Intelligently designed?

[Silver Rusher]

Science was not invented to please religious feelings.

It wasn't even invented at all!

[Soulforged]

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.

[bmolsson]

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.

[Aenlic]

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!

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!

[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]

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?

[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.

[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]

No.

Yes

[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......

[bmolsson]

Yes

No..

[Pindar]

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.

[Pindar]

No..

Yes

[Adrian II]

Yes

Pindar, you are spamming!

[Pindar]

Pindar, you are spamming!

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.

[Adrian II]

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.

[Pindar]

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

Quite.

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

[Adrian II]

Quite.

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

No.

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

[Pindar]

No.

Yes

[Adrian II]

Yes

Isn't.

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

[Adrian II]

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*

[Pindar]

Isn't.

(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.

[Pindar]

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.

[Adrian II]

Your frog looks better than mine.

Obviously yours has never been kissed.

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

Boys, eh?

It is not a serious thesis.

It is utter nonsense.