I have a question for those who hate creationism

[Foxfyre]

The thing is I'm seeing so far in this thread:

Both anti-religionists and people of faith agree that nobody can prove the existence of God.
It is only anti-religionists however who suggest that because evidence of the existence of God cannot be produced that he therefore does not exist. They refuse to accept that God could be like all the other things that we experience but cannot provide evidence for.

Both anti-religionists and people of faith agree that nobody knows how the stuff of the universe came to be there. But it is only anti-religionists who seem to think that should not be considered in a discussion of creation/ID/evolution.

Both anti-religionists and people of faith agree that there are questions that thus far religion and/or science cannot answer. People of faith take this as normative that we humans are pretty puny and limited in the whole of a magnificent universe and all the possibilities it contains. The anti-religonists, however, say because religion cannot answer questions, religion is false or invalid. But whatever science cannot answer in no way weakens the scientific theories that fail to answer the questions.

And finally, people of faith are perfectly happy believing in creationism and/or intelligent design AND also believing in evolution. Anti religionists not only can't seem to square the idea that a person of faith could also accept the Theory of Evolution but refuse to accept that Creationism and Intelligent Design can be two different and separate things.

So who is the more open minded and objective here?

People of faith who embrace science?

Or those who embrace science but reject religion?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The thing is I'm seeing so far in this thread:

Both anti-religionists and people of faith agree that nobody can prove the existence of God.
It is only anti-religionists however who suggest that because evidence of the existence of God cannot be produced that he therefore does not exist. They refuse to accept that God could be like all the other things that we experience but cannot provide evidence for.

Both anti-religionists and people of faith agree that nobody knows how the stuff of the universe came to be there. But it is only anti-religionists who seem to think that should not be considered in a discussion of creation/ID/evolution.

Both anti-religionists and people of faith agree that there are questions that thus far religion and/or science cannot answer. People of faith take this as normative that we humans are pretty puny and limited in the whole of a magnificent universe and all the possibilities it contains. The anti-religonists, however, say because religion cannot answer questions, religion is false or invalid. But whatever science cannot answer in no way weakens the scientific theories that fail to answer the questions.

And finally, people of faith are perfectly happy believing in creationism and/or intelligent design AND also believing in evolution. Anti religionists not only can't seem to square the idea that a person of faith could also accept the Theory of Evolution but refuse to accept that Creationism and Intelligent Design can be two different and separate things.

So who is the more open minded and objective here?

People of faith who embrace science?

Or those who embrace science but reject religion?

if you were here i would hug you for understanding why this thread was created in the first place!

Thank you to everyone participating for providing the examples that led to this post by Fox. She sees, through your posts, what I have been seeing through real life comments and posts made on this forum on the subject.

 

[freedombecki]

The thing is I'm seeing so far in this thread:

Both anti-religionists and people of faith agree that nobody can prove the existence of God.
It is only anti-religionists however who suggest that because evidence of the existence of God cannot be produced that he therefore does not exist. They refuse to accept that God could be like all the other things that we experience but cannot provide evidence for.

Both anti-religionists and people of faith agree that nobody knows how the stuff of the universe came to be there. But it is only anti-religionists who seem to think that should not be considered in a discussion of creation/ID/evolution.

Both anti-religionists and people of faith agree that there are questions that thus far religion and/or science cannot answer. People of faith take this as normative that we humans are pretty puny and limited in the whole of a magnificent universe and all the possibilities it contains. The anti-religonists, however, say because religion cannot answer questions, religion is false or invalid. But whatever science cannot answer in no way weakens the scientific theories that fail to answer the questions.

And finally, people of faith are perfectly happy believing in creationism and/or intelligent design AND also believing in evolution. Anti religionists not only can't seem to square the idea that a person of faith could also accept the Theory of Evolution but refuse to accept that Creationism and Intelligent Design can be two different and separate things.

So who is the more open minded and objective here?

People of faith who embrace science?

Or those who embrace science but reject religion?

I'm glad you brought that up, Foxfyre.

However, this thread was begun in the Sci-Tech area of the board, not the Religion area.

Not all Christian believers feel everything said in the Bible is cast in stone, but was written based on the universe as seen by learned men in a context of available knowledge. Back then, they couldn't see cells in animals and plants as we can today with an electron microscope. Also, ancient man was unable to carbon-date any given object with neither electronic nor digital equipment.

As a consequence, those who disregard a book of faith as one that could use a little improvement here and there are those who might put a Galileo in a small cell for a few months for saying the earth was not the center of the universe, until they could figure out what to do about his findings that seemed contrary to their canon law.

Other fundamentalists who chiseled out the seven-days theory of the creation of the earth were not aware that earth had already been around a few billion years before Adam was created, and others ignore that Adam was created in a world with other men in it until they read the second story of creation in Genesis. That should send a message to scholars that including two creation stories meant that scholars agreed to disagree by including that other creation story.

The fact might be that people who love God may think the earth is older than ten thousand years, and that the Bible is the story of mankind's struggle to understand the world and the universe God made for us to explore in its infinite majesty, not quite completely known to us at present, any more than it was known to man at the dawning of his spirituality, particularly at the time he was able through the construction of an alphabet and numbers, to write down his then-present theories.

If we wrote into the book of Genesis a third creation story--one based on the Big Bang theory, three thousand years later, future scholars might be howling at that as well, and sure as the sun rises in the east, the knowledge of the status of the creation of the universe would most likely be met with some severe guffawing in the light of knowledge three thousand years after that, and so on.

A number of years passed before the Vatican completely exonerated a wrongfully-jailed Galileo. Galileo felt badly that his findings offended the powers of the church of his day, but he may not have realized that the Sun is not the center either, since it is hurling through space at a rapid pace also, heading who knows where, and when it gets to the next point where imminent impact seems likely, that object may have moved also, leaving human calculations incorrect.

That's a lot of speculation on my part, but if Christ hadn't said, "Knock, and the door shall be opened, seek and ye shall find," a truly rigid church would've gone down forever mistaken about who we are, how we got here exactly, and where we will be in a million years.

What is true today may very well be what is not true tomorrow, so why shoot each other off the face of the earth over things we just don't have a certain handle on?

Some people believe there is no proof God exists, yet some of us are certain he lives among us. We cannot see love, but we know a certain parent, relative, teacher, or even a sibling or friend loved us at one time, and we don'[t need certain proofs for those kinds of things. They're spiritual and affect us in a subjective way, not a scientific one, although one could make much of endorphins and hormones hastening our step and the cheerful muscles of our smile.

Scientific evidence comes when someone stuck to the scientific method religiously and came up with a theory that seems (subjectively) rock-solid. If it is proven mathematically and authenticated by numerous mathematicians, the theory seems even more so, like a truth. Sooner or later, someone else adds to that body of scientific evidence until another foundation allows a pillar of evidence to stand as part of the building. But do all things fall away as the Bible says? Where are the 7 wonders of the ancient world today?

Here are 9 lists of groups of men who acclaim "Wonders of the World:" LINK

9 lists, no replications?

Who's lyin'?

The sundry theories of creationism?

Again: Who's lyin'?

The key is contextual. Looking at the physical world's creation and the spiritual world's creation are simply different subjective theories, so then is it God, the creator of math vs. math? I don't think so.

Spiritual laws have to do with how well we treat others.

Earthly laws are bound by different schools of thought--as today's Civil Engineers came up with an entirely different set of "Wonders of the World" than say, Oceanographers did.

Neither group of scientists is bad. They merely appreciate one set of theories that is in accordance with their discipline of learning and the tastes acquired therein.

Just sayin'.

 

[geauxtohell]

It is only anti-religionists however who suggest that because evidence of the existence of God cannot be produced that he therefore does not exist. They refuse to accept that God could be like all the other things that we experience but cannot provide evidence for.

Who said that? My contention is that it is beyond the capability of man to prove or disprove the existence of God.

That being the case, God has no place being in science.

 

[freedombecki]

It is only anti-religionists however who suggest that because evidence of the existence of God cannot be produced that he therefore does not exist. They refuse to accept that God could be like all the other things that we experience but cannot provide evidence for.

Who said that? My contention is that it is beyond the capability of man to prove or disprove the existence of God.

That being the case, God has no place being in science.

Geaux, is there someone in the world that you like a lot or even love?

"Prove it." (I mean that in a nice way.)

I love God with all my heart, soul, and mind, and he's there for me.

I can't prove my reality to you, but I respect many of the opinions you have, including the certain theory that God does not exist for you at this now place in the continuum of time.

Not only do I respect your beliefs and disbeliefs, but I like you for stating your opinion with courage of conviction, as unlike mine as it is.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

It is only anti-religionists however who suggest that because evidence of the existence of God cannot be produced that he therefore does not exist. They refuse to accept that God could be like all the other things that we experience but cannot provide evidence for.

Who said that? My contention is that it is beyond the capability of man to prove or disprove the existence of God.

That being the case, God has no place being in science.

did you read the entire post that fox made?

I believe, from your response, that you did not. If you did then you missed what she was saying.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is only anti-religionists however who suggest that because evidence of the existence of God cannot be produced that he therefore does not exist. They refuse to accept that God could be like all the other things that we experience but cannot provide evidence for.

Who said that? My contention is that it is beyond the capability of man to prove or disprove the existence of God.

That being the case, God has no place being in science.

I don't know a single person of faith who would say that if we cannot prove the existence of God, then he does not exist. There are a number of anti-religionists who have said this. Not all anti-religionists say it, but all those who say it do seem to be anti-religionists.

If you are going to be scientific about this, it is necessary to consider representative groups and not personalize a statement of observation that does not imply EVERY member of a group is in agreement on a particular point.

Certainly, as Becki argued, all person of Faith, not all Jews, not all Christians, take the Genesis story as the way the world was created. Some do. I feel safe in saying that most don't. I can't see how those who do harm or interfere with me in any way. If their faith gives them comfort, power to them. The God I know won't hold it against them either.

But surely you have seen argument after argument from the anti religionists who want to paint all Creationists as part of that fundamentalist group. And others want to paint Creationists as being no different from IDers as a whole. And more than a few of the anti religionists who won't accept that we who embrace Creationism and/or I.D. also embrace scientific theories re the origins of the Earth and the Universe.

All I was arguing with my immediately previous post was that if you go by the arguments on this thread, it is the Creationists/IDers who are the most open minded.

 

[Shogun]

We can't prove that gravity isn't the product of the tooth fairy buttfucking the Lucky Charms leprechaun either. Does it make sense that we should ASSUME that it's possible just because someone has faith about it?

of course not. Enter, science.

 

[Montrovant]

It is only anti-religionists however who suggest that because evidence of the existence of God cannot be produced that he therefore does not exist. They refuse to accept that God could be like all the other things that we experience but cannot provide evidence for.

Who said that? My contention is that it is beyond the capability of man to prove or disprove the existence of God.

That being the case, God has no place being in science.

I don't know a single person of faith who would say that if we cannot prove the existence of God, then he does not exist. There are a number of anti-religionists who have said this. Not all anti-religionists say it, but all those who say it do seem to be anti-religionists.

If you are going to be scientific about this, it is necessary to consider representative groups and not personalize a statement of observation that does not imply EVERY member of a group is in agreement on a particular point.

Certainly, as Becki argued, all person of Faith, not all Jews, not all Christians, take the Genesis story as the way the world was created. Some do. I feel safe in saying that most don't. I can't see how those who do harm or interfere with me in any way. If their faith gives them comfort, power to them. The God I know won't hold it against them either.

But surely you have seen argument after argument from the anti religionists who want to paint all Creationists as part of that fundamentalist group. And others want to paint Creationists as being no different from IDers as a whole. And more than a few of the anti religionists who won't accept that we who embrace Creationism and/or I.D. also embrace scientific theories re the origins of the Earth and the Universe.

All I was arguing with my immediately previous post was that if you go by the arguments on this thread, it is the Creationists/IDers who are the most open minded.

I have a few things to say about this.

First, of course the religious will not say that because god cannot be proven he does not exist. That's incredibly obvious. I don't see what the point of stating it is. Basically you've said, 'Those who believe in god won't deny his existence'. (I am generalizing as almost every poster who I've seen express religious belief here has followed one of the Abrahamic religions, so I'm ignoring the small few who have different spiritual beliefs)

Next, whether or not Creationists or followers of ID embrace scientific theories has no impact on whether Creationism or ID should be taught in science classes. That is the main argument that I have seen, that Creationism/ID are not science.

There have been plenty of posts by people saying either that evolution is false, or that it is halfway correct (the micro/macro evolution argument). The argument for that seems to be that because we do not actually see the changes that are believed to occur over millions of years, they do not happen. That sounds suspiciously like what you are complaining about people doing in regards to the existence of god.

Perhaps the Creationism/ID people have been more open minded in this thread. That is not always a good thing, however. When it comes to scientific study, there needs to be limits to being 'open minded'; it may be more open minded to consider god, but if that being's influence cannot be measured or falsified it is actually counter-productive to include it.

Finally, I am anti-religious. I don't understand how so many can so strongly believe in the world's various religions. In my eyes there are too many reasons not to believe in any particular religion. However, being anti-religious does not mean denying any possibility of there being a god.

But why, if there is a god and it is a loving, merciful god, would eating chocolate be so bad for me?

 

[FA_Q2]

The thing is I'm seeing so far in this thread:

Both anti-religionists and people of faith agree that nobody can prove the existence of God.
It is only anti-religionists however who suggest that because evidence of the existence of God cannot be produced that he therefore does not exist. They refuse to accept that God could be like all the other things that we experience but cannot provide evidence for.

Both anti-religionists and people of faith agree that nobody knows how the stuff of the universe came to be there. But it is only anti-religionists who seem to think that should not be considered in a discussion of creation/ID/evolution.

Both anti-religionists and people of faith agree that there are questions that thus far religion and/or science cannot answer. People of faith take this as normative that we humans are pretty puny and limited in the whole of a magnificent universe and all the possibilities it contains. The anti-religonists, however, say because religion cannot answer questions, religion is false or invalid. But whatever science cannot answer in no way weakens the scientific theories that fail to answer the questions.

And finally, people of faith are perfectly happy believing in creationism and/or intelligent design AND also believing in evolution. Anti religionists not only can't seem to square the idea that a person of faith could also accept the Theory of Evolution but refuse to accept that Creationism and Intelligent Design can be two different and separate things.

So who is the more open minded and objective here?

People of faith who embrace science?

Or those who embrace science but reject religion?

I call BS on that.; Mostly, the assertion is that ID is not science but rather it is religion and therefore does not belong in the schools.

You say that evolutionists are being close minded by saying that god does not exist. Theists are equally being close minded when they state that god exists as fact. They are bein MORE close minded when they refuse to acknowledge that ID is faith and not religion and even MORE close minded when they refuse to even examine the evidence for evolution.

You say evolutionists are close minded because they say faith is invalid because it cannot answer questions while the faithful accept there are answers that are beyond our grasp. This is patently false. Evolutionists say that faith has no place in science, not that faith is ‘wrong.’ SEVERAL times it has been brought up that god may have, in fact, created us but that does not make it science. As a matter of fact, it is the exact opposite. The religious refuse to acknowledge evidence because they already have the answer to everything: God. It is the scientist that is humble enough to accept that there are things that we do not know. It is the faithful that demand certain theories be taught in absence of evidence because they already have all the answers in this book of theirs.

The people that want religion to invade the schools are NOT open minded.

 

[peach174]

It's non believers that are not being open minded or tolerant of religion.
What harm does it do who those that don't believe, why does hearing prayers or seeing religious symbols in public, make them so uncomfortable. It's your right not to believe, but it's not your right to suppress religious freedom. Which is what is happening in our schools and our courts.
This nation was founded with God's help and this Nation is His. ONE NATION UNDER GOD.
The majority of our Revolutionary soldiers and Commanders believed that they won the war with God's grace and help because so many miracles were at work throughout that whole war.
Many of our founders prayed for God's help in writing the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.
At the last meeting before signing the Constitution, many talked about God's miracle, in how all the bickering had stopped and how everything fell into place for the constitution to have come into being and how they all felt his presence in that room.
Our Constitution was a pledge to God that we were and still are a Godly Nation.
We were the first nation to recognize that mankind had rights from God and not mankind made Government.
Non believers are trying to get rid of any and all mention of God in our government and in public.
Trying to get rid of his blessings and grace for this nation does much more harm to all of us as a nation .
Just because you don't believe in God does not make you right,and your have no right to take away God's blessing for this nation.

 

[konradv]

It's non believers that are not being open minded or tolerant of religion.
What harm does it do who those that don't believe, why does hearing prayers or seeing religious symbols in public, make them so uncomfortable. It's your right not to believe, but it's not your right to suppress religious freedom. Which is what is happening in our schools and our courts.
This nation was founded with God's help and this Nation is His. ONE NATION UNDER GOD.
The majority of our Revolutionary soldiers and Commanders believed that they won the war with God's grace and help because so many miracles were at work throughout that whole war.
Many of our founders prayed for God's help in writing the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.
At the last meeting before signing the Constitution, many talked about God's miracle, in how all the bickering had stopped and how everything fell into place for the constitution to have come into being and how they all felt his presence in that room.
Our Constitution was a pledge to God that we were and still are a Godly Nation.
We were the first nation to recognize that mankind had rights from God and not mankind made Government.
Non believers are trying to get rid of any and all mention of God in our government and in public.
Trying to get rid of his blessings and grace for this nation does much more harm to all of us as a nation .
Just because you don't believe in God does not make you right,and your have no right to take away God's blessing for this nation.

As true as some of that may be, it's no reason to mention creationism in a science class. Since it's not a universal religious tenet, to allow it there would be an unreasonable breach of the "non-establishment" clause, as it would be putting forth the special teachings of a minority of Christians and others. We can't be held hostage by those who would make a fetish of a story which is an allegory and have it taught in non-religious schools as fact on par with the purely scientific discipline of evolutionary theory.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

It's non believers that are not being open minded or tolerant of religion.
What harm does it do who those that don't believe, why does hearing prayers or seeing religious symbols in public, make them so uncomfortable. It's your right not to believe, but it's not your right to suppress religious freedom. Which is what is happening in our schools and our courts.
This nation was founded with God's help and this Nation is His. ONE NATION UNDER GOD.
The majority of our Revolutionary soldiers and Commanders believed that they won the war with God's grace and help because so many miracles were at work throughout that whole war.
Many of our founders prayed for God's help in writing the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.
At the last meeting before signing the Constitution, many talked about God's miracle, in how all the bickering had stopped and how everything fell into place for the constitution to have come into being and how they all felt his presence in that room.
Our Constitution was a pledge to God that we were and still are a Godly Nation.
We were the first nation to recognize that mankind had rights from God and not mankind made Government.
Non believers are trying to get rid of any and all mention of God in our government and in public.
Trying to get rid of his blessings and grace for this nation does much more harm to all of us as a nation .
Just because you don't believe in God does not make you right,and your have no right to take away God's blessing for this nation.

As true as some of that may be, it's no reason to mention creationism in a science class. Since it's not a universal religious tenet, to allow it there would be an unreasonable breach of the "non-establishment" clause, as it would be putting forth the special teachings of a minority of Christians and others. We can't be held hostage by those who would make a fetish of a story which is an allegory and have it taught in non-religious schools as fact on par with the purely scientific discipline of evolutionary theory.

They should mention it. It should be presented as an alternative viewpoint that some people have and maybe spend one or two classes on it, then spend the other dozens of classes on the science aspect of where life comes from.

Its not wrong to educate children as to what some people believe so they can have a basic understanding of what some people think.

After all both are theories and we are supposed to be teaching our children how to think, not what to think .

 

[peach174]

It's non believers that are not being open minded or tolerant of religion.
What harm does it do who those that don't believe, why does hearing prayers or seeing religious symbols in public, make them so uncomfortable. It's your right not to believe, but it's not your right to suppress religious freedom. Which is what is happening in our schools and our courts.
This nation was founded with God's help and this Nation is His. ONE NATION UNDER GOD.
The majority of our Revolutionary soldiers and Commanders believed that they won the war with God's grace and help because so many miracles were at work throughout that whole war.
Many of our founders prayed for God's help in writing the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.
At the last meeting before signing the Constitution, many talked about God's miracle, in how all the bickering had stopped and how everything fell into place for the constitution to have come into being and how they all felt his presence in that room.
Our Constitution was a pledge to God that we were and still are a Godly Nation.
We were the first nation to recognize that mankind had rights from God and not mankind made Government.
Non believers are trying to get rid of any and all mention of God in our government and in public.
Trying to get rid of his blessings and grace for this nation does much more harm to all of us as a nation .
Just because you don't believe in God does not make you right,and your have no right to take away God's blessing for this nation.

As true as some of that may be, it's no reason to mention creationism in a science class. Since it's not a universal religious tenet, to allow it there would be an unreasonable breach of the "non-establishment" clause, as it would be putting forth the special teachings of a minority of Christians and others. We can't be held hostage by those who would make a fetish of a story which is an allegory and have it taught in non-religious schools as fact on par with the purely scientific discipline of evolutionary theory.

A minority of Christians?
All Christian's Jew's and Muslims believe in the Creator. As well as many other religions.
Held hostage? You have the right to not believe. Listening to the word God is not being held hostage. It will not change your view.
Non believers should be happy that they live in this country where they have the right not to believe. Many countries force their religious teachings.
Listening to and forcing are two very different things.

 

[konradv]

It's non believers that are not being open minded or tolerant of religion.
What harm does it do who those that don't believe, why does hearing prayers or seeing religious symbols in public, make them so uncomfortable. It's your right not to believe, but it's not your right to suppress religious freedom. Which is what is happening in our schools and our courts.
This nation was founded with God's help and this Nation is His. ONE NATION UNDER GOD.
The majority of our Revolutionary soldiers and Commanders believed that they won the war with God's grace and help because so many miracles were at work throughout that whole war.
Many of our founders prayed for God's help in writing the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.
At the last meeting before signing the Constitution, many talked about God's miracle, in how all the bickering had stopped and how everything fell into place for the constitution to have come into being and how they all felt his presence in that room.
Our Constitution was a pledge to God that we were and still are a Godly Nation.
We were the first nation to recognize that mankind had rights from God and not mankind made Government.
Non believers are trying to get rid of any and all mention of God in our government and in public.
Trying to get rid of his blessings and grace for this nation does much more harm to all of us as a nation .
Just because you don't believe in God does not make you right,and your have no right to take away God's blessing for this nation.

As true as some of that may be, it's no reason to mention creationism in a science class. Since it's not a universal religious tenet, to allow it there would be an unreasonable breach of the "non-establishment" clause, as it would be putting forth the special teachings of a minority of Christians and others. We can't be held hostage by those who would make a fetish of a story which is an allegory and have it taught in non-religious schools as fact on par with the purely scientific discipline of evolutionary theory.

A minority of Christians?
All Christian's Jew's and Muslims believe in the Creator. As well as many other religions.
Held hostage? You have the right to not believe. Listening to the word God is not being held hostage. It will not change your view.
Non believers should be happy that they live in this country where they have the right not to believe. Many countries force their religious teachings.
Listening to and forcing are two very different things.

Most Christians don't believe the Genesis story is fact. Most mainline Christian denominations don't consider creationism to be a tenet of the faith. That's totally seperate question from whether there's a Creator or not. Children ARE being forced, if they have to listen to minority religious doctrine in a class that's supposed to be about science. My parents wanted me to have a religious education, so they paid for me to have it. The creationists, on the other hand, seem to want to feeload on the taxpayer!!!

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes the thread was started in the science section but I (apparently rightfuly so) saw the thesis as being the conflict between what science cannot address or answer and why Creationism/ID can be rational as one possibility for answers that science cannot answer. An open mind allows for consideration of such a concept even as it is acknowledged that it is not science and should not be taught as science.

And an open mind leaves all unanswered quest8ions of science and religion as unanswered questions and not as reasons to dismiss either.

A competent science teacher does not pretend that all questions can be or will be answered scientifically or that concepts, theories, or possibilities outside of science should never be acknowledged.

A competent religion teacher does not pretend that the Bible contains every relevent question re the origins of the universe and why things are the way they are or that the study of science, including origins and evolution, has no purpose or relevance for people of faith.

 

[geauxtohell]

It is only anti-religionists however who suggest that because evidence of the existence of God cannot be produced that he therefore does not exist. They refuse to accept that God could be like all the other things that we experience but cannot provide evidence for.

Who said that? My contention is that it is beyond the capability of man to prove or disprove the existence of God.

That being the case, God has no place being in science.

Geaux, is there someone in the world that you like a lot or even love?

"Prove it." (I mean that in a nice way.)

I love God with all my heart, soul, and mind, and he's there for me.

I can't prove my reality to you, but I respect many of the opinions you have, including the certain theory that God does not exist for you at this now place in the continuum of time.

Not only do I respect your beliefs and disbeliefs, but I like you for stating your opinion with courage of conviction, as unlike mine as it is.

Again. I think you guys are missing my point.

I have no problem with a person believing something on faith. Nor would I ever attempt to interject myself with that.

I have a problem with people trying to interject faith into the scientific method which is a logical, man-made set of rules to keep science grounded in the natural world. It's more of a procedural debate than a quantitative one. I would never presume that Science could disprove a diety. That is fully outside of it's scope.

Somethings belong in theology, some things belong in philosophy. Only science belongs in science.

I.D., with it's fundamental assumption that a supernatural force guides natural selection, is not a scientific theory (can you disprove that a supernatural force guides natural selection? No.)

So again, I am not claiming that I.D. doesn't exist. I am claiming that it is not a scientific theory.

This is exactly what the court in Dover found.

Thanks for the kind words. My interest is only in keeping the scientific method pure.

 

[geauxtohell]

It is only anti-religionists however who suggest that because evidence of the existence of God cannot be produced that he therefore does not exist. They refuse to accept that God could be like all the other things that we experience but cannot provide evidence for.

Who said that? My contention is that it is beyond the capability of man to prove or disprove the existence of God.

That being the case, God has no place being in science.

I don't know a single person of faith who would say that if we cannot prove the existence of God, then he does not exist. There are a number of anti-religionists who have said this. Not all anti-religionists say it, but all those who say it do seem to be anti-religionists.

If you are going to be scientific about this, it is necessary to consider representative groups and not personalize a statement of observation that does not imply EVERY member of a group is in agreement on a particular point.

Certainly, as Becki argued, all person of Faith, not all Jews, not all Christians, take the Genesis story as the way the world was created. Some do. I feel safe in saying that most don't. I can't see how those who do harm or interfere with me in any way. If their faith gives them comfort, power to them. The God I know won't hold it against them either.

But surely you have seen argument after argument from the anti religionists who want to paint all Creationists as part of that fundamentalist group. And others want to paint Creationists as being no different from IDers as a whole. And more than a few of the anti religionists who won't accept that we who embrace Creationism and/or I.D. also embrace scientific theories re the origins of the Earth and the Universe.

All I was arguing with my immediately previous post was that if you go by the arguments on this thread, it is the Creationists/IDers who are the most open minded.

I see a major difference in creationism and ID. Again, it is beyond the ability of man to prove or disprove the existence of God.

However, the scientific method is man made and exists under man made rules. These rules mandate observability and falsifiability. You can't falsify the existence of God. Therefore, you can't introduce God into Scientific Theories. This says nothing about the existence of God, it simply says his existence within scientific theories is not appropriate.

Rightfully so. If we were to allow God into scientific methodology then the answer to every question ultimately becomes "God did it".

 

[Foxfyre]

Who said that? My contention is that it is beyond the capability of man to prove or disprove the existence of God.

That being the case, God has no place being in science.

I don't know a single person of faith who would say that if we cannot prove the existence of God, then he does not exist. There are a number of anti-religionists who have said this. Not all anti-religionists say it, but all those who say it do seem to be anti-religionists.

If you are going to be scientific about this, it is necessary to consider representative groups and not personalize a statement of observation that does not imply EVERY member of a group is in agreement on a particular point.

Certainly, as Becki argued, all person of Faith, not all Jews, not all Christians, take the Genesis story as the way the world was created. Some do. I feel safe in saying that most don't. I can't see how those who do harm or interfere with me in any way. If their faith gives them comfort, power to them. The God I know won't hold it against them either.

But surely you have seen argument after argument from the anti religionists who want to paint all Creationists as part of that fundamentalist group. And others want to paint Creationists as being no different from IDers as a whole. And more than a few of the anti religionists who won't accept that we who embrace Creationism and/or I.D. also embrace scientific theories re the origins of the Earth and the Universe.

All I was arguing with my immediately previous post was that if you go by the arguments on this thread, it is the Creationists/IDers who are the most open minded.

I see a major difference in creationism and ID. Again, it is beyond the ability of man to prove or disprove the existence of God.

However, the scientific method is man made and exists under man made rules. These rules mandate observability and falsifiability. You can't falsify the existence of God. Therefore, you can't introduce God into Scientific Theories. This says nothing about the existence of God, it simply says his existence within scientific theories is not appropriate.

Rightfully so. If we were to allow God into scientific methodology then the answer to every question ultimately becomes "God did it".

And you seem to be incapable of the concepts that the thread author and I seem to be able to understand easily. Or you inadvertently continue to miss the point I am making or you are intentionally blowing off the principles I see in this discussion.

Creationism IS a form of I.D. for instance. But all IDers are not Creationists. An open mind would acknowledge that this is an important part of and important to arguments being made.

Neither the thread author nor I have once suggested that God be introduced into scientific theories. Each of us have clearly stated that Creationism/ID is not science and should not be taught as science. It would be nice if the open minded here would acknowledge that instead of continuing to insinuate something different.

Prejudice and bigotry is a difficult thing though. It does close the mind and makes it impossible to see many possibilities outside the narrow concepts dictated by the prejudice and bigotry.

 

[geauxtohell]

I don't know a single person of faith who would say that if we cannot prove the existence of God, then he does not exist. There are a number of anti-religionists who have said this. Not all anti-religionists say it, but all those who say it do seem to be anti-religionists.

If you are going to be scientific about this, it is necessary to consider representative groups and not personalize a statement of observation that does not imply EVERY member of a group is in agreement on a particular point.

Certainly, as Becki argued, all person of Faith, not all Jews, not all Christians, take the Genesis story as the way the world was created. Some do. I feel safe in saying that most don't. I can't see how those who do harm or interfere with me in any way. If their faith gives them comfort, power to them. The God I know won't hold it against them either.

But surely you have seen argument after argument from the anti religionists who want to paint all Creationists as part of that fundamentalist group. And others want to paint Creationists as being no different from IDers as a whole. And more than a few of the anti religionists who won't accept that we who embrace Creationism and/or I.D. also embrace scientific theories re the origins of the Earth and the Universe.

All I was arguing with my immediately previous post was that if you go by the arguments on this thread, it is the Creationists/IDers who are the most open minded.

I see a major difference in creationism and ID. Again, it is beyond the ability of man to prove or disprove the existence of God.

However, the scientific method is man made and exists under man made rules. These rules mandate observability and falsifiability. You can't falsify the existence of God. Therefore, you can't introduce God into Scientific Theories. This says nothing about the existence of God, it simply says his existence within scientific theories is not appropriate.

Rightfully so. If we were to allow God into scientific methodology then the answer to every question ultimately becomes "God did it".

And you seem to be incapable of the concepts that the thread author and I seem to be able to understand easily. Or you inadvertently continue to miss the point I am making or you are intentionally blowing off the principles I see in this discussion.

Creationism IS a form of I.D. for instance. But all IDers are not Creationists. An open mind would acknowledge that this is an important part of and important to arguments being made.

Neither the thread author nor I have once suggested that God be introduced into scientific theories. Each of us have clearly stated that Creationism/ID is not science and should not be taught as science. It would be nice if the open minded here would acknowledge that instead of continuing to insinuate something different.

Prejudice and bigotry is a difficult thing though. It does close the mind and makes it impossible to see many possibilities outside the narrow concepts dictated by the prejudice and bigotry.

I haven't really been following the "OP". I have just been discussing a matter that I am passionate about: keeping ID out of science. If you don't think it belongs in science either, then I am probably not directing my comments in the right direction.

There are many posters who do think it belongs in science, so I'll continue to make my points.

As I said, I have no problem with ID/Creationism as a personal belief. I have a problem with sticking them in the scientific method.