Intelligently designed?

[A.Saturnus]

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?

[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.

Besides, the Great Spaghetti Monster did it.

[A.Saturnus]

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.

Besides, the Great Spaghetti Monster did it.

Ramen.

[A.Saturnus]

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.

[_Martyr_]

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.

[Pindar]

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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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. 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

[A.Saturnus]

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.

[Aenlic]

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.

[Pindar]

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.

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.

[Papewaio]

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.

[bmolsson]

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

No.

[Pindar]

No.

Yes

[bmolsson]

Yes

No..

[A.Saturnus]

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.

[Pindar]

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.

[bmolsson]

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......