liberalogic
Member
Semper Fi said:1. I can see the logic behind your compromise idea. I would accept that, if the opportunity had been given to me. However, the thing that stands in the way is the principle. Evolution has not been conclusively proven, at least to my standards and a fair amount of persons on this board. And if ID has not been proven, why is it considered inappropriate? I suppose you could classify this as equality. Evolution isn't proved, yet it is tought in school. ID isn't proved, yet it isn't tought in schools. Do you see the inequality here?
2. My point was that the ID idea has been around for a long enough time that I consider it to be valid. I never said anything about Christianity, which I would agree has had its rough spots, that by no means prevents me from being a Christian, however.
1.
It's true that evolution hasn't been "conclusively proven," and I mean 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt true, but at the same time, the evidence that supports this theory (from embryological evidence of change to chemical evidence to molecular evidence) is so extensive that it dwarfs any amount of evidence that anyone can provide for ID. So while you say that they may be unequal because they both may not be conclusively proven to be true, evolution is much closer (due to the evidence) to being true.
ID is devised from logic and faith; while those two ideas can be powerful, they are not evidence that proves it to be true or moves it any closer to the truth itself.
2.
To me, just because something has been around a while doesn't make it right. MOST (not all, but most) people inherit their religion from their parents. It is a value that is instilled early because the parents of their parents did it to them. It's a chain that gives the individual little room to question what's really out there. So I'd say that part of its survival is due to "ineritance" shall we say.