

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4761

 

[Powerman]

Are you kidding me? Seems to me we are facing what amounts to the same extortion from radical Islam. Are you suggesting we just "give THEM what they want" too?

Appeasement NEVER works.

Yeah but Gay people aren't in the business of terrorism. What could be so terrible if we appease the gay people and let them get married. You tell me what would be so fucking terrible about that. You are comparing 2 completely different things. Gays and radical Islam? How am I supposed to take you serious?

 

[Powerman]

Those kind of things dont impress me at all when discussing such matters. It would impress me if I had a math or electrical question.

You do realize the unabomber was one of the most brilliant mathmeticians of our day?

I wasn't bragging. I was answering a question. And my education in math does not take away from my ability to think rationally, an ability that some here do not have.

 

[Abbey Normal]

I wasn't bragging. I was answering a question. And my education in math does not take away from my ability to think rationally, an ability that some here do not have.

Geez, you're right, you've convinced me. We can't possibly measure up to your brilliance. You really should move on to a board with smarter, more rational people. Perhaps there, your stunning intelligence can be appreciated. It'll be soooo tough, but somehow we'll try to survive without your guidance.

Oh no! Was that paragraph was rational? I don't know anymore.
I don't know how to think! How the hell did I pass those two bar exams with flying colors anyway? Must have been a double fluke.

 

[Powerman]

Geez, you're right, you've convinced me. We can't possibly measure up to your brilliance. You really should move on to a board with smarter, more rational people. Perhaps there, your stunning intelligence can be appreciated. It'll be soooo tough, but somehow we'll try to survive without your guidance.

Oh no! Was that paragraph was rational? I don't know anymore.
I don't know how to think! How the hell did I pass those two bar exams with flying colors anyway? Must have been a double fluke.

I wasn't referring to you but there are some here who aren't guided by logic. They are guided by propaganda. If the shoe fits ya know....

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Yeah but Gay people aren't in the business of terrorism. What could be so terrible if we appease the gay people and let them get married. You tell me what would be so fucking terrible about that. You are comparing 2 completely different things. Gays and radical Islam? How am I supposed to take you serious?

There are lots of problems with allowing same sex marriage.

One, it will further clog up an already overburdened family court system, which, its being overburdened often causes judges to make poor decisions resulting in often terrible destruction and sometimes deaths of kids lifes.

Marriage is the cornerstone of our culture and civilization. Its purpose is to keep and have healthy families, and a healthy enviorment for kids. Giving same sex marriage is all about special interests and has NOTHING to do with helping to create stable enviorments for kids.

America is still a democracy despite the lefts attempts to overtake that through judicial fiat. This issue gets more support than virtually any other issue, in that Americans went to the polls and overwhelmingly rejected same sex marriage laws.

 

[Gunny]

Yeah but Gay people aren't in the business of terrorism. What could be so terrible if we appease the gay people and let them get married. You tell me what would be so fucking terrible about that. You are comparing 2 completely different things. Gays and radical Islam? How am I supposed to take you serious?

What would be so terrible about letting Farmer Brown marry his favorite sheep? Your argument is just about as honest as THAT.