Jesus H. Intelligent Design

[iGary]

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- "Intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday, ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial.

Dover Area School Board members violated the Constitution when they ordered that its biology curriculum must include the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said.

Several members repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs, he said.

The school board policy, adopted in October 2004, was believed to have been the first of its kind in the nation.

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy," Jones wrote.

The board's attorneys had said members were seeking to improve science education by exposing students to alternatives to Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection. Intelligent-design proponents argue that it cannot fully explain the existence of complex life forms.


At least someone knows the difference between secular and religious.

[iGary]

Intelligent-design proponents argue that it cannot fully explain the existence of complex life forms.

And the bible does.

LOL!!

[dubbz]

The board's attorneys had said members were seeking to improve science education by exposing students to alternatives to Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection.

Good idea! Except, are there any alternatives? I certainly don't consider ID to be one. That's faith, not science.


And... Argh! Who deleted my message while I was editing it to reply to the topic? Good thing it wasn't a multiple paragraph reply :p

[Sayhey]

Great decision. Here is a link (http://www.stcynic.com/blog/) to some discussion of how great a decision this was for science education in the US.

[freeny]

NICE!

Here is a good quote from the story on cnn;

Said the judge: "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

[Don't panic]

chalk one down for reason and common sense.

hopefully this IDiocy is coming to an end.

[IJ Reilly]

chalk one down for reason and common sense.

hopefully this IDiocy is coming to an end.

Don't count on it. This decision will no doubt result in a renewed call to replace "activist judges" with God-fearing Republicans.

[superbovine]

Good thing a lawyer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson) thought up intelligent design in the first place. In other words, we are fighting a legal battle over science vs religion based on a theory by lawyer. The whole premise of intelligent design is silly at best. How do you teach good science if you a presenting philopshical theories about religion in a science that aren't based on a scientific method rather an activist attorney who wants to put religion in school and believes all theories of evolution are atheistic.

Oddly enough, science and religion are both the search for the truth. However, science is based on observation, hypothesis, testing/data gathering, analsyis, and conclusion rather than faith or an attorneys strategy to get religion in American schools. My question to supporters of the "intelligent design" would be: if the idea was thought up by an attorney rather than a "scientist" would it still hold the same weight to be put in the classroom?

[.Andy]

I don't think anyone fights harder than those looking for vindication for their own beliefs.
In the absence of logic the next best thing is comfort in oblivious, self-masturbatory numbers.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Wisdom teeth and the appendix are two very good examples against Intelligent design but are very solid evidence for evolution. Caveman needed both for chewing through bone and rawhide but now we dont have any use for them but are still stuck with the crap! Like Hair all over my semi-civilized face? evolution to keep caveman warm? or a joke by God?

What bothers me about all this is we seem to have a society who want to replace real science with fantasy and a book written thousands of years ago..If man was ment to fly god would have given him wings right?

[freeny]

Wisdom teeth and the appendix are two very good examples against Intelligent design but are very solid evidence for evolution. Caveman needed both for chewing through bone and rawhide but now we dont have any use for them but are still stuck with the crap! Like Hair all over my semi-civilized face? evolution to keep caveman warm? or a joke by God?

What bothers me about all this is we seem to have a society who want to replace real science with fantasy and a book written thousands of years ago..If man was ment to fly god would have given him wings right?
Don't leave out nipples for men!:confused:

[Dont Hurt Me]

Don't leave out nipples for men!:confused:
Thanks! I forgot about those dam nipples, another joke by God?

[rdowns]

Praise Jesus!

[xsedrinam]

It's hard to keep abreast, in here.

[superbovine]

Thanks! I forgot about those dam nipples, another joke by God?

No, Men's sexual peek is 18 and women's is 30.... that is just a cruel joke

[skunk]

I had my first sexual peek much earlier. What an eyeful that was!

[.Andy]

I had my first sexual peek much earlier. What an eyeful that was!
Posts like that almost make me believe in a divine intelligence. Well played skunk :).

[IJ Reilly]

I had my first sexual peek much earlier. What an eyeful that was!

Was that before or after you hit your first sexual valley?

[.Andy]

Was that before or after you hit your first sexual valley?
Marriage?

[leekohler]

I'm 38 and I still don't think I've hit my sexual peak. My hormones are still raging.

[skunk]

I'm 38 and I still don't think I've hit my sexual peak. My hormones are still raging.TMI
:rolleyes:

[iGary]

How did my Jeus H. Design post turn into this? :eek:


:p

[Josh]

..and I always though I invented the idea of ID....:D

Wisdom teeth and the appendix are two very good examples against Intelligent design but are very solid evidence for evolution. Caveman needed both for chewing through bone and rawhide but now we dont have any use for them but are still stuck with the crap! Like Hair all over my semi-civilized face? evolution to keep caveman warm? or a joke by God?


The idea of ID is that it evolution is made to work the way it does. Who says God didn't create evolution?

Just because wisdom teeth, etc, are useless to us now does not way against ID. Just as it took time for us to get those features through evolution, we will also lose them now that they are unecessary - it just takes a lot more time than any of us will be around.

I believe in evolution, and I also believe in God; I believe that God did create man - however, I believe that the method in which God created man was by creating Evolution. As I see it, God created evolution fully knowing and intending that man would be created from it.

The Bible is more of a "cliff-notes" than a cookbook. It says God created man, but it leaves out the exact way God did so. Sure, he made him of the same dust of the Earth, and to His likeness - but that is just a description of the thing already created.

[joepunk]

If Jesus was around today, he'd take one look around and decide to retire from the prophet business and settle down with a wife and several kids. Possibly continue with his carpentry job. That's my take anyway.

[Dont Hurt Me]

..and I always though I invented the idea of ID....:D



The idea of ID is that it evolution is made to work the way it does. Who says God didn't create evolution?

Just because wisdom teeth, etc, are useless to us now does not way against ID. Just as it took time for us to get those features through evolution, we will also lose them now that they are unecessary - it just takes a lot more time than any of us will be around.

I believe in evolution, and I also believe in God; I believe that God did create man - however, I believe that the method in which God created man was by creating Evolution. As I see it, God created evolution fully knowing and intending that man would be created from it.

The Bible is more of a "cliff-notes" than a cookbook. It says God created man, but it leaves out the exact way God did so. Sure, he made him of the same dust of the Earth, and to His likeness - but that is just a description of the thing already created.All jokes aside i also believe in God and think God works through evolution not Intelligent design:)

[Josh]

Maybe my understanding of the definition of ID is wrong, but isn't the belief that God (aka an intelligent being) created evolution the very definition of ID?

I've always though ID = evolution + God :confused:

If that's the case, I guess I believe in ID. But at the same time, I'd still believe in evolution, since, If my understanding is correct (lol which I am doubting), evolution is a component of ID.

[skunk]

If my understanding is correct (lol which I am doubting), evolution is a component of ID.The Theory of Evolution stands on its own merits. ID asserts that Evolution is not enough to explain us.

[ham_man]

At least someone knows the difference between secular and religious.
This isn't about secular v. religious. This is about proven fact versus unproven faith. I am a Christian, and I can say that Intelligent Design belongs in no science classroom. I wonder if anyone of the people that came up with ID ever thought that evolution was God's "Intelligent Design"...

[Josh]

^ that would be ideal, however Evolution is not a proven fact.

As it stands, it is just a theory. So far, it explains things as we currently understand them, but it has not been proven absolute.

[skunk]

^ that would be ideal, however Evolution is not a proven fact.What "proof" do you require?

As it stands, it is just a theory. So far, it explains things as we currently understand them, but it has not been proven absolute.Nor have the "theories" of Gravity, Special Relativity or Motion. They seem to be safe enough for people to trust their lives to, though.

[leekohler]

TMI
:rolleyes:

Oh please- there were no details. ;)

[zap2]

Don't leave out nipples for men!:confused:


There is a reason for them, Men start out as women in the 1st 6 weeks in the womb by the time they start to become males they have the begin features of a female (nipples)

[skunk]

Oh please- there were no details. ;)See, there is a god!
:D

[Josh]

Nor have the "theories" of Gravity, Special Relativity or Motion. They seem to be safe enough for people to trust their lives to, though.

Well, if like gravity, the the workings of evolution change with different external situations, then perhaps they are along the same lines.

Our understanding of gravity only stands true when velocity is very, very, far from the speed of light. Approach the speed of light, and gravity no longer works as we expect it to.

Here on Earth, our understanding of gravity really doesn't need to go beyond this planet or at different velocities (save for physicists/scientists) - we experience gravity here, as it is, and are comfortable with that. Evolution on the other hand implies a meaning beyond our world that we believe to remain consistent elsewhere, and effects every living thing by default rather than choice.

That is the difference, as I see it.

[vniow]

There is a reason for them, Men start out as women in the 1st 6 weeks in the womb by the time they start to become males they have the begin features of a female (nipples)


No, no they don't. Fetuses are formed with the necessary parts to create either sex (or sometimes a combination thereof) so that's why males have nipples and intersexed people exist.

[IJ Reilly]

Nor have the "theories" of Gravity, Special Relativity or Motion. They seem to be safe enough for people to trust their lives to, though.

So you say, but I'm keeping a big roll of Velcro handy just in case.

[dops7107]

How about this: http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/

Prof Robert Wisnton was talking about it on a show the other night here in the UK. Those guys have spent $25 million (or along those lines) in creating a museum specifically to shove their creationist lies and propaganda on unsuspecting children. Dinosaurs and man, happily co-existing. It's beyond a joke, when you consider what charitable causes most divisions of Christianity will support with such funds.

[skunk]

So you say, but I'm keeping a big roll of Velcro handy just in case.I think I'll roll a big one, too - just in case.

[dops7107]

Man, this just gets better and better (slightly OT perhaps, but I wanted to share):

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/overheads/archive/oh20010316_6_scrn.jpg

[zimv20]

^ that would be ideal, however Evolution is not a proven fact.

As it stands, it is just a theory. So far, it explains things as we currently understand them, but it has not been proven absolute.
science is a method, and the theory of evolution is an example of that method. if we want to get hardcore about what science has "proven", then we're talking philosophy.

and that's what many have been saying about ID: it is not an example of the scientific method, so keep it out of the science classroom and discuss it philosophically.

what's so hard to understand about that?

[freeny]

There is a reason for them, Men start out as women in the 1st 6 weeks in the womb by the time they start to become males they have the begin features of a female (nipples)
It was my nipple statement that was being used to discredit Inteligent design. No Christian god would make a man a woman first, or even one that could be interchangeable. THAT would be gay!:rolleyes:

[takao]

Holy dinosaur bones batman ! ... a whole museum dedicated to creationism

i put that just under the "penis museum" on my "museums i'm going to visit" list

[katchow]

So you say, but I'm keeping a big roll of Velcro handy just in case.

and i'm not about to stop paying my gravity bill.

[Josh]

science is a method, and the theory of evolution is an example of that method. if we want to get hardcore about what science has "proven", then we're talking philosophy.

and that's what many have been saying about ID: it is not an example of the scientific method, so keep it out of the science classroom and discuss it philosophically.

what's so hard to understand about that?

If we're discussing what something has "proven," then we ARE discussing science. Philosophy would be discussing the things that aren't proven (evolution is one of them).

And, since you mention the scientific method, perhaps you'd like to share how evolution fits to the method.

Evolution is not falsifiable. You cannot test evolution for repeated results.

Do whales have limb bones? Sure do. But does that mean they have an evolutional relationship to quadrupeds? Not necessarily. It definitely makes sense, and would be understandable if true, but just because we believe something to be true does not make it so.

The second things are determined to be true/untrue based on what society finds understandable, we're doomed.

[zimv20]

If we're discussing what something has "proven," then we ARE discussing science.
are we? what in science has been proven to 100% certainty?

[Josh]

Much more than has been left uncertain, that's for sure - specifically in the fields of engineering, medicine, and environmental science.

To answer your question would be to devote one's life to typing the reply.

[trebblekicked]

somehow i doubt this thread, if continuing on it's recent trend, will cover any new ground. definitely nothing that wasn't exhaustedly covered here (http://www.talkorigins.org/).

as for the actual topic, i'm very happy with the verdict, and today's lehrer podcast had a particularly telling interview with the case's lawyers.

[.Andy]

Much more than has been left uncertain, that's for sure - specifically in the fields of engineering, medicine, and environmental science.
Do you honestly believe what you typed Josh? Your opinion is like a man looking at the proverbial iceberg floating in the ocean.

[atszyman]

Don't count on it. This decision will no doubt result in a renewed call to replace "activist judges" with God-fearing Republicans.

That would be great if Jones hadn't been appointed by Dubya.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III, a Republican appointed by President Bush...

link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122000532_pf.html)

[zimv20]

Much more than has been left uncertain, that's for sure - specifically in the fields of engineering, medicine, and environmental science.

To answer your question would be to devote one's life to typing the reply.
you clearly have no idea what i'm on about. take a philosophy class.

[pseudobrit]

If we're discussing what something has "proven," then we ARE discussing science. Philosophy would be discussing the things that aren't proven (evolution is one of them).

No no no no no no no.

What zim is trying to say is that you're stabbing at a philosophical debate of what truth is and what reality is. Science, in order to function, must assume basic tenets of truth and reality.

And, since you mention the scientific method, perhaps you'd like to share how evolution fits to the method.

Evolution is not falsifiable. You cannot test evolution for repeated results.

And what of cosmology and planetary science? How do we run tests with supernovae and quasars? Set a few off?

Science doesn't require experiments to validate.

It's ironic that you'd point out that evolution can't be experimented with. How do you experiment with Intelligent design? Intelligent design is a false theory because it cannot be tested or observed in any way.

The second things are determined to be true/untrue based on what society finds understandable, we're doomed.

Scientists have explained just about all of the known universe. There aren't many mysteries left like why the sun goes up and down and how birds fly. Nor are there unexplained observations about atomic or cosmological interactions.

So a scientist wanting to make a name for herself must disprove established theory. Which is why science is so valuable: it's constantly testing itself.

[zimv20]

josh -- the debate has become about evolution and ID being theories and therefore equal. that's not a proper comparison. what belongs in a science classroom is what adheres to the scientific method. evolution -- real, false, misinterpreted, whatever -- adheres to it. ID does not, and therefore has no place in the science classroom.

it has nothing to do with "absolute truth", outside of what the scientific method already provides for.

[IJ Reilly]

That would be great if Jones hadn't been appointed by Dubya.

I know, but that won't stop anyone from saying it. He just wasn't sufficiently vetted. We need tougher ideological standards.

[Metatron]

josh -- the debate has become about evolution and ID being theories and therefore equal. that's not a proper comparison. what belongs in a science classroom is what adheres to the scientific method. evolution -- real, false, misinterpreted, whatever -- adheres to it. ID does not, and therefore has no place in the science classroom.

it has nothing to do with "absolute truth", outside of what the scientific method already provides for.

Being a religious person that I am, I don't think anyones has gotten it right. Only God know...and you must beleive in God to believe that. I think that science class should mention both. I believe in evolving, but not evolution - which says that I came from an ape.

[leekohler]

Being a religious person that I am, I don't think anyones has gotten it right. Only God know...and you must beleive in God to believe that. I think that science class should mention both. I believe in evolving, but not evolution - which says that I came from an ape.

But ID is NOT science, so why discuss it in science class? It belongs in a different class, such as philosophy.

[Sox]

Being a religious person that I am, I don't think anyones has gotten it right. Only God know...and you must beleive in God to believe that. I think that science class should mention both. I believe in evolving, but not evolution - which says that I came from an ape.


Not to really quibble, and I certainly respect your faith, but evolution doesn't state that you came from an ape. IIRC, it's simply that modern apes and man share a common ancestor.

[.Andy]

Governing Goals

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and humnan beings are created by God.

Five Year Goals
To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

Twenty Year Goals
To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
Looks like they can kiss the five year goals goodbye. Hopefully it's not too much of a setback in the aim for an American theocracy to get rid of that horrible "materialistic (read:evidence based) science that's the root of all evil.....

[IJ Reilly]

Not to really quibble, and I certainly respect your faith, but evolution doesn't state that you came from an ape. IIRC, it's simply that modern apes and man share a common ancestor.

You recall correctly. We also share nearly all of our DNA.

Come to think of it, the ID people shouldn't be having it out with Darwin so much as they should with Watson, Cricke, Pauling... and all of those other modern scientists who described the structure of DNA -- the mechanism of evolution. After all Darwin didn't have a clue about how the things he was observing happened. Took another 100 years to figure that out.

[pseudobrit]

Being a religious person that I am, I don't think anyones has gotten it right. Only God know...and you must beleive in God to believe that. I think that science class should mention both.

Maybe science class should also mention reincarnation.

Between learning about Newton and light, kids could learn about the circles of Hell, or how the universe came from an egg.

I believe in evolving, but not evolution - which says that I came from an ape.

What, pray tell, does the "evolving" that you do believe in entail?

[tpjunkie]

Josh, to continue with your analogy of gravity:

In the seventeenth century, Newton, through paintaking observation and analytical analysis (not to mention inventing the calculus necessary)discovered the mathmatical relationship that force of gravity seemed to adhere to, that being F=GMm/r^2. As far as anyone was concerned for the next 250+ plus years, this was the long and short of the force of gravity, until Einstein came along and discovered general relativity, and further expanded our knowledge and understanding of gravity, and provided a framework for what happens at very high speeds (we actually Do understand what happens at speeds near the speed of light, contrary to your earlier posting, try looking up lorentz contraction on wikipedia or a physics textbook that covers relativity).

In much the same way, Darwin, through his own painstaking analysis came up with a theory that explained his observations among the speciation he encountered in the Galapagos islands. While his idea was not nearly as universally accepted as Newtons was at first, the work of others, notably Watson and Crick, (not to mention the ideas put forth by Mendel) provided a deeper understanding for how his theory worked, and the particular mechanisms by which heritable characteristics are passed on.

These processes are SCIENCE. It's not what society finds understandable (who finds the mathmatics behind general relativity understandable?) but through what observation and such testing is possible that makes it scientific.

[superbovine]

Evolution is not falsifiable. You cannot test evolution for repeated results.


The english pit bull is a bread of dogs that was bread into existence in England. Breeders look for the traits of what would be the perfect fighting dog, and breed for it. The english pit bull is your resultant.

[skunk]

The english pit bull is a bread of dogs that was bread into existence in England.You'd have thought it would make an excellent bundog.

[IJ Reilly]

You'd have thought it would make an excellent bundog.

It tastes like schitzu.

[mactastic]

Well like it or not, a judge appointed by George W. Bush himself issued this decision, and there's not a damn thing the IDers can do about it. The citizens turned against the board that originally instituted the ID policy and a judge appointed by Bush himself ruled against the lawsuit brought by the original board.

Oh but the judge is the activist.

This decision would seem to be a crushing defeat for the ID side... except I think the SCOTUS is positioned to be more favorable to ID, and at some point one of these cases will make it up that far.

[Ugg]

Being a religious person that I am, I don't think anyones has gotten it right. Only God know...and you must beleive in God to believe that. I think that science class should mention both. I believe in evolving, but not evolution - which says that I came from an ape.


Since your god has never given any proof whatsoever as to the origins of life on this planet, how can you say that? If only god knows how can you be so certain that Darwin wasn't appointed by him to spread that truth? As you say, only god knows so your protestations against evolution are pretty hollow.

It's not just the genetic material that we share with apes but with ALL animals. Prove to me that man has nothing in common with the rest of the natural world and I'll begin to believe that man was created by your god, until then, try not to usurp your god's supposed unknowability.

[aswitcher]

Since your god has never given any proof whatsoever as to the origins of life on this planet, how can you say that? If only god knows how can you be so certain that Darwin wasn't appointed by him to spread that truth? As you say, only god knows so your protestations against evolution are pretty hollow.



Hi Ugg. If your interested in Christian answers to your questions, I would recommend Lee Strobel's "The Case For a Creator" ISBN 0310242096. Its apparently been a New York Times bestseller. It wanders into the ID debate with some interesting information about the significant scientific gaps in Darwin's theory but also looks at Christian views that incorporate Darwin's theory.

[mactastic]

As the judge in this case articulated quite clearly, there is nothing in evolutionary theory that precludes a higher power. There is also nothing that precludes the further study of the theory of Intelligent Design by it's proponents. Until they can come up with something other than creationism in a pretty dress, however; they can't have it taught in science classes. Philosophy, literature, sure have at it. But not science. Not Biology.

[Ugg]

Hi Ugg. If your interested in Christian answers to your questions, I would recommend Lee Strobel's "The Case For a Creator" ISBN 0310242096. Its apparently been a New York Times bestseller. It wanders into the ID debate with some interesting information about the significant scientific gaps in Darwin's theory but also looks at Christian views that incorporate Darwin's theory.

I was specifically looking for Metatron's opinions. Obviously Darwin's theory has gaps but they cannot and I dare say, will not be explained away by faith based positions. It is a theory but until is proven incorrect by another scientific theory it's providing us with the best possible explanation for life on this planet.

I've never been one for faith based solutions to science nor for christians who try to incorporate the bible into science. I'm sure the book must be interesting since so many people have bought it but all it is doing is casting doubt on the scientific method. We humans are responsible for our own progress or lack thereof, those who turn their backs on science are turning their backs on the human species.

[qtip919]

Wisdom teeth and the appendix are two very good examples against Intelligent design but are very solid evidence for evolution. Caveman needed both for chewing through bone and rawhide but now we dont have any use for them but are still stuck with the crap! Like Hair all over my semi-civilized face? evolution to keep caveman warm? or a joke by God?

What bothers me about all this is we seem to have a society who want to replace real science with fantasy and a book written thousands of years ago..If man was ment to fly god would have given him wings right?


So can you prove anything about evolution?

Has there ever been a transition-form discovered?

I have a problem with evolution as it is taught as fact, and it is definately far from fact. I work in this feild of research and I am amazed how many incredibly well respected scientists have been falling away from the FAITH of evolution..one by one...

So, anyone on here a real scientist? I would suspect most of you are force fed evolution zombies with no real idea of what you really have been taught...

By the way, Ive been at this work for 27 years, so please bring something to the table with a bit more meat on it than the above pitiful excuse for putting down Intelligent design...

You see so little about the human body's design because you are speck of sand looking at the shoreline trying to explain the map of the world...you dont know jack

[qtip919]

Since your god has never given any proof whatsoever as to the origins of life on this planet, how can you say that? If only god knows how can you be so certain that Darwin wasn't appointed by him to spread that truth? As you say, only god knows so your protestations against evolution are pretty hollow.

It's not just the genetic material that we share with apes but with ALL animals. Prove to me that man has nothing in common with the rest of the natural world and I'll begin to believe that man was created by your god, until then, try not to usurp your god's supposed unknowability.

PROOF?

how about the fact that "it" exists while the astronomically large chances of everything being belched out of nothingness is simply impossible..

Does the God of the universe who has given you life need to prove something special to you?

Wow...arent you needy...

Look around...do you walk into buildings and say "hmmm, in order for me to believe this building exists, I must personally see evidence that the builder, the architect and the constructions workers really did build this building since there is a high chance this building just materialized out of non-existent atoms, molecules and rivets, then it all just fell out of the sky and assembled itself in a logical useful pattern that allows for perfect use"

?

[Ugg]

PROOF?

how about the fact that "it" exists while the astronomically large chances of everything being belched out of nothingness is simply impossible..

Does the God of the universe who has given you life need to prove something special to you?

Wow...arent you needy...

Look around...do you walk into buildings and say "hmmm, in order for me to believe this building exists, I must personally see evidence that the builder, the architect and the constructions workers really did build this building since there is a high chance this building just materialized out of non-existent atoms, molecules and rivets, then it all just fell out of the sky and assembled itself in a logical useful pattern that allows for perfect use"

?

It may be improbably for life to have formed the way it did but not impossible.

Since there is no god, he can hardly have given me life, now could she?

Your analogy is lame, obviously there is a difference between man made constructions and evolutionary constructions and I wouldn't classify the majority of structures on this planet as suited for perfect use.

So what are your credentials and what is your field, etc? You certainly don't think we should take your assertions on faith now do you????

[belvdr]

Look around...do you walk into buildings and say "hmmm, in order for me to believe this building exists, I must personally see evidence that the builder, the architect and the constructions workers really did build this building since there is a high chance this building just materialized out of non-existent atoms, molecules and rivets, then it all just fell out of the sky and assembled itself in a logical useful pattern that allows for perfect use"

?

I gotta say that the last part made me laugh, not because I don't believe you, but because it is so funny to think of someone doing that. :D

EDIT: Anyone care to share where evolutionists figure the platypus evolved from?

[qtip919]

I gotta say that the last part made me laugh, not because I don't believe you, but because it is so funny to think of someone doing that. :D

EDIT: Anyone care to share where evolutionists figure the platypus evolved from?

No evolutionists can prove anything, they can only speculate...

[qtip919]

It may be improbably for life to have formed the way it did but not impossible.

Since there is no god, he can hardly have given me life, now could she?

Your analogy is lame, obviously there is a difference between man made constructions and evolutionary constructions and I wouldn't classify the majority of structures on this planet as suited for perfect use.

So what are your credentials and what is your field, etc? You certainly don't think we should take your assertions on faith now do you????


hmmm

..your complete disregard for the even the remote chance of life having some sort of creator shows me you have no scientific background whatsoever...if you did, you would not be so bold...you would have questions...

I love absolute statements "there is no god"...welp, so now that you have all of the knowledge in the universe, you can make absurd statements...good for you...because that is what it takes to say there is no god. Im saying I rely on the truck loads of evidence in my face every day that there is LIKELY a God, and I would love to be on the whole idea of it

So to break this down for you...Im saying the following:

1. Intelligent design is everywhere, that is why your nose is right side down...oh wait, since you believe the lie of evolution, you figure that the thousands upon thousands of people who died from drowning in a rainstorm (by the way, where are their bones?) finally had a baby with their nose "upside down" or more correctly; right side down....yeeaaaah, that makes loads of sense...

2. I am a senior researcher (specialty: molecular biology) for a company you've never heard of, but if you want specific details, I could PM you as it would be highly inappropriate for me to link their name to some random posts on a computer rumor forum ;)

3. Im glad you think of my analogy as lame. I can see you know nothing of something like...ooohh....the complexity of the hair on your head... something I specialize in...but have little of ;)

(I never get tired of saying that)

anyhoo...

the hair on your body and the system which produces it is more complex than the most complex man-made structure you could ever imagine. After a lifetime of studying such systems, I stand in awe of their incredible design and complexity.

So, for your sake (although you claim it is lame) I chose something you come into contact with daily, and I assumed, based on your lack of knowledge and understanding of human and animal physiology, you would appreciate this "simple design" analogy...we could always pick something more complex and I could show you how it is logically impossible for your tear ducts to produce liquid by means of "chance and luck"...(note: whenever I say "chance and luck" you may feel free to insert your religion...ie "evolution")

The thing you do not realize, because you know nothing about it: located all over the human body are the fingerprints of one I am not worthy to understand. It takes a person with little or no understanding of the human body, nature and the universe to make such rediculous statements. I work with people who do not consider themselves to be Christians, but it is delightful to listen to their comments which always backs up my beliefs of something more intelligent than "chance" creating all life...

The bigger question for which you have no answer is this:

Despite my belief that there was obvious intelligence in the design of all life...and counting on your assertion that all things outside of man's direct control are all a matter complete "luck and chance"...

WHERE DID ALL THE MATERIAL TO CREATE LIFE COME FROM?????

where do you answer that? It just appeared and continued to appear forever? Did not the slightest element need some sort of beginning?

[qtip919]

I've never been one for faith based solutions to science nor for christians who try to incorporate the bible into science. I'm sure the book must be interesting since so many people have bought it but all it is doing is casting doubt on the scientific method. We humans are responsible for our own progress or lack thereof, those who turn their backs on science are turning their backs on the human species.

wow, religion like this borders on the fanatical...

so, you believe your science will save the human race?

funny, last I checked, it seemed that the greed inherent in all fallen creatures (ie, mankind)...is what is wrecking humanity...live in a place like Rio in Brazil for a couple of years...experience the wreckage of the human mind on the planet and the greed which has doomed millions of people worldwide...tell me...what drug are you going to administer to take away hatred and greed? Christianity states that you MUST love your brother more than yourself. To not do so is a direct violation of God's commandment. Science can never change the heart condition, only God can...Im living proof. I would have gladly serve my own desires for the rest of my life if it were not for one person: Jesus. Lucky for me, as I would have probably ended up believing the same foolish lies as you: that we can determine our own future and make the human race into whatever we want...so lets go get ourselves some stem cells and produce new livers for all so that we may live forever!!! Keep chasing the lie...

I would love to see how science will save your frail body when it meets its inevitable demise...just like every one of us...

[aswitcher]

I was specifically looking for Metatron's opinions. Obviously Darwin's theory has gaps but they cannot and I dare say, will not be explained away by faith based positions. It is a theory but until is proven incorrect by another scientific theory it's providing us with the best possible explanation for life on this planet.

Sorry, I must have missed this post earlier.

Those "many" gaps require a leap of faith on your part. Do you know that?

You know about the signficant problems with life evolving in the first place, like the issues with the creation of the first cell (DNA etc)?

You do know that the "Cambrian Explosion" flies in the face of Darwin's theory?


I've never been one for faith based solutions to science nor for christians who try to incorporate the bible into science. I'm sure the book must be interesting since so many people have bought it but all it is doing is casting doubt on the scientific method. We humans are responsible for our own progress or lack thereof, those who turn their backs on science are turning their backs on the human species.

So you haven;t read the Bible or researched the basis for its beliefs yet you feel confident to criticise it?

If you dont believe in God why do you care about the future of the human species?

[aswitcher]

WHERE DID ALL THE MATERIAL TO CREATE LIFE COME FROM?????




No to mention the precise balances that exist like the strength of gravity, the precise energy density of empty space (cosmological constant), the difference in mass between protons and neutrons, electromagentic force, nuclear force etc ;)

[aquajet]

Thanks for the most refreshing post qtip919

Returning for a moment to the topic of this thread...

Here is the four-paragraph statement behind this lawsuit:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin’s theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, “Of Pandas and People,” is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.

Teachers in the Dover school district were required to preface biology classes with this short statement before commencing the established curriculum. Clearly this was an egregious attempt by religious fanatics to indoctrinate and brainwash children with creationist nonsense, and wasn't at all an attempt to teach children to have an open mind and question every possible explanation as to how and why we exist.

[belvdr]

Thanks for the most refreshing post qtip919

Returning for a moment to the topic of this thread...

Here is the four-paragraph statement behind this lawsuit:

Teachers in the Dover school district were required to preface biology classes with this short statement before commencing the established curriculum. Clearly this was an egregious attempt by religious fanatics to indoctrinate and brainwash children with creationist nonsense, and wasn't at all an attempt to teach children to have an open mind and question every possible explanation as to how and why we exist.

Well, one could also say that evolution is nonsense as well, but neither side can factually prove to the other that they are correct. Both sides have faith in something, whether it is Darwin or God.

Where's the information found that the teachers had to state this before presenting evolution?

[qtip919]

Thanks for the most refreshing post qtip919

Returning for a moment to the topic of this thread...

Here is the four-paragraph statement behind this lawsuit:



Teachers in the Dover school district were required to preface biology classes with this short statement before commencing the established curriculum. Clearly this was an egregious attempt by religious fanatics to indoctrinate and brainwash children with creationist nonsense, and wasn't at all an attempt to teach children to have an open mind and question every possible explanation as to how and why we exist.

Im sorry, but I do not see your point at all. That four paragraph statement is just about the most level-headed thing I have read all year. The simple fact is: Evolution has become a religion in itself, with many, many logical gaps within the theory and more mis-interpreted peices of information than you can imagine.

When you say "this was an egregious attempt at religious fanatics" to do blah blah blah...you are saying that people should in effect have no input on how people learn information. I say to you: There is no way I would want my child taught evolution as fact. It is a shakey, broken theory (at best) and has become a religion in and of itself.

In this "new religion of the self" there are also droves of misinformed disciples who are "learning" information about evolution on TV from the animal planet and CNN. Together, they are producing people who tell you the following:

1. You are nothing but a chance mistake of the rare combination of cells which have no real purpose other than to seek your own pleasure or to do what society currently dictates as correct.

2. Your value is inherently meaningless since you are basically an accident and serve no purpose in the universe.

3. Clearly you are part of an ecosystem of animals and the only difference between you and a rabid dog is your frontal lobe and your opposable thumbs. So get back to acting like an animal so we can control you with whatever means necessary.

[superbovine]

So, anyone on here a real scientist?

bahahaha...


yes...

[zimv20]

my degree's in science.

[Ugg]

I'm not a scientist, I was raised in a Christian household, I have a small background in botany and my opinions are all my own. I don't claim to know it all but I do know that no god or higher power could have created this planet or the universe it is a part of. It is too utterly complex for any being no matter how supreme to have organized it all. Billions upon billions of years of chance encounters certainly should come up with something resembling those who have such strong opinions about the origin of life.

We can speculate all we want about the origins of life on this planet but until scientists are able to recreate that magical primordial ooze, we'll just have to politely (hopefully some of us anyway) agree to disagree.

By denying Darwinian evolution you are denying our own ability to eventually come up with an answer. Admittedly, Darwin was working on evidence from prior generations but it's been not even been 150 years since The Origin of Species was published. Is that enough time to definitively say that he is wrong? Personally, I don't think so.

[thedude110]

In this "new religion of the self" there are also droves of misinformed disciples who are "learning" information about evolution on TV from the animal planet and CNN. Together, they are producing people who tell you the following:

1. You are nothing but a chance mistake of the rare combination of cells which have no real purpose other than to seek your own pleasure or to do what society currently dictates as correct.

2. Your value is inherently meaningless since you are basically an accident and serve no purpose in the universe.

3. Clearly you are part of an ecosystem of animals and the only difference between you and a rabid dog is your frontal lobe and your opposable thumbs. So get back to acting like an animal so we can control you with whatever means necessary.

C'mon. Read Sartre. Read Levinas. Read Habermas.

As western society has decentered itself from religion people have not revelled in "meaninglessness" or "animalism." Instead, people have revelled in a diversity of meaning makings, many of which I'm afraid threaten your world view.

Maybe you think the 20th century would have been better off without Duchamp (http://www.uncg.edu/rom/courses/dafein/civ/nude_no2.jpg) and Wallace Stevens (http://www.poetry-chaikhana.com/S/StevensWalla/NotIdeasAbou.htm). :rolleyes:

[Ugg]

1. You are nothing but a chance mistake of the rare combination of cells which have no real purpose other than to seek your own pleasure or to do what society currently dictates as correct.

2. Your value is inherently meaningless since you are basically an accident and serve no purpose in the universe.

3. Clearly you are part of an ecosystem of animals and the only difference between you and a rabid dog is your frontal lobe and your opposable thumbs. So get back to acting like an animal so we can control you with whatever means necessary.

There's no smiley so you must be serious! What a dismal view you must have of the world. No wonder it's in such a sorry condition.

[zimv20]

Maybe you think the 20th century would have been better off without Duchamp (http://www.uncg.edu/rom/courses/dafein/civ/nude_no2.jpg)
one look at my avatar will tell you *i* don't feel that way.

[zimv20]

There is no way I would want my child taught evolution as fact. It is a shakey, broken theory (at best) and has become a religion in and of itself.
can it be true? yet another creationist exploiting the vagueries of the english language ("fact", "prove", "faith") in a weak attempt to put intelligent design and the scientific method on equal footing?

they're not the same, fyi. the scientific method provides for falsification. creationism does not. and I.D. is nothing more than a misguided attempt to cast creationism as science. but since it's not falsifiable, it fails. utterly.

stop living in fear.

[belvdr]

I'm not a scientist, I was raised in a Christian household, I have a small background in botany and my opinions are all my own. I don't claim to know it all but I do know that no god or higher power could have created this planet or the universe it is a part of. It is too utterly complex for any being no matter how supreme to have organized it all. Billions upon billions of years of chance encounters certainly should come up with something resembling those who have such strong opinions about the origin of life.

We can speculate all we want about the origins of life on this planet but until scientists are able to recreate that magical primordial ooze, we'll just have to politely (hopefully some of us anyway) agree to disagree.

By denying Darwinian evolution you are denying our own ability to eventually come up with an answer. Admittedly, Darwin was working on evidence from prior generations but it's been not even been 150 years since The Origin of Species was published. Is that enough time to definitively say that he is wrong? Personally, I don't think so.

In the human's finite mind, it does seem inconceivable there is a higher power that created this world we live in. And there's no way you can state with 100% certainty that God does not exist. If you can say that, then prove it to all of us. However, I think you mean more that you are 100% against any admission there is a higher power.

Denying Darwin has nothing to do with coming up with an answer. What it does deny is the thought we stemmed from billions (or is it millions) of years of evolving from some sort of cell.

[Ugg]

In the human's finite mind, it does seem inconceivable there is a higher power that created this world we live in. And there's no way you can state with 100% certainty that God does not exist. If you can say that, then prove it to all of us. However, I think you mean more that you are 100% against any admission there is a higher power.

Denying Darwin has nothing to do with coming up with an answer. What it does deny is the thought we stemmed from billions (or is it millions) of years of evolving from some sort of cell.

You're absolutely right, I cannot prove the lack of a god or a higher power but to a believer their only proof is their faith. My faith in my belief is based not only on science but what I see around me. The glory that is nature is way too incredible to be attributable to anything other than chance. I live in an incredibly beautiful and unique part of the world and all I have to do is look outside and see the diversity that has ebbed and flowed throughout the millenia to realize that what is here was designed here for here.

IMO, too many people base their beliefs on heresay. A bunch of ancient stories, the opinions of the power hungry and those who claim to know it all are no substitute for what my own senses tell me.

Just as I cannot disprove the existence of some higher power neither can I prove that we sprang from that primordial ooze. I do believe in science and the collective power of human minds and I do believe that someday the puzzle will be put together. Unlike so many I don't feel that the question has to be decided now.

It took 1859 years after your god was born (although, of course, there is no proof of when he was born exactly :D ) before Darwin came up with his theory. Who's to say that it won't take another 1859 years before we find a real answer? Too many people put too much weight on our current level of development as a species. It seems the "End Times" people are much more likely to believe that we have learned as much as we can about the world and declare the battle over so they can concentrate on being enraptured. Don't you think it's silly to stop all scientific research in its tracks just because a few people have supposedly found a few holes in Darwin's theory? That, to me would be the ultimate in human folly.

[solvs]

I have a problem with evolution as it is taught as fact
If taught properly, it is taught as theory. One which is ever changing and evolving in pursuit of truth. ID is simply faith. Nothing wrong with having a little faith, I have some myself, but it cannot be the end all be all because there is always more to discover. That's why God gave us brains (I guess). Besides, God is an idea which (as you even said), we cannot even begin to understand. So why try to define it as fact when it is clearly not even theory? Merely a belief system.

And, to even the atheists, why do the 2 have to be mutually exclusive. I believe in (some kind of) God. I believe in (some forms of) science. I believe I could be wrong. Why does everyone have to be so absolutely positive of things that aren't absolutes... even if our tiny brains could understand it all?

[solvs]

It seems the "End Times" people are much more likely to believe that we have learned as much as we can about the world and declare the battle over so they can concentrate on being enraptured.
That doesn't happen until 2012. ;)

[dops7107]

Where to start. Fascinating discussion and I think most of the points have been made already.

I am a molecular biologist, and I see the complexity of living things. Complexity per se is no argument against evolution any more than it is an argument for ID. What one side is saying is that since evolution cannot currently explain all the living variation about is, it must be false, and therefore the (only?) alternative, God and his ID, must be true. This very logic is flawed.

I work on the genetics of chloroplast development. I see shared, conserved genes and developmental processes across diverse plant taxa, and by and large genes correlate strongly with the acepted evolutionary tree. Plants are amazing things, which I think most people would accept are non-sentient organisms from the point of view of having a mind/CNS like animals. Can any creationist/IDer explain why plants have sex?

EDIT - Oh, and have a look at this (no evidence indeed... :rolleyes: ) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4552466.stm

[miloblithe]

Christianity states that you MUST love your brother more than yourself. To not do so is a direct violation of God's commandment. Science can never change the heart condition, only God can...Im living proof.

If you dont believe in God why do you care about the future of the human species?

Look, we're all glad that you've found a belief system that makes you believe that you're better people (or perhaps even act on those beliefs), but there are other ways to come to the conclusion that you should love your neighbor other than Jesus and are other reasons for caring about the future of the human species other than god.

Sometimes believing in God can get in the way of caring for people or the future of humanity:

1) Suffering of the guiltless does not matter because their reward will be in heaven.

2) The future of humanity (in the face of say, environmental collapse or war) does not matter because the end of days will soon be upon us.

[takao]

EDIT - Oh, and have a look at this (no evidence indeed... :rolleyes: ) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4552466.stm

i guess most people who go on and on about "there is no evidence" are simply to lazy to start looking at the news of the last 50 years or so..

*grasp* i still rember the exaple of the butterfly thing in england who changed their color from white to brown because most birchs on which they mainly lived became covered with carbon dust from the factories
since the white color wasn't a camoflague anymore the color changed and now there are both dark and white of them

edit: at least the catholic church accepts evolution .. i guess their bible scholars aren't that good as they should when they accept such a "lie" ;) :rolleyes:

[Blue Velvet]

What I find extraordinarily laughable about 'intelligent design' and its proponents, is the inevitable insistence that the only alternative model to reality is based on Christian beliefs and its pathetically inconsistent creation myths.

Show me a supporter of 'intelligent design' — as it understood in the context of contemporary education — who is a Buddhist.

[pseudobrit]

So can you prove anything about evolution?

Has there ever been a transition-form discovered?

I have a problem with evolution as it is taught as fact, and it is definately far from fact. I work in this feild of research and I am amazed how many incredibly well respected scientists have been falling away from the FAITH of evolution..one by one...

I have heard this argument, almost verbatim, from the stock ID playbook. It's been in letters to the editor.

So, anyone on here a real scientist? I would suspect most of you are force fed evolution zombies with no real idea of what you really have been taught...

Ironic that your argument is the only one I've seen that sounds so strikingly familiar...
Zombie?

By the way, Ive been at this work for 27 years, so please bring something to the table with a bit more meat on it than the above pitiful excuse for putting down Intelligent design...

You see so little about the human body's design because you are speck of sand looking at the shoreline trying to explain the map of the world...you dont know jack

And neither do you, so why the **** should I listen to you, eh?

The field of science has an answer -- accepted as scientific fact -- for nearly every question we humans could have. There is very little that isn't explained. So you can't very well be a scientific researcher by explaining how birds fly or why the apple falls to the earth or how X-rays work.

So scientists make a name for themselves disproving the accepted facts. They'll spend a lifetime disproving something that was common knowledge for decades. Any scientist knows this.

If you really want to attack the theory of evolution, go ahead. But when you start in with disingenous arguments about the origins of life (a matter entirely separate from evolution) and asking where the noses that don't point down are (like mice or birds have), it's clear that you're not here to debate the theory of evolution at all.

You're here to invoke the name of Christ, which is heresy. Or maybe God told you all about his intelligent designing in a vision, which is schizophrenia.

I call BS on your credentials. There's no way what you study makes you an expert on evolution.

[Lacero]

Haven't read the thread...

Although I'm not particularly religious, I believe in creation. I believe a god or supreme being created us and we didn't just come to be. Nothing can explain our spirituality and the neurons that fire inside our brain that causes us to be aware.

What the hell does that make me...

Anyway, continue on...


Here's to the Crazy Ones http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=35452 (http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/movies/think-different.mov)

[pseudobrit]

I can see you know nothing of something like...ooohh....the complexity of the hair on your head... something I specialize in

my degree's in science.

But do you specialise in hair? I mean, have you seen the irreducible complexity of a human hair??? Only God could have created the hair on our heads! It's unlike anything else in the universe!

[pseudobrit]

In the human's finite mind, it does seem inconceivable there is a higher power that created this world we live in. And there's no way you can state with 100% certainty that God does not exist. If you can say that, then prove it to all of us. However, I think you mean more that you are 100% against any admission there is a higher power.

Denying Darwin has nothing to do with coming up with an answer. What it does deny is the thought we stemmed from billions (or is it millions) of years of evolving from some sort of cell.

Oh yeah? Let's revisit this:

In the human's finite mind

How do you propose the human finite mind should understand when, how, why and where or whether the infinite mind of God had a hand in our coming to be?

We can understand the world around us. We can accept that the tools we were given and the observations we make are as close to the mind of God we'll ever get.

Science seeks to understand what we can observe in our finite world with our finite senses using our finite computing abilities.

Religion seeks to understand what is beyond our senses and comprehension.

What is beyond science and beyond human comprehension is where God lies. Just because science took away Genesis (one of the only parts of the Bible that so blatantly tries to explain the finite: how the observable world came to be) doesn't mean God's being squeezed out of our world.

[BakedBeans]

Only God could have created the hair on our heads! It's unlike anything else in the universe!


Lol are you serious? ONLY god indeed

[aquajet]

Im sorry, but I do not see your point at all. That four paragraph statement is just about the most level-headed thing I have read all year.

Sarcasm my friend. ;)

I find it truly absurd that some people are so uncomfortable with that statement that a federal court had to intervene. Is it really such a grave sin to merely mention the words "creation" or "intelligent design" or :gasp: "God" in a science classroom? To tell students "hey, just in case you're interested in another point of view, here's a book about intelligent design you can check out on your own, but we won't talk about it here because it's inappropriate" -- because that's essentially what that statement is telling students.

[pseudobrit]

Sarcasm my friend. ;)

I find it truly absurd that some people are so uncomfortable with that statement that a federal court had to intervene. Is it really such a grave sin to merely mention the words "creation" or "intelligent design" or :gasp: "God" in a science classroom? To tell students "hey, just in case you're interested in another point of view, here's a book about intelligent design you can check out on your own, but we won't talk about it here because it's inappropriate" -- because that's essentially what that statement is telling students.

It's not a sin, but it is a blatant violation of the Constitutional prohibition of establishment of religion.

Would you be okay with an athiestic teacher telling students in a science class to check out a book on how science proves there is no God?
I mean, what harm would it do to expand their views?

[aquajet]

It's not a sin, but it is a blatant violation of the Constitutional prohibition of establishment of religion.

Clearly you are as blind as the most radical religious zealot. For a school teacher to utter the word "God" is unconstitutional? That's absurd, and a perversion of the First Amendment.

Would you be okay with an athiestic teacher telling students in a science class to check out a book on how science proves there is no God?
I mean, what harm would it do to expand their views?

Yes.

[pseudobrit]

Clearly you are as blind as the most radical religious zealot. For a school teacher to utter the word "God" is unconstitutional? That's absurd, and a perversion of the First Amendment.

Straw man. Who said anything about just "utter[ing] the word God"? We're talking about a carefully constructed set of phrases from a group with an intent to impose their particular orthodoxy onto the public at large. That is strictly prohibited by the First Amendment's establishment clause.

Funny you should call me blind as a zealot, because the Supreme Court that established this "perversion of the First Amendment" is much wiser than you could ever hope to be.


And to continue ad absurdum: since you approve of the athiest teacher rejecting God, would you approve of a Pastafarian pushing the FSM on their students?

[aquajet]

Straw man. Who said anything about just "utter[ing] the word God"? We're talking about a carefully constructed set of phrases from a group with an intent to impose their particular orthodoxy onto the public at large. That is strictly prohibited by the First Amendment's establishment clause.

Please read the First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Explain to me how the Dover statement conflicts with this?

Funny you should call me blind as a zealot, because the Supreme Court that established this "perversion of the First Amendment" is much wiser than you could ever hope to be.

Right, like we really need a federal judge to tell us "yep, ID really has it's roots in religion and creationism" well duhhhh....

And to continue ad absurdum: since you approve of the athiest teacher rejecting God, would you approve of a Pastafarian pushing the FSM on their students?

:rolleyes:
I have no trouble with any teacher who represents a world religion recommending a particular book to their students who are interested in learning more about it. I do not support any teacher evangelizing students in the classroom, which is very different from what the Dover statement attempted to do.

[pseudobrit]

Please read the First Amendment



Explain to me how the Dover statement conflicts with this?

Having briefly touched upon the salient legal framework, it is evident that as the cases and controversies have evolved over time, so too has the methodology that courts employ in evaluating Establishment Clause claims. We initially observe that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” U.S. Const. amend. I. The prohibition against the establishment of religion applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Modrovich v. Allegheny County, 385 F.3d 397, 400 (3d Cir. 2004); see also Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 49-50 (1985). The parties are in agreement that an applicable test in the case sub judice to ascertain whether the challenged ID Policy is unconstitutional under the First Amendment is that of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), (hereinafter “the Lemon test”). See Edwards, 482 U.S. 578 (applying Lemon test to strike down Louisiana’s “Creationism Act”); see also Epperson, 393 U.S. 97 (considering the purpose and the primary effect of an Arkansas statute forbidding the teaching of evolution in public schools). Defendants, however, object to using the endorsement test, first arguing that it applies only to religious-display cases and most recently asserting that it applies to limited Establishment Clause cases, including a policy or practice in question that involves: a facially religious display, an overtly religious group or organization using government facilities, the provision of public funding or government resources to overly religious groups engaged in religious activity, or the permission of an overtly religious practice. After a searching review of Supreme Court and Third Circuit Court of Appeals precedent, it is apparent to this Court that both the endorsement test and the Lemon test should be employed in this case to analyze the constitutionality of the ID Policy under the Establishment Clause, for the reasons that follow. Since a majority of the Supreme Court first implemented the endorsement test in County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989), the Supreme Court and the Third Circuit have consistently applied the test to all types of Establishment Clause cases, notably cases involving religion in public-school settings. In Santa Fe Independent Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), the Supreme Court applied the endorsement test to school-sponsored prayer at high school football games. In Santa Fe, the Supreme Court clearly defined the endorsement test by noting that “[i]n cases involving state participation in a religious activity, one of the relevant questions is ‘whether an objective observer, acquainted with the text, legislative history, and implementation of the statute, would perceive it as a state endorsement of prayer in public schools.’” Id. at 308. The Supreme Court then provided a more concrete explanation of how the test functions in the public-school context, explaining that:
School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherents ‘that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.’
Id. at 309-10 (quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 688 (1984) (O’Connor, J., concurring)). In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, 652-53 (2002), the Supreme Court applied the endorsement test to a school-voucher program. In Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98, 118-19 (2001), the Supreme Court applied the test to a school district’s policy regarding a religious student club meeting on school property. In Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793 (2000), and Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997), the Supreme Court applied the test to programs providing governmental aid to parochial schools. In Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 841-42 (1995), the Supreme Court applied the endorsement test to a public university’s policy regarding funding a religious student newspaper.

link (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_5:_promoting_religion)

Right, like we really need a federal judge to tell us "yep, ID really has it's roots in religion and creationism" well duhhhh.....

That is not what the Court found. It found the school to be in violation of the First Amendment.

[IJ Reilly]

I do not support any teacher evangelizing students in the classroom, which is very different from what the Dover statement attempted to do.

On the contrary, evangelism is precisely what the judge determined was occurring in this school district -- that the statement had the intended purpose of promoting a particular religious faith. The judge allowed that there might even be a place in schools for discussing creation ideas such as ID, just not in science classes.

[pseudobrit]

I have no trouble with any teacher who represents a world religion recommending a particular book to their students who are interested in learning more about it. I do not support any teacher evangelizing students in the classroom, which is very different from what the Dover statement attempted to do.

You're right, the Dover case involved the school board using stickers to proselytize to the entire student body.

[leekohler]

On the contrary, evangelism is precisely what the judge determined was occurring in this school district -- that the statement had the intended purpose of promoting a particular religious faith. The judge allowed that there might even be a place in schools for discussing creation ideas such as ID, just not in science classes.

Thank you IJ- truly a voice of reason. ID is NOT science aquajet! Discuss it in philosophy class.

[pseudobrit]

On the contrary, evangelism is precisely what the judge determined was occurring in this school district -- that the statement had the intended purpose of promoting a particular religious faith. The judge allowed that there might even be a place in schools for discussing creation ideas such as ID, just not in science classes.

Much in the way we don't discuss Hercules or Odin in history classes.

[pseudobrit]

Funny thing is, I know exactly where aquajet was heading before I dropped Jones' decision on him like a ton of bricks -- he was going to say that the First Amendment prohibited Congress from establishing religion. And as this was clearly not a Congressional, federal law, Dover should be free to do as they please.

But precedent and law rule the day, as Jones' very succinct (for legalese, anyway) explanation cuts cleanly to the juicy insides of this Trojan Horse.

[tpjunkie]

Seriously, I've begun equating ID'ers with members of the Flat earth society, arguing blindly in their beliefs that go against all observed and observable facts. Their arguments are circular and they cite "examples" that for the most part, they don't understand, and insist that these "examples" completely break evolutionary theory.

Please, some ID proponent out there, give me a REAL example of something that proves either there was an "intelligent designer" (noodly appendages and all :) ) or that evolution is an incorrect theory. I'm serious. Give me one example of either.

[IJ Reilly]

Much in the way we don't discuss Hercules or Odin in history classes.

You mean these people didn't exist? I'm crushed. The stories about them must be meaningless then.

Back in high school, we had an entire semester (IIRC) devoted to comparative religions. It was my first exposure to the beliefs of Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Confucianism, and Pantheism. Of course the "big two" were also included. I suspect this educational concept would be regarded as too "PC" for today's Christian evangelists, though. Nothing should be allowed to compare to Christianity, the One True Faith.

The Christian evangelist's agenda is always hidden in plain sight. I think it was quite brave of the judge to see through this in the Dover case. For some reason, saying what everybody really already knows about evangelism seems to require courage.

[aquajet]

That is not what the Court found. It found the school to be in violation of the First Amendment.

Yes it is what the court found as an argument for its findings.

On the contrary, evangelism is precisely what the judge determined was occurring in this school district -- that the statement had the intended purpose of promoting a particular religious faith. The judge allowed that there might even be a place in schools for discussing creation ideas such as ID, just not in science classes.

And that's unfortunate. All I can say is that I don't perceive the Dover statement as evangelizing or forcing anything on anyone.

Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, 'Of Pandas and People,' is available in the library along with other resources for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

It seems to me that this statement is trying to open the minds of children and encourage them to explore other possible explanations for our origin. It doesn't require students to study ID, it merely suggests to students that, if you're curious, check out this book. There is no discussion in the class about ID.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.

And, of course, it ultimately leaves the decision up to the family.

Thank you IJ- truly a voice of reason. ID is NOT science aquajet! Discuss it in philosophy class.

I never claimed it was, leekohler. I'm just suggesting that, in a class that examines the origin of life, that maybe we could just briefly mention other explanations, and encourage students to examine and study them on their own (because a thorough discussion of ID in a science class is inappropriate) and come to their own conclusions. I think it's wrong for a public institution to force any belief on children.

[IJ Reilly]

Yes it is what the court found as an argument for its findings.

Wait, are you now claiming that the judge manufactured a rationale for his ruling? That's a very strong charge.

[aquajet]

Funny thing is, I know exactly where aquajet was heading before I dropped Jones' decision on him like a ton of bricks -- he was going to say that the First Amendment prohibited Congress from establishing religion. And as this was clearly not a Congressional, federal law, Dover should be free to do as they please..

Don't put words in my mouth. I never suggested that Dover should be free to do as they please.

The reason why the Constitution prohibits the establishment of a religion is to prevent people from being marginalized in society, much like the way the first settlers in this country were persecuted and marginalized in England for their beliefs. To suggest that the Dover statement is entirely inappropriate based upon this law is a perversion of why it was established.

[aquajet]

Wait, are you now claiming that the judge manufactured a rationale for his ruling? That's a very strong charge.

Are you suggesting that I think he pulled it out of thin air? I'm confused at what you mean. It was a rationale, valid and true.

[miloblithe]

The reason why the Constitution prohibits the establishment of a religion is to prevent people from being marginalized in society, much like the way the first settlers in this country were persecuted and marginalized in England for their beliefs. To suggest that the Dover statement is entirely inappropriate based upon this law is a perversion of why it was established.

Can people other than Christian groups be marginalized in American society?

[aquajet]

Can people other than Christian groups be marginalized in American society?

Of course...as a queer, I'm often marginalized in American society. Where are you going with this?

[aquajet]

You're right, the Dover case involved the school board using stickers to proselytize to the entire student body.

No, it didn't. You're thinking of a different case:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6434725/

[miloblithe]

Of course...as a queer, I'm often marginalized in American society. Where are you going with this?

Just that non-Christian groups can feel marginalized when our education system takes a time-out to promote Christianity (and no one, anywhere, can seriously argue that ID is not a theory forumlated around compatibility with Christian cosmology).

[IJ Reilly]

Are you suggesting that I think he pulled it out of thin air? I'm confused at what you mean. It was a rationale, valid and true.

From your wording, it sounds like you are suggesting that the judge began with the premise that he didn't like what the school district was doing and then manufactured a rationale for overruling it. This would be an inverted application of the law.

[aquajet]

Just that non-Christian groups can feel marginalized when our education system takes a time-out to promote Christianity (and no one, anywhere, can seriously argue that ID is not a theory forumlated around compatibility with Christian cosmology).

And that's unfortunate too, because I don't think the short interlude that is the Dover statement was ever intended that way, and anybody who feels seriously threatened by the Dover statement really needs to lighten up. It's hardly the equivalent of listening to, oh let's say, a sermon by Fred Phelps. If you are truly secure in the belief of your origin, then just let it go when someone else thinks different.

[aquajet]

From your wording, it sounds like you are suggesting that the judge began with the premise that he didn't like what the school district was doing and then manufactured a rationale for overruling it. This would be an inverted application of the law.

Well, maybe it is true, but unlikely considering he is a Bush appointee. I think it's more likely that he realized the controversy surrounding this debate, and sided with the precendent set by the Supreme Court to avoid further controversy. Which is unfortunate, because I think it hinders our society from becoming more diverse.

[leekohler]

Well, maybe it is true, but unlikely considering he is a Bush appointee. I think it's more likely that he realized the controversy surrounding this debate, and sided with the precendent set by the Supreme Court to avoid further controversy. Which is unfortunate, because I think it hinders our society from becoming more diverse.

So- let me get this straight: discussing non-scientific (actually religious) ideology is OK with you in science class? So, should I also expect Math to be discussed in English class? I don't think anyone here is saying that ID can't be talked about in school, just that it doesn't belong in science class. I don't see anything wrong with that.

[miloblithe]

And that's unfortunate too, because I don't think the short interlude that is the Dover statement was ever intended that way, and anybody who feels seriously threatened by the Dover statement really needs to lighten up. It's hardly the equivalent of listening to, oh let's say, a sermon by Fred Phelps. If you are truly secure in the belief of your origin, then just let it go when someone else thinks different.

The Dover statement was intended to promote ID, which is an idea formulated specifically for the purpose of promoting creationism in ways that curcumvent the law. The fact that the Dover School Board sought out the legal advice of two conservative think tanks whose purpose includes the promotion of Christian values and ID months before they added the statement to the curriculum proves this.

There is a difference between plausible deniability and truth. It's sad to see "Christian" groups adhering to the lower standard.

[Ugg]

So- let me get this straight: discussing non-scientific (actually religious) ideology is OK with you in science class? So, should I also expect Math to be discussed in English class? I don't think anyone here is saying that ID can't be talked about in school, just that it doesn't belong in science class. I don't see anything wrong with that.

I agree, there's no scientific evidence whatsoever to back up ID. It's a matter of belief or faith but not science. ID, if it deserves a place at the table, should be in philosophy classes, not science classes. Somehow aquajet feels otherwise. ID doesn't even have the status as a theory and until science proves otherwise, it never will.

Once again, aqua, ID is not science.

[zimv20]

But do you specialise in hair? I mean, have you seen the irreducible complexity of a human hair??? Only God could have created the hair on our heads! It's unlike anything else in the universe!
i specialize in computers. i've been using them and studying them for 25 years now.

now let me tell you about computers. they've evolved. they've become an order of magnitude more complex just in the last 25 years. it's amazing, the way all the parts work together, how the whole is greater than the sum.

i'm convinced that they did not do this on their own. i believe there is a guiding hand behind it all. a computer designer, if you will.

science has no place in computers.

[aquajet]

So- let me get this straight: discussing non-scientific (actually religious) ideology is OK with you in science class? So, should I also expect Math to be discussed in English class? I don't think anyone here is saying that ID can't be talked about in school, just that it doesn't belong in science class. I don't see anything wrong with that.

No...please read my previous post again, and the Dover statement for that matter. I do not think it's appropriate to make ID a part of science cicurriculum, and by that I mean to openly discuss it in a science class. I think you all are confusing me for someone who is promoting ID, which I'm not. I'm just suggesting that people have an open mind. I don't believe the Dover statement is openly evangelizing ID (or at all, really) on the same level that one sits in a church and listens to a sermon. I don't feel there is a problem with the following situation in a highschool biology class (which is, essentially, what this Dover case is about):

Welcome students. In this class, we're going to learn about evolution. Now because evolution doesn't explain everything, here's a book with a different point of view. Feel free to check it out from the library, if you are interested, but of course, you don't have to if you don't want to, because ID doesn't meet the standards-based curriculum of this course. Now, let's learn about evolution.

I think that those who think ideas about ID and God and whatever else are nonsense are allowing their own personal atheistic beliefs to hinder finding the answers to life (and BTW, for many people, this "nonsense" explains more about their existance than anything else, just like, I assume, you believe evolution explains your existance)

[Blue Velvet]

i specialize in computers. i've been using them and studying them for 25 years now.

now let me tell you about computers. they've evolved. they've become an order of magnitude more complex just in the last 25 years. it's amazing, the way all the parts work together, how the whole is greater than the sum.

i'm convinced that they did not do this on their own. i believe there is a guiding hand behind it all. a computer designer, if you will.

science has no place in computers.



How does an unrelated analogy demonstrate evidence of or for anything?
Edit: Think I misunderstood you. :rolleyes:

[IJ Reilly]

Once again, aqua, ID is not science.

In reality, it is an open war against science itself, against the entire idea that human beings can use their large brains to gain knowledge about the universe and how it works through observation and analysis, or in ways other than how it is explained in scripture. The IDers will never admit as much, because they are as much creatures of the modern world as anyone else on the planet, but they are lined up foursquare against the last 400 years of human endeavor.

[zimv20]

Welcome students. In this class, we're going to learn about evolution. Now because evolution doesn't explain everything, here's a book with a different point of view. Feel free to check it out from the library, if you are interested, but of course, you don't have to if you don't want to, because ID doesn't meet the standards-based curriculum of this course. Now, let's learn about evolution.
no, i still don't think that's appropriate. in a literature class, then why not say, "this semester we're studying Elizabethan-era poetry. but since that doesn't cover all art, feel free to go look at jesus statues."?

i'll make my previous point again: it's a fallacy to equate science and religion by saying they both strive to find pure truth. what's taught in the science classroom are theories and hypotheses that adhere to the scientific method, and the scientific method itself. creationism (and its marketing term, I.D.) do not adhere to the scientific method, and therefore have no place in a science classroom.

[zimv20]

How does an unrelated analogy demonstrate evidence of or for anything?
i was hoping it would demonstrate evidence of my being a humorist. or an asshole, either one.

[Blue Velvet]

i was hoping it would demonstrate evidence of my being a humorist. or an asshole, either one.

See my edit. :)

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by aquajet

"Welcome students. In this class, we're going to learn about evolution. Now because evolution doesn't explain everything, here's a book with a different point of view. Feel free to check it out from the library, if you are interested, but of course, you don't have to if you don't want to, because ID doesn't meet the standards-based curriculum of this course. Now, let's learn about evolution."

Again, what you're missing is this- ID is not science. ID is philosophy. Why mention it in science class? I don't get your point.

[miloblithe]

The history teacher in my wife's home town (small town Michigan) started every year with a brief little statement too. Holding a Bible he would say, "everything you'll ever need to know about history can be found in this book."

Then he'd proceed with the curriculum.

In reality, community standards determine these kinds of little asides. You can get away with this in a town where most people won't object. However, you cannot legislate it into the curriculum, as the Dover folks tried, because that is against the law.

[aquajet]

In reality, it is an open war against science itself...

To some extent, I agree. And just like IDers, atheists wage a war against God.

no, i still don't think that's appropriate. in a literature class, then why not say, "this semester we're studying Elizabethan-era poetry. but since that doesn't cover all art, feel free to go look at jesus statues."?

That's a poor analogy. The debate surrounding Dover seeks to answer a specific question. No literature class I've ever taken strove to answer such a specific question.

[zimv20]

See my edit. :)
:)

[zimv20]

That's a poor analogy. The debate surrounding Dover seeks to answer a specific question. No literature class I've ever taken strove to answer such a specific question.
i was striving to demonstrate the irrelevance i see of mentioning creationism in a science classroom. seems i've succeeded on some level.

[aquajet]

Again, what you're missing is this- ID is not science. ID is philosophy. Why mention it in science class? I don't get your point.

Well, sorry you don't understand my point of view. I certainly understand yours, but in a course that examines such a profound question as the origin of life (evolution), why not suggest that students examine other possibilities? Besides, the Dover policy never sought to actually study ID in the classroom.

[zimv20]

To some extent, I agree. And just like IDers, atheists wage a war against God.

really? the only "war" i see is to correct trangressions of the first amendment, such as removing 10 commandment monuments from court buildings and keeping creationism out of the science classroom.

do you have examples of organized atheists attacking christianity* that fall outside of first amendment concerns?

* or by "God" did you mean other religions, too?

[zimv20]

in a course that examines such a profound question as the origin of life (evolution), why not suggest that students examine other possibilities?
how much of these so-called "evolution classes" are actually concerned w/ origins, rather than the process?

fwiw, i've never taken an "evolution class". has anyone here taken one?

[aquajet]

The history teacher in my wife's home town (small town Michigan) started every year with a brief little statement too. Holding a Bible he would say, "everything you'll ever need to know about history can be found in this book."

Then he'd proceed with the curriculum..

That's a very different situation than the debate surrounding Dover. That statement openly evangelizes Christianity, and states that everything else is nonsense. The Dover statement never conveyed such a blatent bias against anything other that ID.

[miloblithe]

That's a very different situation than the debate surrounding Dover. That statement openly evangelizes Christianity, and states that everything else is nonsense. The Dover statement never conveyed such a blatent bias against anything other that ID.

No, it's much more subtle (and therefore plausibly legal), but the intent is exactly the same.

[floyde]

I think that those who think ideas about ID and God and whatever else are nonsense are allowing their own personal atheistic beliefs to hinder finding the answers to life (and BTW, for many people, this "nonsense" explains more about their existance than anything else, just like, I assume, you believe evolution explains your existance)

Yes, but they have the right to do that, don't they? If religious people feel that the rest of us are missing out on all this "meaning" then I'm sorry but there's nothing you can do about it. I feel the same way about religious people missing out on science, but you won't see me trying to force my beliefs into a catechism class.

[IJ Reilly]

To some extent, I agree. And just like IDers, atheists wage a war against God.

Ah, no, I think atheists just don't believe in God. Everyone is entitled to believe as they will, but they are not entitled to force that belief into a public school curriculum.

[aquajet]

really? the only "war" i see is to correct trangressions of the first amendment, such as removing 10 commandment monuments from court buildings and keeping creationism out of the science classroom.

do you have examples of organized atheists attacking christianity* that fall outside of first amendment concerns?

* or by "God" did you mean other religions, too?

Well, at least the atheist friends I have are willing to openly squash any ideas surrounding Christianity or God.

* yes

[aquajet]

Ah, no, I think atheists just don't believe in God. Everyone is entitled to believe as they will, but they are not entitled to force that belief into a public school curriculum.

I think it's silly to think ID was part of the curriculum because it was never meant to be discussed in biology classes. Of Pandas and People and the study of ID was never required reading either, and as such, it's silly to think IDers were trying to force their beliefs on anyone.

However, miloblithe's example above is clearly an attempt to force one's beliefs on another. I don't gather IDers intent, based on their statement, sought to do that.

[IJ Reilly]

I think it's silly to think ID was part of the curriculum because it was never meant to be discussed in biology classes. Of Pandas and People and the study of ID was never required reading either, and as such, it's silly to think IDers were trying to force their beliefs on anyone.

But the statement was mandatory, so yes, they were attempting to force this decidedly theological concept into the science classrooms of their district.

[aquajet]

But the statement was mandatory, so yes, they were attempting to force this decidedly theological concept into the science classrooms of their district.

Well, I don't see it that way. It was merely a statement that another idea exists, but never required students to actually study it.

[thedude110]

And just like IDers, atheists wage a war against God.


Get real.

As a proud, card carrying atheist, I'm not waging any war against your god.

You go, you worship, that's great.

Me, why would I worship when there are so many poems to read? That's also great.

While we all want students to pursue alternatives to accepted theory, do we need to steer students in a distinctly theological direction in this pursuit? How does this teach them to become better scientists? Better thinkers in the world? And why only challenge evolution? Shouldn't we be providing vast reading lists that demonstrate every alternative to accepted scientific theories? As has been stated over and over in this thread, nothing is proven in science -- everything is simply not unproven as yet.

God. There are so many ways to help students become skeptical and critical thinkers that don't ask them to accept monotheism as a foundational fact ...

[IJ Reilly]

Well, I don't see it that way. It was merely a statement that another idea exists, but never required students to actually study it.

You are free to think so, but that's not the way the judge saw it after weeks of trial and after reviewing the evidence presented by both sides.

[leekohler]

Well, I don't see it that way. It was merely a statement that another idea exists, but never required students to actually study it.

But nonetheless, a statement that a teacher would have been FORCED to make.

[trebblekicked]

if they want teachers to explain how evolution doesn't explain everything, i have a counter-proposal:

we reframe the rest of the curriculum to show how ID doesn't explain anything. the teacher should keep a bulleted list of evidence for both, compare and contrast the strength of each against that day's lesson, and at the end of the semester, let kids decide which one makes more sense.

i can't think of a faster, more painful death for intelligent design than this.

[aquajet]

Get real.

As a proud, card carrying atheist, I'm not waging any war against your god.

You go, you worship, that's great.



You get real. Please don't ruin this interesting discussion with such a negative tone. Thanks...

And of course, not all atheists wage war against "my" God (BTW, read the thread, I'm not religious and I never claimed to believe in God), just like not all religious people wage war against Atheism. I'm sorry you perceived it that way.

God. There are so many ways to help students become skeptical and critical thinkers that don't ask them to accept monotheism as a foundational fact ...

Let's make another circle :) I don't see where the Dover statement asked to accept anything. It merely mentioned another point of view, and recommended a book for students to read if they are interested, and the decision was ultimately one that should be discussed and decided with your family.

[miloblithe]

I just find this whole issue cowardly.

Why can't people who promote ID admit that they Christian creationists and want children to learn creationism?

aquajet, look into the history of ID if you really have any doubt that its purpose and intent is to promote creationism.

[aquajet]

I just find this whole issue cowardly.

Why can't people who promote ID admit that they Christian creationists and want children to learn creationism?

aquajet, look into the history of ID if you really have any doubt that its purpose and intent is to promote creationism.

Well of course some IDers would like to promote their ideas. Some religious people would like to force it, some talk about it only with those who are interested, and some would rather not talk about it (probably to avoid controversies like this). I think this case applies to the middle, and I believe it's reasonable.

[miloblithe]

But why can't they be honest and straight forward and promote Christianity and creationism? Why go through this whole cowardly, dishonest nonsense?

[IJ Reilly]

But why can't they be honest and straight forward and promote Christianity and creationism? Why go through this whole cowardly, dishonest nonsense?

Is this meant as a rhetorical question? The judge in the case had a thing or two to say about this.

[takao]

what ? still no "this thread won't die" picture ? ;)

[pseudobrit]

Open question to aquajet:

What specific part of Jones' ruling was flawed?

Cite it. I want to know where you're thinking he misinterpreted a case and why.

I'm Christian, BTW, and I don't want religion in my government anymore than I want government in my religion.

Fools forget that once you knock that wall down, traffic can flow in both directions.

[zimv20]

qtip's done a hit 'n' run. shocking.

[aquajet]

qtip's done a hit 'n' run. shocking.

I sent a PM. I'm curious as to why he/she thinks evolution is a lie. Hopefully qtip will return soon.

[tpjunkie]

I hope so. The statement I posed in my last post stands, I was hoping he would try to address it.

[mactastic]

So because evolution can't prove everything we need to allow an ID statement just to 'let kids know there's an alternative'?

How about all the other 'alternatives'? How many creation myths should we mention in science class? All of them? Just ID? And where is my damn Turtolitarianism? I think the world rests on the back of a giant turtle, and I think kids in science class should know that.

[pseudobrit]

So because evolution can't prove everything we need to allow an ID statement just to 'let kids know there's an alternative'?

How about all the other 'alternatives'? How many creation myths should we mention in science class? All of them? Just ID? And where is my damn Turtolitarianism? I think the world rests on the back of a giant turtle, and I think kids in science class should know that.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism) is where ID leads us. Wholesale rejection of science.

Yay! Let's get stupid!

[IJ Reilly]

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism) is where ID leads us. Wholesale rejection of science.

Yay! Let's get stupid!

How charmingly medieval.

[zimv20]

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism) is where ID leads us. Wholesale rejection of science.

Yay! Let's get stupid!
allow me some latitude on interpretation...

seems to me that, according to this view, the earth being the center of the universe is a Good Thing. further, that being closer to the center is Even Better.

if so, then wouldn't the center of the earth be the best place of all to be? and would that, in fact, be the lowest level of hell?

[trebblekicked]

allow me some latitude on interpretation...

seems to me that, according to this view, the earth being the center of the universe is a Good Thing. further, that being closer to the center is Even Better.

wow. flashes of voltaire. creepy.

[AP_piano295]

Sooo what do people even learn when being taught about intelligent desighn?

teacher*class god created in the world in seven days, dinasaurs are funny shaped rocks the end...

Im not trying to be sarcastic I just dont understand what were supposed to learn about intelligent desighn. Arguing with people in school they never give reasons that intelligent desighn is possible, they just tell me how evolution is wrong.

So my question is what do we learn about intelligent desighn... how evolution is wrong?

[zimv20]

wow. flashes of voltaire. creepy.
ah, how i wish i could say that's what i was going for. to which of his works do you refer?

[trebblekicked]

ah, how i wish i could say that's what i was going for. to which of his works do you refer?

it wasn't very direct, but the phrasing reminded me of professor pangloss in candide:

"once one dismisses the rest of all possible worlds one knows that this is the best of all possible worlds."

extrapolating a supposition, which seems to be at the "center" of the ID philosophy (no callback intended).

[solvs]

So because evolution can't prove everything we need to allow an ID statement just to 'let kids know there's an alternative'?
But therein lies the problem. They don't want to fill the holes and gaps. They want to be the only answers (read as alternative), completely negating even the parts of evolution that make sense. Whereas science is, sort of ironically, searching for ways to fill those gaps and holes. I still don't see why they have to be mutually exclusive. You can believe in God and still believe in evolution. I guess you just can't be a fundamentalist taking the Christian Bible as gospel. But again, you don't have to throw out the baby with the bath water and say there is no God just because there are parts of the Bible(s) that don't make sense. ;)

[zimv20]

"once one dismisses the rest of all possible worlds one knows that this is the best of all possible worlds."

i like that.

[aquajet]

...I still don't see why they have to be mutually exclusive. You can believe in God and still believe in evolution. I guess you just can't be a fundamentalist taking the Christian Bible as gospel. But again, you don't have to throw out the baby with the bath water and say there is no God just because there are parts of the Bible(s) that don't make sense. ;)

Agreed.

[mj_1903]

Creationists and IDers tend to say "evolution is wrong!" and that something else must be right because of it.

As an Atheist, I agree with the former and disagree with the latter.

Evolution is, amazingly, evolving as we learn more and adapting towards perfection. At this exact moment in time it is wrong, because there are gaps in our knowledge. Tomorrow however it will be better and as time tends to infiniti it will close in on perfection. Most of the "holes" are based on fossil records that are incomplete mainly thanks to another amazing evolving machine, the earth. Fortunately scientific process in labs with everything from bacteria (superbugs anyone?) to fruit flies and flora shows evolution in progress and we can fill in those gaps.

On the other hand creationism and intelligent design can never evolve. If something is proven wrong, they must stand there as the sand gets washed out from under their feet. Changing something would be admitting imperfection, something which a christian "god" cannot be. (As a side note, many other religions worship imperfect gods, one of the reasons why polytheism was so fun). This is why faith is so important, they must believe in what was written thousands of years ago because it cannot change (well it can be 'mistranslated' as they like to say).

Currently nothing explains life better than evolution. When something comes along that does, be prepared for millions to jump ship. Unfortunately the massive amounts of historical and lab data that we have collected so far proves it right. In fact it is so right that I would wager to say that only gravity has been better proved. It is of course still a theory. :)

p.s. The analogy of a building appearing is so badly wrong. A building would be weathered over time so it cannot physically exist in the natural environment. Humans on the other hand can rebuild our damaged cells and keep our current form. Therefore something as complex as a human can exist in the wild while a building will eventually vanish (pyramids anyone?) or never exist as a standard object.

[mactastic]

I wouldn't say that evolution is 'wrong' just because we don't know everything about it yet. More like incomplete. I mean, if we said the theory of gravity is wrong because we don't fully understand it nobody would buy it, right?

There is another choice beyond 'right' and 'wrong'. And in the case of evolution in particular, like most of science there remains much to be discovered, but the general consensus is that we're moving in the right direction.

Which reminds me of something else...

"Right or wrong, black or white -- cross the line you're gonna pay/
In the dawn before the light, we live and die by shades of grey..."
--Robert Earl Keen

[mj_1903]

I wouldn't say that evolution is 'wrong' just because we don't know everything about it yet. More like incomplete. I mean, if we said the theory of gravity is wrong because we don't fully understand it nobody would buy it, right?

There is another choice beyond 'right' and 'wrong'. And in the case of evolution in particular, like most of science there remains much to be discovered, but the general consensus is that we're moving in the right direction.

Which reminds me of something else...

"Right or wrong, black or white -- cross the line you're gonna pay/
In the dawn before the light, we live and die by shades of grey..."
--Robert Earl Keen

Ah but Christianity is very black or white. The bible makes many mentions, including some from jesus, that you are either "with us or against us". There is even a parable about it.

I agree it is incomplete and I stated that, but in religious terms it is wrong but much less wrong than many other things.

[solvs]

Ah but Christianity is very black or white. The bible makes many mentions, including some from jesus, that you are either "with us or against us". There is even a parable about it.
But Christianity does not = religion. Even those who consider themselves followers of Jesus don't have to believe everything the Christian Bible says. Like Leviticus. You can't follow everything that Bible says anyway because it contradicts itself so much.

It just that the most vocal "Christians" (or Muslims, both are fundamentalists) are the ones that are out there spreading the hate.

[mactastic]

Ah but Christianity is very black or white. The bible makes many mentions, including some from jesus, that you are either "with us or against us". There is even a parable about it.

I agree it is incomplete and I stated that, but in religious terms it is wrong but much less wrong than many other things.
Ok, arguably perhaps in religious terms (depending on your viewpoint); but I didn't think that's what we were using as the basis for discussion.

[rickvanr]

I saw this on theonion.com, it cracked me up.

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/onionmagazine_1020.article.jpg