Intelligently designed?

I´m an atheist and a scientist. And an European. Maybe that´s why I don´t understand all the fuss about the "intelligent design" idea. It seems some people in America want to get "intelligent design" into school books. Others are vehemently against it. It is of course, the question what students should learn and who has a right to determ that. But lets be clear about one thing: evolutionary biology is certainly no bad science. The Theory of Evolution as it is currently seen by the majority of scientists in the world is one of the best researched fields of science. It is a more coherent theory than the Theory of Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. And "intelligent design" is no part of it. Lets not get into a discussion about that. If you doubt it, study biology please.
But with a little understanding one can see that it is also sometimes a bit hard to swallow for believers. Science was not invented to please religious feelings. It is no part of the scientific cosmology that some god may have created the universe. Gods generally make bad scientific theories. That much should actually be obvious to anyone. Whether god exists or not, no one can claim without sounding preposterous to know the precise nature of any god. But exactly this would be necessary to make it scientifically useful. The claim "God made the flowers grow" isn´t scientific worthwhile unless you can tell how he did it, why he did it and what would have been the consequence if some variable had been different. Who would want that?
Now this explains why religious appeals have no place in science and when students, when they learn science should learn the scientific consensus that is naturally - because of said reasons - free of any hypothesis about god.
But science was also not invented to turn people into atheists. When someone believes in god, the scientific consensus is a bit unsatisfying. The scientific theory of evolution does not say god did anything with living creatures, the laws of thermodynamics do not even allow him to interfere with the world in any way. So, naturally the reasonable believer - the one who doesn´t reject these theories right away - simply chooses to believe that god was responsible for the Big Bang, influences evolution from time to time and bends the laws of thermodynamics whenever he sees fit. These claims are scientifically pointless but they satisfy religious feelings and - that´s the point I like - they aren´t absurd. You can´t prove that god did not influence chances of mutation a few times or that small extra bits of energy didn´t appear contrary to physical laws. These things are loopholes, of course. But loopholes that should make it possible for believers and unbelievers not to yell at each other.
That´s why intelligent design is something else than creationism. That creationism that claims evolution is a lie and the world is only 6000 years old is intellectually so far off that it cannot coexist with science without problems. But intelligent design can, because it is a loophole. And even though I think it should be made clear to students what the scientific consensus is, I also don´t see a reason these loopholes should be kept out of school entirely. School books don´t need to say "and there´s absolute no option that god plays a role in this". School books over biology should be about biology and not theology, but god is - even an atheist must admit as much - part of everyday life and if a teachers mentions a religious loophole that doesn´t endanger the students´ chance to establish a view of their own. In the contrary, it gives the believers among the students the chance to combine science and faith, without rejecting any of the two.
It seems in America, the classroom has become a battlefield and both sides think if they give up an inch than students will be inevitably pulled to the other side. Let scientists decide what to write in science books and common sense what to talk about: anything that can broaden their view.

Maybe instead, science books should wear a sticker saying: "It´s only a damn science book!"
After all, about half of what it contains will be wrong anyway...

Sorry mate,but i dont understand as a believer why i couldnt also support the theory of evolution?There is no description what God is in any religious texts.If good is everything "he" doesnt have to effect anything because everything just is.I think that everything is energy in different forms and the God is all that energy combined.

You've hit on the difference between the two, really.

Evolution does not preclude some "intelligent designer" guiding it. It doesn't support it either. Evolution is neutral on the subject of a Supreme Being; but the concept of "intelligent design" is intended to directly contradict evolution, because evolution does contradict some other beliefs beside the belief in a Supreme Being. Beliefs such as the celebrated Archbishop of Canterbury who "figured" out the beginning of the world using the Bible to be something like 4900 BC. Evolution does contradict that kind of nonsense. Evolution contradicts literal interpretations, such as Eve being created from a rib of Adam, or the story of Noah's Ark and other things. Those who cling to such literal stories, like the Evangelical Christians, need "intelligent design" as an argument against evolution because of that.

The real intent, when you get right down to it, is that the religious people want to preserve their hold on the pliant minds of their children, thus preserving their early indoctrination into their religion. They don't want things taught to their children which might contradict their religious indoctrination and cause questioning of "the faith" - whatever that faith might be.

But it is not the duty of science to point out every other non-scientific theory that evolution might not contradict. Science should deal with and only with scientific theories. If you're going to point out that evolution leaves space for 'intelligent design,' which has no basis in science, why should you not also point out that science doesn't rule out the possibility that aliens live amongst us, or that ghosts exist, or that our souls are reincarnated? None of it has any place in a science class. Leave that to religious studies and history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

You've hit on the difference between the two, really.

Evolution does not preclude some "intelligent designer" guiding it. It doesn't support it either. Evolution is neutral on the subject of a Supreme Being; but the concept of "intelligent design" is intended to directly contradict evolution, because evolution does contradict some other beliefs beside the belief in a Supreme Being. Beliefs such as the celebrated Archbishop of Canterbury who "figured" out the beginning of the world using the Bible to be something like 4900 BC. Evolution does contradict that kind of nonsense. Evolution contradicts literal interpretations, such as Eve being created from a rib of Adam, or the story of Noah's Ark and other things. Those who cling to such literal stories, like the Evangelical Christians, need "intelligent design" as an argument against evolution because of that.

The real intent, when you get right down to it, is that the religious people want to preserve their hold on the pliant minds of their children, thus preserving their early indoctrination into their religion. They don't want things taught to their children which might contradict their religious indoctrination and cause questioning of "the faith" - whatever that faith might be.

---

Im not talking about theology nor theory of Evolution by Charles Darwin or Bible.Because those are all just texts written by man.Im talking about the fact that it has been proved that evolution happens in Nature but it hasnt been proved that there cant be a God.

God is not a principle of science. Only what is applicable to the method and focus of science should be taught in science classrooms.

Intelligent Design (ID) is not a new idea. It is a refurbishment of a rather old idea. It is basically tied to the classical teleological argument. As such, it faces the same merits and demerits of the same. Many of the points (in fact some of the exact same examples) often used by ID proponents actually appear in Bergson's turn of the Twentieth Century work "Creative Evolution".

I think one of the difficulties facing U.S. School Districts and this issue is that there is a strong anti-intellectual strain behind much of Fundamentalist Christianity (FC). Initially this religious approach coped with Modernity by divorcing itself from the public square. This changed in the late Seventies: groups like the Moral Majority serve as examples. The FC push for political power was/is in many ways a reactionary movement. This same sentiment applies to many larger academic issues which are seen as threats to revealed truth. Secular investigature of "truth" is often taken as pernicious because the base assumptions are not the same. Until this feeling can be overcome the friction will continue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kagemusha

Im not talking about theology nor theory of Evolution by Charles Darwin or Bible.Because those are all just texts written by man.Im talking about the fact that it has been proved that evolution happens in Nature but it hasnt been proved that there cant be a God.

---

Exactly. It is impossible to prove there is no intelligent designer. It's a simple fact. God can not be disproven. And because of that one simple fact, "intelligent design" is not, has never been and will never be a scientific theory. Why? Because it can't be proven false. Understanding the nature of the scientific method is required. Sadly, the followers of "intelligent design" either are unfamiliar with the concept, or are deliberately ignoring the concept. Since "intelligent design" isn't a scientific thoery, it's just philosophy; and as such has no more place being taught alongside the scientific theory of evolution than any other philosophy.

So why should God be taught in schools? If someone wishes to teach his children about his religious views, then I have no problem with it at all. But when, because those religious views can't stand up to the light of reason and might suffer if the indoctrination isn't continually reinforced, creating a need for nonsense like ""intelligent design" put forward as a scientific theory alongside evolution, then I do have a problem with it. My child's education shouldn't suffer because a vocal minority want to maintain the religious indoctrination of their children within the public confines of public schools. Keep your religion where it belongs - private. If you insist on continuing the indoctrination of your children without the inconvenience of outside influences, then homeschool them or send them to private school. Just don't expect the rest of us to pay for the frailty of your views. If the logic of your religion isn't strong enough to defeat the logic of science, then the problem is your religion not the science. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

God is not a principle of science. Only what is applicable to the method and focus of science should be taught in science classrooms.

Intelligent Design (ID) is not a new idea. It is a refurbishment of a rather old idea. It is basically tied to the classical teleological argument. As such, it faces the same merits and demerits of the same. Many of the points (in fact some of the exact same examples) often used by ID proponents actually appear in Bergson's turn of the Twentieth Century work "Creative Evolution".

I think one of the difficulties facing U.S. School Districts and this issue is that there is a strong anti-intellectual strain behind much of Fundamentalist Christianity (FC). Initially this religious approach coped with Modernity by divorcing itself from the public square. This changed in the late Seventies: groups like the Moral Majority serve as examples. The FC push for political power was/is in many ways a reactionary movement. This same sentiment applies to many larger academic issues which are seen as threats to revealed truth. Secular investigature of "truth" is often taken as pernicious because the base assumptions are not the same. Until this feeling can be overcome the friction will continue.

---

Pretty much nailed it, as usual

ichi :bow:

Sorry Aenlic but im not pushing anything.I dont even know what Christian fundamentalist´s are pushing in your country.Last time i checked my countrys law we have freedom of religion over here and if parents dont want their children be tought religion in school it can be done.And about logig and religion.Religion is belief not logig.Good thing about personal beliefs is that i dont have to proof them scientificly or any other way to anyone.It sounds like your religion is science.If it makes you happy,thats good. :bow:

Oh, I know that, Kagemusha. I wasn't directing my response at you personally. I was just responding to the idea that God's existence can't be disproven, or proven for that matter. Re-reading it, my usage of the generic "you" does come across as refering specifically to you, Kagemusha. Wasn't meant so, oh Shadow Warrior. (one of my all-time favorite movies, by the way). :bow:

Thanks Aenlic. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ichi

Pretty much nailed it, as usual

ichi

---

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ichi
Pretty much nailed it, as usual

ichi

---

Ill second that.

If you want to teach ID in school, thats fine. But teach it in religion class, where it belongs. Not as a science. Over here we have a religion class that teaches the kids about Theology, from all the major Religions' point of view.

ID has always struck me as adorable.

'We are such complex life forms that an Intelligent Being must've created us!'

Tell the twelve year old schmuck with Zaire ebolavirus just how divine anything complex is.

Anyway, since I'm in the medical field and in the land of the blind, the one-eyed woman is Queen, go ahead and teach ID and Creationism all day long from K through 12.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _Martyr_

Ill second that.

If you want to teach ID in school, thats fine. But teach it in religion class, where it belongs. Not as a science. Over here we have a religion class that teaches the kids about Theology, from all the major Religions' point of view.

---

No, i would say that that too isn't fine. Religion (what everybody calls theology) should be out of the system totally. If you wanna believe then do it without prove, with out science, without any institution or any person talking about what they don't know a thing.

No, you misunderstand me. What is taught here as a subject is not so much the Religion itself. The kids are taught about various religions... what the Hindus wear at ceremonies. The History of Buddhism. Where Jewish and Christian beliefs differ. How certain pagan customs and beliefs are still prominant in monothiestic religions today. How Moslems bury their dead. The class does not teach (or indoctrinate) the kids into believing anything. It educates them about the customs, traditions, history and beliefs of the major religions around the world, in equal measure. Something that is very valuable, so that they can make up their own minds, based on correct and reasonably rounded information. :book:


Religion (rightly or wrongly) has been an extremely important part of human history, and is still very important in the world today for a huge number of people (myself excluded). To brainwash children in school into believing some or other religion would be as bad as to completely ignore its existance. Who am I to make up the minds of these young people. Provide them with honest information, then let them make up their own minds. Education is all about transparency IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _Martyr_

The kids are taught about various religions...

---

Just curious. Maybe Dublin is the most egalitarian melting pot on the planet. But what if 99.9% of the people (tax payers) who fund the schools are die hard Baptists? Should they be forced to fund the teaching of every inane religious tradition just for the sake of equal coverage?

Well, funny you should say it. Ireland is over 90% Catholic... but thats beside the point.

The charter in this case is to teach the kids about religion. That is, religion as a dimension of the human experience. As I said, its not teaching them the religion itself. Just as with languages, I would argue that one learns to better understand one's religion after having studied another. And I will also repeat that I myself am not religous at this time in my life. Why should the Irish taxpayer have to foot the bill for teaching all the kids a foriegn language? So that they better understand english and when they go abroad they will be better able to communicate with others. To learn that languages share an awful lot in common, and understand the basic structures and mechanics that make up a language, but also to understand the differences. It also provides a perspective into the lives of people from all around the world, something EXTREMELY valuable. Teaching about Religion in this way has exactly the same effect. I can honestly say it did me a lot of good. ~:)

Hell, sure how else would I know about all you crazy Baptists! ~;) ~:eek: :dizzy2: ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _Martyr_

No, you misunderstand me. What is taught here as a subject is not so much the Religion itself. The kids are taught about various religions... what the Hindus wear at ceremonies. The History of Buddhism. Where Jewish and Christian beliefs differ. How certain pagan customs and beliefs are still prominant in monothiestic religions today. How Moslems bury their dead. The class does not teach (or indoctrinate) the kids into believing anything. It educates them about the customs, traditions, history and beliefs of the major religions around the world, in equal measure. Something that is very valuable, so that they can make up their own minds, based on correct and reasonably rounded information. :book:

---

Ok now i understand you. But here in some private schools (like the one i frecuented) still teaches Catolicism. In some other time (until 1918) even private schools were forced to teach it, greatfully a revolution changed it all.

As long as evolution is not taught as fact - im not bothered. If your religious views are so weak as to be changed by something you learn in US public schools, they werent very strong to begin with. ~:rolleyes:

No serious scientist has ever considered or taught evolution as fact. It is a scientific theory which agrees with overwhelming available data, just as relativity, aerodynamics or quantum theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

But it is not the duty of science to point out every other non-scientific theory that evolution might not contradict. Science should deal with and only with scientific theories. If you're going to point out that evolution leaves space for 'intelligent design,' which has no basis in science, why should you not also point out that science doesn't rule out the possibility that aliens live amongst us, or that ghosts exist, or that our souls are reincarnated? None of it has any place in a science class. Leave that to religious studies and history.

---

But that seems so narrow-minded. What is school, an indoctrination factory or a place to learn? I´m not saying religion should be systematically brought up in science class, but I´m against putting narrow restrictions on what may be mentioned. What if a student asks "where´s the place of god in that?", is the teacher to silence him because he mentioned something forbidden? I don´t want a school that does nothing but putting facts into children´s heads. There needs to be a discourse in school and you cannot restrict a discourse in that way. What is needed is clearity, not restrictions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I think one of the difficulties facing U.S. School Districts and this issue is that there is a strong anti-intellectual strain behind much of Fundamentalist Christianity (FC). Initially this religious approach coped with Modernity by divorcing itself from the public square. This changed in the late Seventies: groups like the Moral Majority serve as examples. The FC push for political power was/is in many ways a reactionary movement. This same sentiment applies to many larger academic issues which are seen as threats to revealed truth. Secular investigature of "truth" is often taken as pernicious because the base assumptions are not the same. Until this feeling can be overcome the friction will continue.

---

But isn´t it so that for FC, intelligent design is already heresy? I would think that most non-fundamentalist christians believe in intelligent design. What role could God play otherwise?

If you teach ID, you may as well teach astrology too. In science. As fact. Both have the same amount of scientific merit and logicity.

Besides, the Great Spaghetti Monster did it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

If you teach ID, you may as well teach astrology too. In science. As fact. Both have the same amount of scientific merit and logicity.

---

That is incorrect. By statistic analysis, you can show that the effects that are predicted by astrology are not the case. It is refutable. ID is merely a non-scientifically amendment to the theory of evolution.

Quote:

---

Besides, the Great Spaghetti Monster did it.

---

Ramen.

Besides, what I want to stress is that not teaching something in school and banning it are different things. When a teacher mentions that he stopped smoking recently, he´s not teaching about tabako abstinence.

Quote:

---

ID is merely a non-scientifically amendment to the theory of evolution.

---

And thats precisely why it doesnt belong in science class. Have it in a Religous Education class, in English, in History, in Philosophy... where ever it best fits. But it is NOT scientific, so it doesnt belong in a science class along with scientific theories. And if a student asks about God in a science class, the teacher can respond however he/she wishes, in the same way an English teacher asked about Math would answer... (or for that matter, if you asked a priest about science) probably that they dont know all that much about the subject, but give them a brief explanation as they understood it and that the student would be better off asking a priest, philosopher or parent about it. If I was a science teacher who was asked about Gods role in evolution, I would explain very clearly that some people believe in ID, and explain the idea briefly, I would then point out that its not scientific because it cannot be proven false. However, that as all religous matters it is a matter of faith and not proof and that each of them should think all of it over themselves.

Its not narrowminded. Education is split up into certain categories for this reason, to allow the pupil to get different perspectives on life, people and the universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

But that seems so narrow-minded. What is school, an indoctrination factory or a place to learn? I´m not saying religion should be systematically brought up in science class, but I´m against putting narrow restrictions on what may be mentioned. What if a student asks "where´s the place of god in that?", is the teacher to silence him because he mentioned something forbidden? I don´t want a school that does nothing but putting facts into children´s heads. There needs to be a discourse in school and you cannot restrict a discourse in that way. What is needed is clearity, not restrictions.

---

School is a place to learn--free of indoctrination into religion.

If the student asks where the place of God is, the teacher should tell him/her that science can't answer that question, and that he/she should take the matter up in religion or history class. If someone asks your Physical Education teacher when the Battle of Trafalgar was, or what tactics the British used to win even while outnumbered, do you think he or she should be required to answer it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

School is a place to learn--free of indoctrination into religion.

If the student asks where the place of God is, the teacher should tell him/her that science can't answer that question, and that he/she should take the matter up in religion or history class. If someone asks your Physical Education teacher when the Battle of Trafalgar was, or what tactics the British used to win even while outnumbered, do you think he or she should be required to answer it?

---

You're incorrect. The teacher should say God isn't in a place, it's in everyplace. :dizzy2:
Then when you come back to physics the teacher would say that nothing existent can be in the same place at the same time. But sure what does it matter if you confuse your students. The physics gives practical results, rufetables and comprobables, religion doesn't have this caracteristc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

You're incorrect. The teacher should say God isn't in a place, it's in everyplace. :dizzy2:
Then when you come back to physics the teacher would say that nothing existent can be in the same place at the same time. But sure what does it matter if you confuse your students. The physics gives practical results, rufetables and comprobables, religion doesn't have this caracteristc.

---

So we are all ruined because we have been teached both science and religion. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

Science was not invented to please religious feelings.

---

It wasn't even invented at all!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kagemusha

So we are all ruined because we have been teached both science and religion. ~;)

---

Something like that. But i'm ruined because of the wee. ~;) .
Talking seriously: not. I would say that science is what give us the notion of the real world, and i would recomend to everybody to believe in that. But if you wanna believe in religion then do so, just don't ask for proof, because there isn't, don't ask for doctrine because it's made by man, that's all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Only what is applicable to the method and focus of science should be taught in science classrooms.

---

It doesn't have to be taught in science class, if that makes you feel uncomfortable. The whole issue is to broaden the understanding of what other people believe and respect this.
For a functional citizen in a modern society, it's irrelevant to know creation, evolution or intelligent design. It is, on the other hand, of large importance to understand why some people act and react as they do. Religion and it's attached theories are of importance to this, specially in US.

Ah, but that isn't the intent of the ID people. They want ID to be taught alongside evolution to dilute the teaching of evolution, not because they want to teach about religion.

If they want to teach ID in a class on comparative religions, then fine. Not a problem. They don't want that. It doesn't further their agenda, which is to bolster and protect the indoctrination of their children, and to spread "the word" to the heathen infidels, especially the witches who teach evolution and other heresies in the classroom. Burn 'em! Burn the witch! ~D

You know, I just had an epiphany! I realize now why very short hair for men and appropriately styled hair for women is required at fundamentalist Chrisitian religious "schools" like Bob Jones University. It's so the wind from the passing of the Enlightenment over their heads doesn't mess up their hair too much. Come to think of it, that might also explain the fundamentalist Islamic insistence on the hijab, and the fundamentalist Jewish insistence on the yarmulka!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

I would think that most non-fundamentalist christians believe in intelligent design. What role could God play otherwise?

---

No, ID is a specific stance including among other things the belief in the irreducibility of complex systems. There is nothing within Christendom that requires that view.

Well, crazily enough I agree with Saturnus. Evolutionary theory does not preclude God (after all, evolution cannot explain how life began), and Christianity does not preclude evolution. One hot-headed evo. backer insists that evolutionary theory means there is no God. :dizzy2: Seems like someone is letting personal beliefs interfere with scientific rationality. (I will admit some of the more zealous Protestant Chruches loathe evolution.)

Funnily enough, the priest at my church got a masters in food science and was talking today of enzymes, long and short chain polymers, and synthetic fats.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

School is a place to learn--free of indoctrination into religion.

If the student asks where the place of God is, the teacher should tell him/her that science can't answer that question, and that he/she should take the matter up in religion or history class. If someone asks your Physical Education teacher when the Battle of Trafalgar was, or what tactics the British used to win even while outnumbered, do you think he or she should be required to answer it?

---

I never said he should be required, I say it should not be forbidden. I ask you, should it be allowed for a teacher to say that he stopped smoking in science class?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

No, ID is a specific stance including among other things the belief in the irreducibility of complex systems. There is nothing within Christendom that requires that view.

---

But if you exclude any influence of god into evolution, wouldn´t that diminish the meaning of god? Of course, you can assume that God created the universe and left it afterwards to itself, but I don´t think that´s how most Christians see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

But if you exclude any influence of god into evolution, wouldn´t that diminish the meaning of god? Of course, you can assume that God created the universe and left it afterwards to itself, but I don´t think that´s how most Christians see it.

---

No, but that's pretty much how many of the framers of the U.S. Constitution saw it; and yet they are now used as an excuse for blurring the lines between government and religion by people who claim that the founding fathers of the U.S. were Christians in the same mold as modern fundamentalists. So it's not a big surprise that these same fundamentalists also seek to blur the lines between religion and science. Maybe it's a skill that requires constant use or it fades.

Quote:

---

Posted by Pindar
No, ID is a specific stance including among other things the belief in the irreducibility of complex systems. There is nothing within Christendom that requires that view

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

But if you exclude any influence of god into evolution, wouldn´t that diminish the meaning of god? Of course, you can assume that God created the universe and left it afterwards to itself, but I don´t think that´s how most Christians see it.

---

---

Evolution and ID are not the same. Whether either or both are given place under a Christian milieu is up to the believers themselves. Recall, that the most basic standard for identifying a Christian is one who believes Jesus is the Christ: the Messiah. What books are accepted as canon, the state of an ecclesiasty and the details of any adhered to metaphysic is sect specific.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Christian is one who believes Jesus is the Christ: the Messiah.

---

Check, and because it then comes down to metaphysics I will leave science to explain the physical world and have my cake and eat it. ~:cheers: :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Recall, that the most basic standard for identifying a Christian is one who believes Jesus is the Christ: the Messiah.

---

No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Evolution and ID are not the same. Whether either or both are given place under a Christian milieu is up to the believers themselves. Recall, that the most basic standard for identifying a Christian is one who believes Jesus is the Christ: the Messiah. What books are accepted as canon, the state of an ecclesiasty and the details of any adhered to metaphysic is sect specific.

---

I didn´t mean to define Christian in any way. Most people who call themselves Christians believe in a set of ideas that are more or less connected to the prototypical christian belief. Whether or not is it part of the canon, I think most christians believe in a divine influence on the development of man and not just the creation of being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

No.

---

Yes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

I didn´t mean to define Christian in any way. Most people who call themselves Christians believe in a set of ideas that are more or less connected to the prototypical christian belief. Whether or not is it part of the canon, I think most christians believe in a divine influence on the development of man and not just the creation of being.

---

I think that is right if development means moral standing. If you mean an abiding Divine guidance of biology, then I don't think that is the common notion of most believers. I know people who think along those lines, I know some that have ideas if flushed out might go in that direction, but I also know many who would not hold to anything along those lines. Neither is this a view that has any necessary doctrinal standing. One of the interesting things about the rise of ID after the failures of Creationism is it may push more into some similar framework.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

One of the interesting things about the rise of ID after the failures of Creationism is it may push more into some similar framework.

---

Why failure? Why not an evolution from creationism to id ? For a devoted person you seem a bit hostile to the doctrines created by your fellow christians......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Yes

---

No..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Why failure? Why not an evolution from creationism to id ? For a devoted person you seem a bit hostile to the doctrines created by your fellow christians......

---

Creationism is a failure because it sought to couch a non-scientific posture as scientific: it committed a category mistake. Creationism is a failure because it failed to achieve its political ends: most of its former advocates have melted away.

Some former Creationist proponents may very well see ID as an evolution from a more rudimentary position. I don't believe whatever vogue ID may hold at the moment will carry it to where its advocates would like it to go.

I am not hostile. I simply believe in intellectual honesty. The basic idea I think Saturnus is behind is reasonable. I have no issue with discussion of intellectual systems: their boundary and possible counter positions. I think it is an error however if an instructor puts forward point X as scientific or couches it in scientific terms when it is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

No..

---

Yes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Yes

---

Pindar, you are spamming! ~:eek:


~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Pindar, you are spamming! ~:eek:


~;)

---

No, I am simply responding to bmolsson on an appropriate level. I know his sentiments on religion. I also know those views are incoherent. I further know that like the frog in his well, he is comfortable surrounded by his walls. I won't pull him from that well, but I don't allow him to confuse his water hole with the Ocean either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I won't pull him from that well, but I don't allow him to confuse his water hole with the Ocean either.

---

Good. Frogs don't take well to the salty waters of reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Good. Frogs don't take well to the salty waters of reality.

---

Quite.

(and Monica Bellucci is the high point of European aesthetic culture)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Quite.

(and Monica Belluci is the high point of European aesthetic culture)

---

No.

(Did I hear a faint 'ribbid' in your post?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

No.

---

Yes

:frog:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Yes

:frog:

---

Isn't. http://matousmileys.free.fr/frosch.gif

(We're going to get a warning from Germany's finest soon...)

Anyway, to get back on topic...

So Pindar, what is your view of BMolsson's thesis that the U.S. has become more religious and therefore less democratic in the past two hundred years?

*Hits deck, plugs both ears*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Isn't. http://matousmileys.free.fr/frosch.gif

(We're going to get a warning from Germany's finest soon...)

---

Your frog looks better than mine.

Well, I'll leave us at an impass then. I dont want to contribute to powers needing to express themselves. Anyway I have pressing business, I just bought a game called "The Battle for Middle Earth". I have to find the one ring and bring about a new order to the world: one way or another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Anyway, to get back on topic...

So Pindar, what is your view of BMolsson's thesis that the U.S. has become more religious and therefore less democratic in the past two hundred years?

*Hits deck, plugs both ears*

---

I think the idea is historically flawed. The base religiosity of the U.S. was greater during the nation's inception and early Period than today: d'Tocqueville serves as a simple example of a foreign supporting opinion from the early 19th Century . The spread of democratic values is also clear: the end of slavery and indentured servitude, men's and women's suffrage etc. It is not a serious thesis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Your frog looks better than mine.

---

Obviously yours has never been kissed.

Quote:

---

I have to find the one ring and bring about a new order to the world: one way or another.

---

Boys, eh?

Quote:

---

It is not a serious thesis.

---

It is utter nonsense.

A typically excellent article from Dawkins in today's Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/featu...559743,00.html
I am surprised shame alone doesn't shut the ID advocates up.

A short extract (I know, C and P, but it really can't be bettered):

Quote:

---

The argument the ID advocates put, such as it is, is always of the same character. Never do they offer positive evidence in favour of intelligent design. All we ever get is a list of alleged deficiencies in evolution. We are told of "gaps" in the fossil record. Or organs are stated, by fiat and without supporting evidence, to be "irreducibly complex": too complex to have evolved by natural selection.

In all cases there is a hidden (actually they scarcely even bother to hide it) "default" assumption that if Theory A has some difficulty in explaining Phenomenon X, we must automatically prefer Theory B without even asking whether Theory B (creationism in this case) is any better at explaining it. Note how unbalanced this is, and how it gives the lie to the apparent reasonableness of "let's teach both sides". One side is required to produce evidence, every step of the way. The other side is never required to produce one iota of evidence, but is deemed to have won automatically, the moment the first side encounters a difficulty - the sort of difficulty that all sciences encounter every day, and go to work to solve, with relish

---

Quote:

---

If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex designer. And it's no solution to raise the theologian's plea that God (or the Intelligent Designer) is simply immune to the normal demands of scientific explanation. To do so would be to shoot yourself in the foot. You cannot have it both ways. Either ID belongs in the science classroom, in which case it must submit to the discipline required of a scientific hypothesis. Or it does not, in which case get it out of the science classroom and send it back into the church, where it belongs

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawkins

If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex designer.

---

Boink! That one hurts most.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Obviously yours has never been kissed.

---

I think so.

Quote:

---

It is utter nonsense.

---

It points back to the well analogy from earlier.