The creationists are BACK

[Jack Fate]

Understanding Ontogenetic Depth, Part II: Natural Selection Is a Harsh Mistress - Evolution News & Views

Is this "religion" or "science"?

 

[BlindBoo]

I disagree that ID is a religious story. Einstein didn't believe in religious stories.

Data can be manipulated. Do you believe in man made global warming or climate change?[/QUOTE]

It's certainly possible AND logical. After all, we know the heat-trapping properties of CO2. We know itatmospheric concentrations have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?

The problem with ID is that they not only don't have any data to show, they can't put together a simple logical syllogism to prove it's possible, like I just did for AGW. If you can, let's hear it.

My point is that there has been manipulation of data in the global warming debate. Therefore, I don't think your point about evolution data being superior to ID is valid.

What data are you alleging was manipulated?

 

[newpolitics]

Intelligence is a living being, not a "force". There are universal laws. Einstein believed that was not by accident. Watching Star Wars movies do not count as scientific knowledge.

Now youre just splitting hairs and getting into semantics... it's the same idea. It was not an intelligent being the same as your god that Einstein meant. Not at all, so quite hoping it was, and riding Einstein's credibility as a genius to try and vindicate your point of view.

You don't know who my God is. Who in the hell do you think you are to assume such a thing? I thought liberals were supposed to be open minded, tolerant of other views and inclusive? Are you confused.

Did you make up a god that all is your own? Aren't you a Christian? I know who the Christians pray to. the Triune God. The Father, the son, and the holy spirit. It sounds like paganism to me, but... yeah, those three

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wonderful. And I can believe that "let there be light" is when all the "universal laws" were laid down AND believe those laws led to creation by an intelligence. Now why can't I teach that in the public indoctrination centers?

THAT there are public indoctrination centers is the real problem.

In order that liberty should survive, there must be a strict and impenetrable wall of separation between education and state.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's fine, as long as the science class doesn't say that evolution explains the origins of human life or implies that human life evolved from a completely different species therefore negating the concept of an intelligent designer.

Then the parents need to send their kids to a religious school and not expect the public to pay the freight. We're lagging far enough behind in the scientific disciplines. We don't need time wasted on things that can't be proven or at least backed up with lots of data.

You have no logical reason to put ID in religion class. Looks to me that you have a bias. Isn't it wrong to have a bias as far as education?

The belief in something for which there is zero evidence is either an exercise in delusion or faith (not to assume that the two are mutually exclusive). Faith is a component of religion, therefore, if ID belongs in any class, it would be one of religion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Thanks for explaining. We agree there. So you have no problem with ID being taught along with evolution?

Of course I have a problem with that. One is backed by science, one isn't.

I have no problem with it being taught in a religion course, just not in a science course.

Backed by YOUR science. We believe ID is science also. There are scientists who believe in ID.

What is your scientific evidence for ID? People can believe in any number of things for which there is no evidence.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wonderful. And I can believe that "let there be light" is when all the "universal laws" were laid down AND believe those laws led to creation by an intelligence. Now why can't I teach that in the public indoctrination centers?

THAT there are public indoctrination centers is the real problem.

In order that liberty should survive, there must be a strict and impenetrable wall of separation between education and state.

Isn't the right of the People to choose to educate their children in a public school system itself an exercise in 'liberty'?

How do you propose to eradicate public (government) education without trampling on the rights of those who might democratically choose public education as an institution?

 

[Uncensored2008]

What is your scientific evidence for ID?

Quarks - string theory.

Them little fuckers are weird!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Isn't the right of the People to choose to educate their children in a public school system itself an exercise in 'liberty'?

People have no choice in the education of their children. The Socialized schools indoctrinate children in the way most advantageous to the state.

The state running education is an obvious conflict of interest - no different than a state run church.

How do you propose to eradicate public (government) education without trampling on the rights of those who might democratically choose public education as an institution?

You mean, how can we think of cutting off the sugar train to the teachers union and NEA?

No one can be honestly educated by the state. The state has a HUGE vested interest in indoctrinating people toward authoritarianism and a herd mentality.

Would you support a mandatory state religion? (Actually, you probably would - with Obama as god.) To support government education is equally or more stupid.

 

[Newby]

Totally agree.

However not be able to disprove something doesn't make it a viable topic in a science class.

That's fine, as long as the science class doesn't say that evolution explains the origins of human life or implies that human life evolved from a completely different species therefore negating the concept of an intelligent designer.

I'm not going in that circle again, as long as you're conceding that creationism shouldn't be in science classes, that's good enough for me at this point.

Creationism shouldn't be taught because scientfically we know next to nothing about it, not because there are religious overtones about it. And of course you're not going to concede anything, you're too much of a legend in your own mind to do that.

 

[Dr.Drock]

That's fine, as long as the science class doesn't say that evolution explains the origins of human life or implies that human life evolved from a completely different species therefore negating the concept of an intelligent designer.

I'm not going in that circle again, as long as you're conceding that creationism shouldn't be in science classes, that's good enough for me at this point.

Creationism shouldn't be taught because scientfically we know next to nothing about it, not because there are religious overtones about it. And of course you're not going to concede anything, you're too much of a legend in your own mind to do that.

Thanks, that's fine, as long as we're in agreement on the main premise of the thread.

 

[Newby]

Then why are we taught that the "ancestors" of men crawled out of a swamp? Why are we taught that an ape-like missing link is the ancestor of men and apes? Evolution is a theory put forward to put doubt into those that believe in the Lord. There is not concrete proof or it would not be a "theory".

Standard Disclaimer: I don't believe in god.

That said - how does evolution put doubt into those who do believe? Who is to say that evolution isn't simply the method god used to create the world and all that is in it? The catholic Church demanded that a heliocentric solar system destroyed faith in god. Now days I don't think there is anyone who believes that Earth is the center of the universe, yet you and others still have faith. How is evolution any different? Evolution merely explains the mechanics - what is behind the mechanics is up to each of us to decide - be that the vibrations of inter-dimensional quantum threads, or the goat herder god, the mechanics are unaffected.

First point, I don't think evolution is anywhere near a valid reason to put doubt into those who believe in a higher power. I think this discussion shows just the opposite, it is certain people that try to use evolution as proof that there couldn't have been intelligent design, or as proof that it debunks the Bible. I've simply been trying to point that out here.

Second point, I totally agree, evolution does not preclude that there could have been a Creator and he/she used evolution as a means of creating. This just reinforces my first point, and it's what I've been trying to get across through this entire discussion.

 

[Newby]

Of course I have a problem with that. One is backed by science, one isn't.

I have no problem with it being taught in a religion course, just not in a science course.

Backed by YOUR science. We believe ID is science also. There are scientists who believe in ID.

Show ONE SINGLE PIECE or evidence for ID. Now you are pushing again that it should be taught alongside evolution even though it is NOT science.

Are you serious? It's everywhere you look. You will note that everything that man has 'scientifically' discovered has order, purpose and reason, down to the content of a single cell. Is it a coincidence that we have the 'solar system', the 'nervous system', the 'eco system', etc... There is order and design everywhere you look. I think it's far more likely from a logical viewpoint to believe that it was designed to happen that way than just some one in a billion cosmic coincidence.

 

[Jack Fate]

My point is that there has been manipulation of data in the global warming debate. Therefore, I don't think your point about evolution data being superior to ID is valid.

What data are you alleging was manipulated?

Any of it. Books of data is not evidence that ID is wrong.

 

[Jack Fate]

Now youre just splitting hairs and getting into semantics... it's the same idea. It was not an intelligent being the same as your god that Einstein meant. Not at all, so quite hoping it was, and riding Einstein's credibility as a genius to try and vindicate your point of view.

You don't know who my God is. Who in the hell do you think you are to assume such a thing? I thought liberals were supposed to be open minded, tolerant of other views and inclusive? Are you confused.

Did you make up a god that all is your own? Aren't you a Christian? I know who the Christians pray to. the Triune God. The Father, the son, and the holy spirit. It sounds like paganism to me, but... yeah, those three

So? As far as I know I can believe whatever I want to in the USA and there is nothing you can do about it. You don't even know my God. Grow up.

 

[Jack Fate]

Then the parents need to send their kids to a religious school and not expect the public to pay the freight. We're lagging far enough behind in the scientific disciplines. We don't need time wasted on things that can't be proven or at least backed up with lots of data.

You have no logical reason to put ID in religion class. Looks to me that you have a bias. Isn't it wrong to have a bias as far as education?

The belief in something for which there is zero evidence is either an exercise in delusion or faith (not to assume that the two are mutually exclusive). Faith is a component of religion, therefore, if ID belongs in any class, it would be one of religion.

Faith is a component in your religion. I don't believe in religion. Your faith is that evolution is true. Everyone has the right to believe according to their own evidence. You can't control that. That's what schools are for, learning. You aren't the one who determines what is correct.

 

[Jack Fate]

That's fine, as long as the science class doesn't say that evolution explains the origins of human life or implies that human life evolved from a completely different species therefore negating the concept of an intelligent designer.

I'm not going in that circle again, as long as you're conceding that creationism shouldn't be in science classes, that's good enough for me at this point.

Creationism shouldn't be taught because scientfically we know next to nothing about it, not because there are religious overtones about it. And of course you're not going to concede anything, you're too much of a legend in your own mind to do that.

So your convinced man has learned pretty much everything about the universe. I don't think you'd get very many scientists to agree with that.

 

[Newby]

I'm not going in that circle again, as long as you're conceding that creationism shouldn't be in science classes, that's good enough for me at this point.

Creationism shouldn't be taught because scientfically we know next to nothing about it, not because there are religious overtones about it. And of course you're not going to concede anything, you're too much of a legend in your own mind to do that.

So your convinced man has learned pretty much everything about the universe. I don't think you'd get very many scientists to agree with that.

Where did I say that I'm convinced that man has learned everything? Pretty much the exact opposite, we don't know a damn thing.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You don't know who my God is. Who in the hell do you think you are to assume such a thing? I thought liberals were supposed to be open minded, tolerant of other views and inclusive? Are you confused.

Did you make up a god that all is your own? Aren't you a Christian? I know who the Christians pray to. the Triune God. The Father, the son, and the holy spirit. It sounds like paganism to me, but... yeah, those three

So? As far as I know I can believe whatever I want to in the USA and there is nothing you can do about it. You don't even know my God. Grow up.

Um..........quick question........are you stating that there is more than 1 God? If so, you're bordering on blasphemy and idol worship.

HaShem has many different names, Adonai, ElOhim are just a couple.

Question is, do you recognize those various attributes in just 1 diety, or, do you let your own myopic vision of God blind you to the others?

 

[BlindBoo]

Backed by YOUR science. We believe ID is science also. There are scientists who believe in ID.

Show ONE SINGLE PIECE or evidence for ID. Now you are pushing again that it should be taught alongside evolution even though it is NOT science.

Are you serious? It's everywhere you look. You will note that everything that man has 'scientifically' discovered has order, purpose and reason, down to the content of a single cell. Is it a coincidence that we have the 'solar system', the 'nervous system', the 'eco system', etc... There is order and design everywhere you look. I think it's far more likely from a logical viewpoint to believe that it was designed to happen that way than just some one in a billion cosmic coincidence.

One of my favorite Frost poems deal with the very subject. Was it designed?

Design by Robert Frost

I found a dimpled spider, fat and white,
On a white heal-all, holding up a moth
Like a white piece of rigid satin cloth --
Assorted characters of death and blight
Mixed ready to begin the morning right,
Like the ingredients of a witches' broth --
A snow-drop spider, a flower like a froth,
And dead wings carried like a paper kite.

What had that flower to do with being white,
The wayside blue and innocent heal-all?
What brought the kindred spider to that height,
Then steered the white moth thither in the night?
What but design of darkness to appall?--
If design govern in a thing so small.