Good read. In choosing not to debate the issue in Kansas they stated the following:
Very hard to argue with a missionary man. Good decision.
[quote=“Dragonbones”]I respect anyone’s right to believe any religion they want, but as soon as you start trying to force your dogma into our government and impose it in our public schools, especially by trying to dishonestly represent it as science, [color=red]you can take your religion and shove it up your ass.[/color][/quote]Dragonbones -
My karma just ran over your dogma.
And that is a quite nasty statement.
Perhaps some of you would do well to actually read some of the articles I post on this thread.
Might save yourself some mumbling.
Also, the wikipedia reference does quite well in explaining the ID theory. It goes back as far as Plato with Thomas Aquinas and William Paley references ad contributors to the theory.
It appears that many here are too quick to judge with out adequate foundation for your judgements.
Here are some sources for your edification:
url=http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html ]Intelligent Design? a special report reprinted from Natural History magazine[/url]
for something easy to read-
[url=http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact]MASTER PLANNED-Why intelligent design isn
I don’t know anything about this publication or writer, but the story might be easy enough to verify. If it is true, it is further proof that anytime people stray from finding the truth while guided by facts, into an “us_vs._them” approach, things get out of hand. No matter which side is guilty of the offense.
[quote=“seeker4”]I don’t know anything about this publication or writer, but the story might be easy enough to verify. If it is true, it is proof that anytime people stray from finding the truth while guided by facts, into an “us_vs._them” approach, things get out of hand. No matter which side is guilty of the offense.
leaderu.com/science/heresytrial.html[/quote]
seeker4 -
Very good article . I assure you it is mere coincidence that the web site mentioned to download the gentlemans paper is one I posted in the last few minutes… 
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Dragonbones -
My karma just ran over your dogma.
[/quote]
TC, your point well taken that I, at least, should learn a bit more about ID. That said, reputable scientists and entire science associations have said that ID is little more than creationism in wolves clothing. So for the moment, I’ll have to rely on their due diligence because of a lack of time to get fully versed.
I think the biggest problem that you’re running into here, in terms of being convincing, is that your viewpoint is not only not currently accepted by the scientific community, it is actually anti-science. Science, typically, starts out with observations, researches them, and ends up arriving at conclusions. The religious community operates in reverse: They start out with a conclusion, and go in search of information to support what they have already decided is correct. How can that be defensible? In any area other than religion, there would be 99.9% agreement that the “reverse” method is just nuts.
OK, gotta take a break to eat, breathe, and other mundane stuff. Check back in later.
sigh
Again, what
There’s something even more vital at stake than that – whether any particular religion has the right to force its dogma upon others, as the Creationists want to do by slipping their creation myth into public education. They’re the same morons who want to write the Ten Commandments on the courthouse steps. Such insidious campaigns to violate the separation of church and state must be vigorously defended against by all thinking individuals.
I don’t in any way mean to put religion down. But when you try to force your religion down my or my kids’ throats, you’ve got a fight on your hands. Besides, separation of church and state protect all of society, both the faithful and nonfaithful, from imposition of dogma by any particular group. That’s something worth fighting for.
And now, on a lighter note: http://www.venganza.org/
And by the way, in terms of whether we should teach ID in the schools, it
There’s something even more vital at stake than that – whether any particular religion has the right to force its dogma upon others, as the Creationists want to do by slipping their creation myth into public education. They’re the same morons who want to write the Ten Commandments on the courthouse steps. Such insidious campaigns to violate the separation of church and state must be vigorously defended against by all thinking individuals. [/quote]
I agree that ID is just religion dressed up as science, but that would be a tough case to make in court.
[quote]Behe
SJ Gould dealt with exactly such questions in his many books on the topic, to my satisfaction; however, I read them so long ago and the answers were so involved that I cannot summarize them coherently here.
I would not mind if a professor took time, in his college class on evolution, to debunk the assertions of creationist loons in areas such as this. But for creationists to try insert the teaching of their dogma alongside science, in a public school science class, is utterly unacceptable. Any such zealot should be tarred and feathered and run out of town. :loco:
[quote=“bob”]
I don’t know if this is science, philosophy or logic but it is certainly interesting and deserves to be taught “somewhere” in school and science class seems like as good a place as any.[/quote]
Bob,
I haven’t read up on it as much as I should but it seems to me that ID raises at least one very good “scientific” question that evolutionists have yet to explain. I’m not saying it’s evidence for God necessarily but if some people want to understand it that way until some evidence has been provided to the contrary it seems reasonable to me. Keeping this issue out of the schools would be intellectually dishonest IMHO.
That being said, of course, simplistic interpretations of the theory are to be avoided.
The problem with “Intelligent Design” is that after a close inspection of various flora and fauna, you realize the designer was pretty stupid.
You realize for instances humans are designed with some pretty fatal flaws. Food intake and air intake travel in the same tube. Our eyes are reversed. We have a vestige part called the appendix.
I know the devout wants a “God” that is omnipotent and whatnot. But Intelligent Design is not the answer, because biological flaws reflect badly on the designer.
I wonder how the devout would react if one took the fictional book, “The Da Vinci Code” and try to make it into the Neo-Testament of the Bible. That the heir to Jesus and Mary is walking around the earth fornicating and abusing drugs.
Those questions have long since been answered. Read some Richard Dawkins.
None of us arguing to anti side have said that. We’re saying it should be kept out of science classes unless there is some scientific evidence for it. Until then keep it in the social, cultural, philosophical, or religious classes. I don’t advocate the teaching of Creationism in science classes any more than I advocate the teaching of calculus in woodworking classes.
[quote]Many of the “scientific” arguments for intelligent design, for instance, invoke common misconceptions about how the physical world really works, as in the classic “watchmaker” argument wherein nature is assumed to act randomly and possess no organizational tendencies. Given this false premise, it is a simple matter to show that complex molecular structures could never have formed by chance alone any more than a factory whirlwind could assemble a Mercedes Benz from its component parts. But anyone with a basic understanding of chemistry knows full well that such analogies do not apply to atoms and molecules. If the physical sciences have taught us nothing else, it’s that the world of the very small is surprisingly counterintuitive. Processes in the realm of the microscopic simply do not behave as one might expect based on our experience living on the macroscopic plane. Electric charges, energy barriers, and nuclear forces all dominate the realm of the minuscule and compel individual atoms to form stable chemical bonds with neighboring elements, blindly building molecular structures of every possible type and complexity that the laws of physical chemistry will allow.
Objects large enough to arouse our naked senses, on the other hand, behave quite differently. Because they exhibit no special affinity for one another, the scattered components of a disassembled watch will never coalesce of their own accord-the odds against such haphazard assemblies are simply too long. Nature, however, does not act without organizational tendencies nor are living organisms randomly assembled. There is now ample reason to believe that simple unicellular life forms arose through processes endemic to the life-friendly universe we occupy and that more sophisticated beings slowly emerged from these modest beginnings. Indeed, all complex organisms on Earth (including humans) begin life as single cells that multiply, differentiate, and ultimately mature to assume the form of its parent-all in strict accordance with the natural laws of biochemistry. [/quote]
There was an amusing article in the LA Times that began
[quote]Does God have lower back pain too? A prostate that impinges on his urinary system? Now if he
Thanks, Danimal, for the superb link debunking
[quote=“Danimal”]
A couple of points:
- No one (that I know of) is saying that ID should be kept out of schools, only science classrooms.
- I agree that it’s okay if people want to interpret the gaps in scientific knowledge as God