[lcb]

i have never been a theist, believe science has its limits and that intelligent design is as good a theory as any, but what does it have to do with supremacy?

[SmartAZ]

I like the way a certain country preacher explained it:
Henry understood the Ford. The Ford NEVER understood Henry!

[Anita]

believe science has its limits and that intelligent design is as good a theory as any, but what does it have to do with supremacy?

My guess is that some are unwilling to accept that perfection [or GOOD ENOUGH] could result from an initial state of chaos. *I* see the current result as having gone through eons of trial and error before GOOD ENOUGH came about, and expect more eons of trial and error. Others think that since we're not smart enough to fully understand let alone implement a movement from chaos to GOOD ENOUGH, someone/something smarter must have been involved. Could be a god, could be aliens, could be time travelers who evolved further; no particular definition is applied outside "smarter than us".

[Robert]

Here’s an interesting thought.
Do you believe in ‘god’ and why?
And since the range of ‘god’ can extend from a man with blue eyes, long hair and a halo to a consciousness of mankind to nothing it might be a good idea to give your definition of ‘god’.

[SmartAZ]

Here's another interesting thought.
All of these "theories" (they are not theories, they are conjectures) are merely painless substitutes for "I don't know."

And another:
It is not for man to define 'god'. A god has to define himself, and then reveal the definition to man. If you have to define your god, what you are talking about is just another imaginary friend. (Return fire from Flint in 3..2..1..)

[lcb]

"SmartAZ :
All of these "theories" (they are not theories, they are conjectures) are merely painless substitutes for "I don't know.""

by definition, theory is conjecture. Take note of 2a.

Conjecture:
1. A judgment, estimate, or opinion arrived at by guessing:
a. guess
b. presumption
c. supposition
d. surmise
2. Abstract reasoning:
a. theory
b. speculation
3. To draw an inference on the basis of inconclusive evidence or insufficient information:
a. suppose
b. guess
c. presume
d. infer
e. surmise

take note of 2b.

Theory:
1. A belief used as the basis for action:
a. hypothesis
b. supposition
2. Abstract reasoning:
a. speculation
b. conjecture
3. Something taken to be true without proof:
a. assumption
b. premise
c. thesis
d. presumption
e. supposition
f. presupposition
g. surmise
h. postulate
i. postulation

"And another:
It is not for man to define 'god'. A god has to define himself, and then reveal the definition to man. If you have to define your god, what you are talking about is just another imaginary friend. (Return fire from Flint in 3..2..1..)"

what imaginary friend would you be talking about?


"Robert
Here’s an interesting thought.
Do you believe in ‘god’ and why?"

no, because their is nothing about the concept that makes sense to me.

"And since the range of ‘god’ can extend from a man with blue eyes, long hair and a halo to a consciousness of mankind to nothing it might be a good idea to give your definition of ‘god’. "

who determines what the range is of something that couldn’t possibly be defined?


"Anita
My guess is that some are unwilling to accept that perfection [or GOOD ENOUGH] could result from an initial state of chaos. *I* see the current result as having gone through eons of trial and error before GOOD ENOUGH came about, and expect more eons of trial and error. Others think that since we're not smart enough to fully understand let alone implement a movement from chaos to GOOD ENOUGH, someone/something smarter must have been involved. Could be a god, could be aliens, could be time travelers who evolved further; no particular definition is applied outside "smarter than us"."

acceptance of perfection doesn’t prove anything, much less good enough. the alien theory is as good/bad as any, but do you really believe that order came from chaos without help? do you think that you could take a batch of all known elements mixed together would actually produce something other than mud? something like life?


"SmartAZ
I like the way a certain country preacher explained it:
Quote:
Henry understood the Ford. The Ford NEVER understood Henry!"

that doesn’t really explain anything that has to do with the topic.

[SmartAZ]

SmartAZ
I like the way a certain country preacher explained it:
Quote:
Henry understood the Ford. The Ford NEVER understood Henry!"

lcb:
that doesn’t really explain anything that has to do with the topic.
It is an illustrative remark that applies when people start trying to "understand" God, looking for human type design in natural phenomena, etc. In general, the thing made will never understand the maker. Of course we humans have a high opinion of ourselves, so we assume that we might understand a little bit about God, but we can understand only as much as He chooses to reveal about Himself. The evolutionists want to trivialize God by assuming it all happened by accident, and the ID crowd takes the opposite approach, assuming that we could duplicate God's achievements if we just learn enough. The creationists trivialize science by insisting that God can do anything. (That's not true. The bible mentions several things that God can't do.)

Here is another illustrative remark for you:A scientist was talking to God. He said, "God, we don't need you any more. Why, we can even make a man from dust, just like you did."

God said, "Hey, go for it. That's worth seeing."

The scientist boldly reached down and grabbed a handful of dirt. "Hold on!" roared God. "That's my dirt! Get your own!"

[Gnomon]

Does "intelligent design = God?" Probably not necessarily. Does any design require a designer? Perhaps it is interesting enough that the perception of a design invites the question of whether or not there was a designer.

I chose to believe in God. But I recognize that "God" for me is pretty much a shorthand for: explanation that is unknowable. (If it can be known, is there any need for explanation?) While I do think the apparent order and complexity of the universe is significant, I do not claim that it proves the existence--now or ever--of God. God is a subject of faith/belief. Any KNOWLEDGE of God comes only by believing--and I fully accept as a fact that believing distorts perceptions, so really, any "knowledge" of God thus derived by believing is entirely subjective. God cannot be proven and I neither try nor pay much attention to those who do (or, for that matter, to those who attempt to disprove).

That unknowable thing which God for me explains is mostly the matter of origins--origins of the universe, origins of life out of non-life. Yes, origin of design. In fact, I do have a hard time accepting that order came out of chaos because that seems so contrary to what I think I see. I also have a hard time accepting that something came from nothing, or that life can come from non life. But, and please hear me, I am only saying that the concept of God explains this for me. I am definitely not saying that because I believe it is so it therefore MUST be so. I have no problem knowing that other people believe something different for their explanation of these issues. I am certainly not saying that preceived design requires a designer/god. I am merely saying that that is indeed how I choose to cut the knot.

I try very hard to recognize the difference between belief and knowledge. When I divide information into a pile for what is known and a pile for what is believed, there really isn't very much to put into the pile of the known. And really, there is very little I believe. I try to follow my mother's wisdom of: believe nothing you hear and half of what you see. Everyday is a mystery, and the only order in the universe may only be our perceptions. In which case, perhaps we are each the god of our own universe.

[member31]

Of course we humans have a high opinion of ourselves, so we assume that we might understand a little bit about God, but we can understand only as much as He chooses to reveal about Himself.

it could be a fundamental error to assume he has revealed himself to us at all. if he hasn't, then we are clearly delusional. if he has, who is to say how and where it happened?

[Ought Six]

We could be sensing a 'supreme entity' in some way, but we have found that our other senses are far from perfect. They reveal a limited part of the spectrum, and the data is interpreted by the brain. As we know, our senses can and do fool us. So if we can sense God directly, our sensation would likely be limited and distorted at best.

And to answer lcb's question, intellegent design does not posit God. It posits an entity that is powerful enough to design our Universe as we see it, but other than that one thing does not offer any data whatsoever on the character of that entity.

[Robert]

Do you believe in ‘god’ and why?"

no, because their is nothing about the concept that makes sense to me.



What concept? You’re defining ‘god’.

Who determines what the range is of something that couldn’t possibly be defined?

Which brings us to the second part. What is YOUR definition of this ‘concept’ that doesn’t make sense to you?

[Robert]

Of course we humans have a high opinion of ourselves, so we assume that we might understand a little bit about God, but we can understand only as much as He chooses to reveal about Himself.

We only know as much about the guy next door that he wants to reveal to us also. Does this mean we can’t experience ‘god’ meaningfully if in fact ‘god’ exists?

it could be a fundamental error to assume he has revealed himself to us at all. if he hasn't, then we are clearly delusional. if he has, who is to say how and where it happened?

This could also be said about anything. We go out and see a tree. Who is to say we saw the tree? We are. If the tree doesn’t exist are we delusional? Yes. What’s your point?

[Robert]

We could be sensing a 'supreme entity' in some way, but we have found that our other senses are far from perfect. They reveal a limited part of the spectrum, and the data is interpreted by the brain. As we know, our senses can and do fool us. So if we can sense God directly, our sensation would likely be limited and distorted at best.

We don’t know that. What is the distorting factor?

How do we know it’s limited? What is your definition of ‘god’? Someone could have a definition that ‘god’ is everything I sense no matter how valid or invalid it is. They would be sensing ‘god’ completely and accurately then wouldn’t they?

[Robert]

OK, we have this book. It says this is 'god's' book, this is what 'god' is and it's all you need. Why do we believe it?
It makes sense?
We are afraid of death?
Afraid of the unknown?
Why?

[Anita]

acceptance of perfection doesn’t prove anything, much less good enough. the alien theory is as good/bad as any, but do you really believe that order came from chaos without help? do you think that you could take a batch of all known elements mixed together would actually produce something other than mud? something like life?

There's some evidence to demonstrate that changes in climate, atmosphere, etc. over eons produced conditions for changes to occur. It's been almost 6 years since I took a course on Evolution, and I've forgotten much of it, but I could see how it happened. Mud is actually FULL of life at the microscopic level. Just because you can't SEE life doesn't mean it isn't there.

The alien theory also begs the question of how aliens evolved. How far back and to where do any of us want to go with this? At some point, it gets to the point of "Who created God?" The classic response is "God always WAS." So, I suppose we could say that microbes always were and that things progressed from there.

[lcb]

"Smartaz: It is an illustrative remark that applies when people start trying to "understand" God, looking for human type design in natural phenomena, etc. In general, the thing made will never understand the maker. Of course we humans have a high opinion of ourselves, so we assume that we might understand a little bit about God, but we can understand only as much as He chooses to reveal about Himself. The evolutionists want to trivialize God by assuming it all happened by accident, and the ID crowd takes the opposite approach, assuming that we could duplicate God's achievements if we just learn enough. The creationists trivialize science by insisting that God can do anything. (That's not true. The bible mentions several things that God can't do.)"

like an evolutionist, which i’m not, you believe in something you cannot prove. i actually have a low opinion of what i think i know (on this subject) because i can’t prove it either, nor can anyone else. you read a book written by man and act as if it is something other than a book written by man (as all bibles are), when there is no evidence to the contrary, other than subjective theory by those who believe them. in other words, you came into the conversation with a conclusion that you cannot back up, and believe it to be a fact, just like those with the opposite viewpoint, with the exception that they do have at least some evidence to back up their opinions on the matter.

so far, 06 has presented the only objective response to the original question, and the real answer remains ‘unknown.’

[Flint]

Life as we know it may have been intelligently designed. Certainly nobody could possibly provide solid evidence that it was not. However, it's equally impossible to provide solid evidence that it was.

So what we feeble people are reduced to is examining what evidence we CAN find, relating it all together, proposing conditional explanations, from those explanations proposing tests that can be performed, performing the tests, and rejecting the hypotheses that fail the tests. Rejected hypotheses must then be removed from our proposed explanation, and what the tests indicated instead should be incorporated. This in turn suggests different tests, and this iterative loop continues indefinitely.

After some centuries of this process, we have accumulated an impressively large body of *really good* hypotheses, that pass every test and that make highly successful (and nonobvious) predictions. We become satisfied that we have a handle on it.

Now, our impressively deep, broad, and accurate understanding does NOT itself indicate that there was no designer. We could, for all we know, simply be deciphering that designer's handwriting. Many people prefer to believe that's exactly what we are doing. I have no objection to this belief at all. It could be right.

[lars]

"designer" must be capitalized--Designer. Show some respect.

[nanna]

Well ... it is my observation that there are other intelligences than living human beings. Not a belief, an observation. Some I consider of a higher "order" than me.


nanna

[lars]

"it is my observation that there are other intelligences than living human beings. Not a belief, an observation. Some I consider of a higher "order" than me."

Is this an intellectual "observation" or a scientifically documented one? Please, show me what you've got. I want to see/hear/feel/smell one of these beauties (no I don't want to taste one). :D

[nanna]

Scientific to the extent that others have seen and experienced the same at the same time. Scientific that I've been able to replicate the observations, with the same cause/effect.

But, I could just be crazy.


nanna

edit to add: lars, be careful what you ask for :D

[lars]

Dang, you got any links? I know there are many anecdotes, conspiracy theories and rumors, but scientific documentation? Dang!

[nanna]

lars,

Quantum mechanics and the conundrum of something being two places (and noplace) at the same time would be the closest analogy I could provide you.

I do experiments. When I can obtain independent verification I consider them more than a figment of my imagination.

Time, to me, is not linear, except by agreement, an artifice of language's verb tenses.



nanna
(what is religion to some is science to others, and to some it is magic, heh)

[member31]

member31 - it could be a fundamental error to assume he has revealed himself to us at all. if he hasn't, then we are clearly delusional. if he has, who is to say how and where it happened?

This could also be said about anything. We go out and see a tree. Who is to say we saw the tree? We are. If the tree doesn’t exist are we delusional? Yes. What’s your point?

rob, if you spent less time analogizing what i said and instead just think about it, the point might come to you.

[lcb]

lars: i’m a designer and don’t care if you capitalize it or not.

anita: i took some evolution course about a half century back. interesting stuff. since then i have looked into it much further and while the theory of macro evolution seems to be on solid ground at first glance, even the originator of the idea had his doubts. there has been a lot of recent data the casts more than just casual doubt about it though, in the form intricate design that doesn’t, at least from appearance, support the theory. but then again that is why it is called theory, because it hasn’t been proven.

i look at the concept of a god in this manner: it is said that it always existed, but that doesn’t make sense. if it always existed, where did it exist? The definition of the universe is everything (space, matter, energy, time and any dimension not yet known), therefore if it is a thing, then the universe includes it, by definition. And assuming intelligent design exists, the designer must also have had a designer, and its designer did too, on to infinity. And if it just is, then why could the universe just be? it is a quandary that will never be understood, but that is fun talking about.

robert: i haven’t defined a god. i’m just discussing the concepts (which are only ideas) about the possibility of intelligent design. and if intelligent design exists, who could say it has to something to do with a god? that conclusion is purely conjecture/theory.

[Robert]

rob, if you spent less time analogizing what i said and instead just think about it, the point might come to you.

OK, look at what you just wrote. If I’m thinking about something aren’t I analyzing it.?

I’m not trying to be hard on you but I’ve seen this my whole life. I used to have discussions with priests and when they were confronted with a statement that forced them to question their thinking they would give some religious quote or make a statement that sounded good until it was analyzed. When I would then question the quote they would get mad and say to me,”How dare I question God!”

In Buddhism there is no question you cannot ask the Buddha. This makes sense to me. Why would God be afraid of a question?
As far as reason. There is no religious system, no political system and no individual greater then the truth and anything that doesn’t stand to reason shouldn’t stand. If that means God doesn’t exist or we can’t prove God exists on our own, to our own satisfaction, then we have to look at (analyze) why we believe in God.

[Robert]

robert: i haven’t defined a god. i’m just discussing the concepts (which are only ideas) about the possibility of intelligent design. and if intelligent design exists, who could say it has to something to do with a god? that conclusion is purely conjecture/theory.


Originally Posted by lcb

Do you believe in ‘god’ and why?"

no, because their is nothing about the concept that makes sense to me.

Yes but you say the ‘concepts’ “are only ideas”. Ideas about what? About what god is or isn’t. That’s defining.

if intelligent design exists, who could say it has to something to do with a god?

The only way we can decide that is by defining god. If we say god is intelligent design, then a lot.

I don’t understand why you’re reluctant to give your subjective definition of god.

[Anita]

OK, look at what you just wrote. If I’m thinking about something aren’t I analyzing it.?

He didn't suggest not analyzing; he suggested not analogyzing

[Anita]

there has been a lot of recent data the casts more than just casual doubt about it though,

I haven't looked into the data in the past 5 years, but I learned that more data has been discovered in just the past decade to support the theory of Evolution. Darwin and the other two men who came up with the same theory at the same time provided only a rudimentary suggestion of possibility [thoughts outside the box for that era]. Since then, climatologists, geologists, and hundreds of other -ologists [many of which I can't even pronounce] discovered quite a bit that expands on the original premise(s). What I've read to the contrary, I've found to be based on misunderstandings of the theory. One popular argument used is sitting on a back-burner of my mind ACHING to come forward, but it doesn't seem to be making any progress in this old mind of mine. :rolleyes: One of these days, it will come to the forefront, I'll type it, and you'll say "What ARE you talking about, Anita?" I'll then say, "Remember that 'conversation' we had two years ago? Well, I FINALLY remember!" :beer:

[Robert]

He didn't suggest not analyzing; he suggested not analogyzing

OK, sorry, I see that.

But same answer. My analogy works and is a product of my analysis.

[Robert]

Time, to me, is not linear, except by agreement, an artifice of language's verb tenses.


This is an interesting statement. I’ve always thought time is more of a double helix and we are paralleling the Roman empire.

[SmartAZ]

There is no religious system, no political system and no individual greater then the truth and anything that doesn’t stand to reason shouldn’t stand.
Truth often does not stand to reason. Or rather, reason can not stand up to truth. Try to explain some good reason to tolerate a baby without invoking some sort of spiritual truth. (I suspect you equate "spiritual" with "religious". There not the same, but just give us your considered reply.)

[Darkimbolc]

believe science has its limits and that intelligent design is as good a theory as any, but what does it have to do with supremacy?

Here's my polytheistic two cents on the matter. You use the word supremacy in such a way as to imply a single omni-potent, -sentient, -present entity. Given that most people here are monotheistic, that is understandable. However, in a polytheistic view, supremacy is not the proper word. Greater or "more powerful" would be more appropriate. Deities, on the whole, are greater the humans. However, certain deities are greater than others, either generally or in certain, specific fields.

As a reply to your question: Intelligent design, by it's very name implies intelligence. That intelligence would have to be greater than humanity. Given that, IMO, yes.

[Flint]

Darkimbolc:

believe science has its limits and that intelligent design is as good a theory as any

Scientific theories require evidence. Intelligent design has none. Intelligent design is a pure statement of relegious preference. This is not a theory. You need to be careful when speaking of scientific theories. In the nonscientific vernacular, a "theory" is any half-assed notion that should cross the mind. In science, it has a very very different meaning.

[Robert]

Truth often does not stand to reason. Or rather, reason can not stand up to truth.(I suspect you equate "spiritual" with "religious". There not the same, but just give us your considered reply.)

Ok, what is reason? We have an event. An apple falls out of a tree. We use logic to arrive at the reason it fell down. Was Newton wrong in his logic? All we know is that it fits the model and works in our environment. Is there a number that doesn’t work in the Pythagorean Theorem? We haven’t found it. If we did we would discard the theorem or modify it using reason.

If we don’t use reason to arrive at our solution then what should we use?

I don’t equate spirituality and religion. I see religion as a system. I see spirituality as an aspect of the individual striving for morality.

Try to explain some good reason to tolerate a baby without invoking some sort of spiritual truth.

Understanding.

[lcb]

"robert: Yes but you say the ‘concepts’ "are only ideas". Ideas about what? About what god is or isn’t. That’s defining."

no, that isn’t defining. an idea or concept doesn’t define anything. please pick up a dictionary and see for yourself the definitions of the words you don’t seem to understand.

as for the definition of a god (it isn’t mine as i don’t define that which i know nothing about):

god n. 1. God.a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being. c. Christian Science. "Infinite Mind; Spirit; Soul; Principle; Life; Truth; Love" (Mary Baker Eddy). 2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality. 3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol. 4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: money was their god. 5. A very handsome man. 6. A powerful ruler or despot. [Middle English, from Old English. See gheu(…)- below.]


however, i haven’t said intelligent design is the result of a god, if it either exists at all. you have jumped to that conclusion for reasons i don’t understand, and seem to have a bit of attitude about it. try to leave the emotion at the door as this is only a conversation about ‘what ifs’ and it is highly unlikely that many minds will be greatly changed after it is over.

as for buddhism, it is just another religion that man has embraced without really knowing anything other than what other men told him, as is the case with all religion.

you seem to want a definition of something you likely wouldn’t believe yourself if the ideas of it wasn’t thrust upon you by others who have nothing except myths to back it up in the first place. however, just for conversations sake, i’ll give you a subjective definition of a god: it is the idea of something that some people need to get them thru life because they have difficulty standing on their own 2 feet and require some kind of superstitious crutch to support them. how is that for a subjective definition?

time is something i have always looked at that cannot be saved. if it could be saved, i would gather up all i saved during the week and use it on the weekend. ;)

anita, read "darwins black box." it was written by a geneticist and poses serious doubts to the theory of evolution as it stands today.

in order for life to exist, there must have been a cause. the same goes for evolution. until a cause is found and understood, the theories regarding them will remain hollow.

smartaz, having raised 2 children (with a lot of help from the mrs.) i don’t see the need for "spiritual truth," whatever that is, to raise them. i raised them as i was raised, teaching them to think for themselves, questioning everything, and with out toys like game boys that provided nothing to support them when they became adults.

darkimbolc, even in polytheism, there must be a source for the gods somewhere along the line, and the top god that could be defined as supreme, but that is anyone’s guess. i use what the dictionary says, even though everything man creates is flawed in some ways.

flint, if you read "darwin’s black box" you will see the evidence of intelligent design presented by a scientist in genetics.

[Flint]

lcb:

flint, if you read "darwin’s black box" you will see the evidence of intelligent design presented by a scientist in genetics.

No, you will not. Michael Behe's claims have been thoroughly refuted in many ways. If you wish to discuss Behe's claims and what's wrong with them, I don't mind. But you might start here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html) just to get some discussion ideas.

[Robert]

however, I haven’t said intelligent design is the result of a god, if it either exists at all. you have jumped to that conclusion for reasons I don’t understand, and seem to have a bit of attitude about it. try to leave the emotion at the door as this is only a conversation about ‘what ifs’ and it is highly unlikely that many minds will be greatly changed after it is over.

No attitude, I agree this is just a debate but I do think minds change. Mine does all the time if the opposite opinion stands to reason it changes me. I don’t want to just exercise my keyboard, I want to learn something and teach something. If we don’t change we stagnate.

as for buddhism, it is just another religion that man has embraced without really knowing anything other than what other men told him, as is the case with all religion.

I disagree. Buddhism is based on the teaching of Shakyamuni Buddha and isn’t based on a revelation or from any deity, in fact the Buddha rejected the contemporary religious belief in an omnipotent world creator. He encouraged people to question authority and use their power of reason. Buddha means ‘awakened’ and it was believed that he had a perfect understanding of reality. The fourteenth Dalai Lama (Tensin Gyatso) is believed to be the fourteenth reincarnation of the original Buddha and there are some interesting tests used to prove this. It is very possibly true. You might want to inquire into it as it’s an interesting story even if you don’t believe it.
I am not a Buddhist by the way but I do find some of their thinking attractive.

you seem to want a definition of something you likely wouldn’t believe yourself if the ideas of it wasn’t thrust upon you by others who have nothing except myths to back it up in the first place. however, just for conversations sake, i’ll give you a subjective definition of a god: it is the idea of something that some people need to get them thru life because they have difficulty standing on their own 2 feet and require some kind of superstitious crutch to support them. how is that for a subjective definition?

A little aggressive but untrue. I accept no socialized religion and nothing that doesn’t stand to my reason. My spirituality is based on my own exploration and inquiry completely. I have no fear of death and if God didn’t exist and I found that in my journey then I would have accepted it without any problem. I have access to what I believe to be alternate planes of existence but please don’t believe me, I’m the only one who has to, although I’m sure I Could tell you stories that would make your hair stand on edge.

I abandoned socialized religion at about the age of nine. I remember the day. My mother had sent us to parochial school ( she is a devout Catholic) and while sitting in class one day the nun said, “tonight’s homework is.....” and the class moaned. She said, “You know if you don’t like it here you can always leave”. I got up and started walking out and she said,” where are you going young man?” and I said, “you said if you don’t like it here you can leave and I don’t like it here.” I never looked back. The next day I was enrolled in public school.

Maybe you want to rethink your last paragraph. It certainly doesn’t apply to me.

[lcb]

flint: while some disgree with behe's book, refute means "to prove false" and that hasn't happened. disagreeing with him and proving him wrong are 2 completely differnt things.

robert: "I disagree. Buddhism is based on the teaching of Shakyamuni Buddha"

as i said before, it is based on what a man told them, unless you believe buddha was something other than a man.

i don't fear death either as it is a part of life - the last part. ;) i doubt you could tell me any story that would make my hair stand on end, unless it was told in an electrical storm.

as for religion of any type, i have never had a use for it. and while you may not use it as a crutch, many do.

[Flint]

lcb:

flint: while some disgree with behe's book, refute means "to prove false" and that hasn't happened
Yes, it has happened.

[pentachris]

Does intelligent design = God?

No.

Intelligent design = mice (http://www.google.com/search?q=answer+to+life+the+universe+and+everything+=).

[SmartAZ]

So, no more discussion, now we get into gags. I'm outa here!

[Robert]

robert: "I disagree. Buddhism is based on the teaching of Shakyamuni Buddha"

as i said before, it is based on what a man told them, unless you believe buddha was something other than a man.

Three things:
1. Shakyamuni taught to use reason not blind faith. So it is not just what one man told them it is what works for them. Is your thinking or my thinking any different?
2. They believe the Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of Shakyamuni. So they believe his teaching is current thru Tenzin Gyatso. Can you prove them wrong?
3. I don’t know if he was or wasn’t more then a ‘man’. It is not provable and he didn’t emphasize it as far as the writings tell. In fact he shunned it.

as for religion of any type, i have never had a use for it. and while you may not use it as a crutch, many do.

You made a generalization. Can you prove that the individuals who use it as a ‘crutch’ are wrong in their perceptions? Aren’t you substituting your subjectivity for theirs?

[Flint]

A fairly common corrolary, not raised so far, concerns the disturbingly large number of unintelligent designs we see in ourselves and in the life around us. Any explanation of how life got to be the way it is, needs to explain all of the Rube Goldberg kludges life is infested with. The gods must be drunkards.

[lcb]

in theories.

[lcb]

1. my thinking looks for answers. it doesn't create them. 2. to have doubts doesn't require proving anyone else wrong. it is up to them to prove themselves right, at least if they want me to believe their stories. 3. there is no evidence that any book ever written or any teacher who ever taught was anything but human, regardless of what anyone believed about him.

as for the crutch remark, i see no reason to prove their perceptions, and i'm fairly certain they can't either. and now you are confusing doubts with subjectivity.

[Robert]

1. my thinking looks for answers. it doesn't create them. 2. to have doubts doesn't require proving anyone else wrong. it is up to them to prove themselves right, at least if they want me to believe their stories. 3. there is no evidence that any book ever written or any teacher who ever taught was anything but human, regardless of what anyone believed about him.

1. Creating answers? The Buddhists believe that their actions should be a product of reason.

2. They only have to prove themselves right for themselves within their own limits. Not you, they have to prove nothing to you. They only have to prove themselves right to you if they want you to follow their system. Are there any Buddhist at your door?

3. Again, The Buddha never said he was anything but human and the focus of his teaching was against that. Against any assumption of faith also.


as for the crutch remark, i see no reason to prove their perceptions, and i'm fairly certain they can't either. and now you are confusing doubts with subjectivity.

No, you have your doubts. Their perspective, as subjective as it may be, is creating doubt in you not necessarily them.

[Plaid-Man Individual]

The following is well worth the read (this author expresses what Flint's been saying for quite some time now... Hmmm, maybe Flint's real name is Pigliucci[ ][ ] :ll:[ ][ ] :

http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-09/design.html

from the linked article:

Conclusions
In summary, it seems to me that the major arguments of Intelligent Design theorists are neither new nor compelling:

1. It is simply not true that science does not address all Aristotelian causes, whenever design needs to be explained;

2. While irreducible complexity is indeed a valid criterion to distinguish between intelligent and non-intelligent design, these are not the only two possibilities, and living organisms are not irreducibly complex (e.g., see Shanks and Joplin 1999);

3. The complexity-specification criterion is actually met by natural selection, and cannot therefore provide a way to distinguish intelligent from non-intelligent design;

4. If supernatural design exists at all (but where is the evidence or compelling logic?), this is certainly not of the kind that most religionists would likely subscribe to, and it is indistinguishable from the technology of a very advanced civilization.

Therefore, Behe's, Dembski's, and other creationists' (e.g., Johnson 1997) claims that science should be opened to supernatural explanations and that these should be allowed in academic as well as public school curricula are unfounded and based on a misunderstanding of both design in nature and of what the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution (Mayr and Provine 1980) is all about. :ll:

[Anita]

That WAS a good read! Thank you, Plaid-Man.

[Robert]

Do we know enough about either system to establish a mathematical model from origin? I don’t’ think so. I think the Darwinists would be happy to go along and keep building from reason but the socialized ‘christians’ have this belief that ‘god’ doesn’t have to stand up to reason. Look at some of the material they accept. Their catch all is ‘faith’ which is blind acceptance of the unknown.
The best we can do is teach both theories so that the individual can make the decision which one to believe and the SAT should test that the student has enough grasp of the fundamentals to make that decision.
The problem is that teachers bias their presentations so the SAT would have to be constructed to prevent this but let’s not get into the educational system.

[Hokey]

The first assumption in this statement is that human design is 'intelligent'. Intelligent? Think not. Does intelligent in this context imply some level of perfection? We humans are far from perfect, both from a biological and mental point of view (the latter is my opinion).

[Robert]

The 'intelligent' in Intelligent Design is a reflection to 'god' not man.

[SmartAZ]

Ok, there haven't been any more gags, so I will rejoin the discussion.

One significant assumption in ID theory is "seeing is believing". That is not true in practice or in theory either. The basis of faith is "believing is seeing". For example, if you believe there is a devil then you can see his operations as they are described by the bible*. But just looking at what's going on, you probably would not blame the craziness on a renegade spirit, you would merely see crazy people. Likewise, if you believe in evolution, ID, or whatever, you will see evidence of it wherever you look. It is very hard to make reliable scientific observations about something you already believe. That is why christians attack evolution on scientific grounds, not religious grounds. It is also why christians are so ambivalent about ID. ID is a "gee whiz" approach, not a scientific approach.

*The devil first questions the integrity of God's word. He then leads people to add, subtract, or change the words of God's word. He then contradicts God's word. He uses sicknesses, natural disasters, and other people to attack believers.

[Robert]

*The devil first questions the integrity of God's word. He then leads people to add, subtract, or change the words of God's word. He then contradicts God's word. He uses sicknesses, natural disasters, and other people to attack believers.


Subjective opinion. Proof?

[SmartAZ]

Genesis Ch. 3 and the Book of Job. It's not subjective opinion, it's summarization.

[Anita]

OR the writings of someone like Bullinger [who INTERPRETS that sacred script]. I understand that this may not look subjective TO YOU, but people who believe in OTHER sacred scripts, or no sacred scripts at all find this subjective.

[SmartAZ]

That's an interesting point, Anita. Yes, I speak of what I know, and try to avoid speaking about things I don't know about.

Since we all use words, and we all interpret those words according to our differing experiences, we all get slightly different meanings from them. That's why it's important to maintain printed bibles and the original texts from which they were interpreted; so we can compare translations and interpretations and try to come to a better understanding of what they were supposed to say to us.

I grant that many people resent any attempt to come to any understanding at all. That is not my problem.

[Robert]

Genesis Ch. 3 and the Book of Job. It's not subjective opinion, it's summarization.

I don't accept the bible as absolute truth. Proof?

[SmartAZ]

Robert, see the last line of my post above.

[SmartAZ]

HERE (http://www.math.sunysb.edu/~tony/whatsnew/column/antikytheraI-0400/kyth1.html) is an interesting exercise. It's called the Antikythera mechanism. There is no dispute about what it is, how it works, or how old it is. The only catch is the assumption that humans of that era didn't have enough brains or tools to build such an instrument.On the strength of that assumption people have suggested that it was made by aliens, or even made by a modern craftsman and sent back through time somehow. (As far as I know, nobody has suggested it was created by God.) As I see it, this device is exactly what was suggested by watsisname the famous philosopher, finding a watch in a field, and it clearly implies that people of that era were a lot smarter and better equipped than we ever thought.

ID is still a "gee whiz" approach, based only on implications, but it's very hard to refute the implications.

[Chills]

Smart AZ

Thanks ...for the link. Very interesting.

:yes:

[Robert]

That's an interesting point, Anita. Yes, I speak of what I know, and try to avoid speaking about things I don't know about.

Since we all use words, and we all interpret those words according to our differing experiences, we all get slightly different meanings from them. That's why it's important to maintain printed bibles and the original texts from which they were interpreted; so we can compare translations and interpretations and try to come to a better understanding of what they were supposed to say to us.

I grant that many people resent any attempt to come to any understanding at all. That is not my problem.

Robert, see the last line of my post above.


Is this the line you’re referring to?

My understanding is that we can seek ‘god’ through any book we want but when we use that book as the ‘truth’ for everyone else then it is our myopia that lacks understanding and action through that bias is everyone’s problem. Columbus’ justification of his genocide of the Arawak Indians through ‘christianty’ for example.

[lcb]

"Can you prove that the individuals who use it as a ‘crutch’ are wrong in their perceptions? Aren’t you substituting your subjectivity for theirs?"

i never claimed they were wrong in their perceptions. that was only your assumption.

i do find it interesting that you continaly ask for proof of things that cannot be proved. just because someone has convinced himself that something is true, doesn't make it true. you probably believe you exist, but i'll bet you can't prove it, even to yourself, if you were objective about it.

[SmartAZ]

Robert:
My understanding is that we can seek ‘god’ through any book we want but when we use that book as the ‘truth’ for everyone else then it is our myopia that lacks understanding and action through that bias is everyone’s problem. Columbus’ justification of his genocide of the Arawak Indians through ‘christianty’ for example.
Yes, you are correct. You can also seek Chicago using any map you want. But only the right map will get you there. It's up to you to figure out which map (or book) is the right one.

As for Columbus, well, Columbus isn't going to save you so you probably don't want to follow his example.

[Robert]

"Can you prove that the individuals who use it as a ‘crutch’ are wrong in their perceptions? Aren’t you substituting your subjectivity for theirs?"

i never claimed they were wrong in their perceptions. that was only your assumption.

The word ‘crutch’ indicates weakness and an inability to support their existence without their religious system. And your statement that “as for religion of any type, i have never had a use for it” further supports your belief that their thinking is, at best, subjective.

i do find it interesting that you continaly ask for proof of things that cannot be proved. just because someone has convinced himself that something is true, doesn't make it true.

I ask for proof when someone makes a statement attempting to support a hypothesis that I question.

you probably believe you exist, but i'll bet you can't prove it, even to yourself, if you were objective about it.

We all have subjective opinions we can’t prove. The delineator is when we believe our opinions are absolute truth and expect others to follow them.

[lcb]

"The word ‘crutch’ indicates weakness and an inability to support their existence without their religious system."

for many, the crutch is needed to reasure themselves that there is something to support their existence.

"And your statement that “as for religion of any type, i have never had a use for it” further supports your belief that their thinking is, at best, subjective."

their thinking is entirely subjective when it comes to religion as they cannot prove it true to anyone, including themselves.

"I ask for proof when someone makes a statement attempting to support a hypothesis that I question."

i question everything including all hypothesis.

"We all have subjective opinions we can’t prove. The delineator is when we believe our opinions are absolute truth and expect others to follow them."

i have no desire to convince anyone to follow what i don't believe and there is very little i do believe. so, where does that leave us? Maybe you should read the opening post again and try to figure out how you got so far off track. ;)

[Robert]

I’m trying to figure out why you posted the thread when you don’t believe in anything. So I said, way back, how about people’s definition of ‘god’.

Because if we are going to discuss ID and god maybe we ought to define them.

Why did you ask the question?

and what are you definitions since you asked the question?

[lcb]

i didn't say i don't believe anything. i said i believe very little (when it comes to religion and theories as none have been proven).

as for id and gods, exactly how does one define that which he cannot possibly understand?

[Robert]

i didn't say i don't believe anything. i said i believe very little (when it comes to religion and theories as none have been proven).

What "little" do you believe then since it's your inquiry?

as for id and gods, exactly how does one define that which he cannot possibly understand?


"Does Intelligent Design = God"

What are you asking then?

[lcb]

you don't have any more clues about the topic than i do. ;)

i asked the question to see what others had to say about it. if one cannot prove his beliefs (religion/theory) to another, then faith is all he really has in them.

[Robert]

Isn’t that already established?

ID is a theory, whether it’s aliens or ‘god’?

Do I think the ‘christians’ have an agenda and that agenda is to teach creationism as an alternative to evolution? Yes.

How do you stop it? And I think it should be stopped because there is no place for anyone’s religion in the school system or the government. Regardless of whether it is Christianity or Satanism.

I’d say we only teach what we know to be a fact (as close to fact as we can get). So if we say that we don’t know where the link is in evolution, that’s fine. The same thinking is we don’t teach creationism because it is an unprovable theory.

[SmartAZ]

i asked the question to see what others had to say about it.
That is called "kicking the anthill." That's ok, we all do it. Just remember, don't take the answers seriously when the question was meant to be fun.
if one cannot prove his beliefs (religion/theory) to another, then faith is all he really has in them.
Right. That's why we call it "faith."

[Robert]

faith = blind acceptance of the unknown.

So what's the difference if I someone say's," go jump off that cliff, don't worry God will save you"?

Or someone like Jim Jones say's, "drink this and you'll go to heaven"

What do you want us to do, have faith that your 'god' created the world?

I don't.

[SmartAZ]

What do you want us to do, have faith that your 'god' created the world?

I don't.
Yes, I know. You make it abundantly clear at every opportunity.

I'm curious: What do you do instead? I mean, we all need a crutch. Mine is the bible. What's yours?

[Robert]

Yes, I know. You make it abundantly clear at every opportunity.

Yes but you bring up faith at every opportunity then, don’t you?

I'm curious: What do you do instead? I mean, we all need a crutch. Mine is the bible. What's yours?

That’s just it, we don’t all need a ‘crutch’. Can you put your religion aside, completely and find out from within yourself what is there? Because that takes courage and what you are saying is that your ‘faith’ is a product of your fear. And your ‘god’ is equally a product of that fear.
That’s all I want you to see. That there is something beyond the fear. Not to find what I found but to know that I looked through those glasses, that fear and until you move beyond that blind acceptance you will never be truly free. Regardless of what your book says or what you think it says.
But this is a thread drift.

[SmartAZ]

Not a thread drift at all, Robert. The question was "intelligent design=god" and we need to establish whether either of those exists.

Let's expand the meaning of "crutch". Everybody has to learn at some point how to distinguish good from bad, what to do in this or that situation, and a few things that should be believed even without evidence. For example, a baby has to learn that when Mommy says "Hot", he really doesn't want to examine the evidence. Most people learned these things as a matter of upbringing, but it's often necessary to learn more than that. Your source of additional guidance is your crutch.

You apparently think that you don't need any additional guidance. Ok, good luck. After you have grown up a bit more, to the point of being too tired to fight the world armed only with your own inventions, you will figure out that you do indeed need more than you learned while growing up. Then you will need to find a reliable source for that additional guidance. And by that time you will be 40 years behind, even if you find what you are looking for.

The important thing about the bible is that the principles there have always worked for other people, even if they didn't fully understand them, even if they applied them to less than biblical purposes. As I pointed out HERE (http://www.curevents.com/vb/showthread.php?p=15807#post15807), you have the examples. People who follow biblical principles prosper, and people who follow something else can't seem to keep up.

Want to examine the evidence? There are 31 chapters in Proverbs. Read one every morning. In a year you will have read the book 12 times. Then tell us of the changes in your life, according to your own observations. Please note that I am not suggesting you believe anything. Just read a chapter every day and decide for yourself.

[Robert]

Not a thread drift at all, Robert. The question was "intelligent design=god" and we need to establish whether either of those exists.

Let's expand the meaning of "crutch". Everybody has to learn at some point how to distinguish good from bad, what to do in this or that situation, and a few things that should be believed even without evidence.

Nothing should be believed without evidence.

For example, a baby has to learn that when Mommy says "Hot", he really doesn't want to examine the evidence.

Is that what we’re talking about, a baby? First off the baby doesn’t know enough to think about examining the evidence. Are we going through life like babies with no ability to think, to reason and to hold our hand high enough over the burner (evidence) to feel the heat?

Most people learned these things as a matter of upbringing, but it's often necessary to learn more than that. Your source of additional guidance is your crutch.

The connotation of crutch as used by LBO means to support without out proof and that was, I believe his intention in the statement.
Your source of additional guidance might be your mentor but it’s not your crutch. Your statement basically said your faith in the bible is your crutch and once again faith is foundationless.

You apparently think that you don't need any additional guidance. Ok, good luck.

I never said that!

After you have grown up a bit more

“Grown up”, I beg your pardon aren’t you making assumptions again on your subjectivity because I see the world and God differently then you do?

to the point of being too tired to fight the world armed only with your own inventions, you will figure out that you do indeed need more than you learned while growing up.

I’m not fighting any world.

Again, you are making false assumptions. I grew up a long time ago and my spirituality is not a product of my childhood.

Then you will need to find a reliable source for that additional guidance.

Assumption. How do you know I haven’t?

And by that time you will be 40 years behind, even if you find what you are looking for.

I don’t believe you.

The important thing about the bible is that the principles there have always worked for other people, even if they didn't fully understand them, even if they applied them to less than biblical purposes. As I pointed out

Worked for other people? How do you know what happens when another individual stands before ‘god’? I wouldn’t say the Inquisition worked for people. It’s your subjective opinion just as my spirituality is mine.


HERE (http://www.curevents.com/vb/showthread.php?p=15807#post15807), you have the examples. People who follow biblical principles prosper, and people who follow something else can't seem to keep up.

Rubbish. Besides I thought Christianity’s reward was in ‘heaven’ and not on the earth, not in material goods.

Want to examine the evidence? There are 31 chapters in Proverbs. Read one every morning. In a year you will have read the book 12 times. Then tell us of the changes in your life, according to your own observations. Please note that I am not suggesting you believe anything. Just read a chapter every day and decide for yourself.

How do you know what I have or haven’t read? You are making assumptions again.

You haven’t established anything exists, you have only given your opinion, your assumption that your path to ‘god’ is correct. We don’t know that and it may be fine for you but you can’t expect anyone to accept it any more then I or anyone else can expect the world to accept our opinions.
You are living in a box and by your own admonition your faith, void of reason, is guiding you. I say the root of that thinking is fear. The fear to inquire, to reason and to find that our perceptions might be wrong. What kind of a ‘god’ expects an individual to blindly follow him? What kind of a ‘god’ is it that we can’t question?

[lcb]

since macro evolution is also faith based, why do you want it taught in schools when it isn't a fact? it seems like a double standard when there are no examples of it to examine and it has never been proved.

[Robert]

But I don't!
My premise is only teach what we know. Of course this means that there is a certain point where 'proof' is no longer supported by facts and at that point we simply say that we don't know.
The difference is that we are using tangible, measurable facts, fossils for instance, to establish our hypothesis.

When we use ID and I defend the individuals right to believe in that by the way, we are using criteria that is not provable and entirely subjective. so it should not be taught. In short leave the theories out of evolution and don’t introduce any other theories to replace what we don’t know. Let the individual decide for him or her self.

The problem in our society is a group of socially religious individuals who think they have the ‘truth’ for all and whenever this happens we have chaos. The individual’s subjectivity that is reflected inward never causes chaos beyond the individual. It is only when that subjectivity is reflected outwardly towards society that problems occur. The Inquisition is one of my favorite examples.
So now we have this group who wants to introduce creationism in the mask of ID into the system as a counter to evolution. So I say, again, only teach what we know which shuts the door on that.
After all, do we want Satanism taught in our schools? When you open the door to creationism you open the door to ALL religious belief as the origin of this planet. Is this what we want? I don’t think so.
Teach creationism in your Sunday School, no one is saying you can’t. Just keep it out of the public system. If you don’t you are infringing on everyone’s religious freedom.

[SmartAZ]

Robert, I see that our debate is in fact becoming thread drift, so I won't answer you here. Maybe in another thread at some later time.

[Anita]

I'd be interested in entering the "crutch" debate, as well. Would either of you mind if I asked Null to split what's been discussed so far into a new thread?

lcd: I haven't seen the theory of evolution taught in such a way as to identify origin. So, in THAT sense, it's left to the student to decide whether origin was a big bang, an intelligent designer [of whatever form], or anything else. Beyond origin, however, it makes no sense to me to ignore evidence of earth changes over millions of years in a science class. Science is taught in science classes; theology is taught in theology classes.

[lcb]

creationism may be the drive of xians, but teaching the possibility of it doesn't necessarily put religion in schools. what it does is open minds to something that science can't explain. i have never been a theist and don't have a problem with opening minds. do you have a problem with opening minds?

[Anita]

No, as long as it doesn't require ignoring evidence.

[SmartAZ]

Science is taught in science classes; theology is taught in theology classes.
Not so! If you take almost any course in biology the teacher will demand that you believe, or pretend to believe, evolution, just because he says so. That is religion, plain and simple. And if you look into the history of the evolution theory you will find that it has always been supported specifically because it excludes divine influence. And you might notice that evolutionists always set up religious straw men to knock down, and refuse to discuss the scientific basis of their theory at all.

I have never taken a theology class*, so I can't say what goes on there. But when I studied bible research, science was an important part of the program. A small part, to be sure, but important. And you might notice that christians always attack evolution on scientific grounds, not on scriptural or religious grounds.

* I have talked to some people who took "theology" classes. "Theology" is one of those areas where people pretend they know something when they don't. "Theology" means "god study". You can't know any more about God than what He reveals about Himself in the bible. Anybody can read the bible and know exactly as much about God as anybody else who has read the bible. "Theology" classes mostly teach the collected confusion of philosophers who spent their time guessing at what the bible says instead of reading it, or worse, studying the ramblings of other confused philosophers.

[Anita]

"Not so! If you take almost any course in biology the teacher will demand that you believe, or pretend to believe, evolution, just because he says so. That is religion, plain and simple. And if you look into the history of the evolution theory you will find that it has always been supported specifically because it excludes divine influence. And you might notice that evolutionists always set up religious straw men to knock down, and refuse to discuss the scientific basis of their theory at all."

I can't even believe that you said this. My degree is in Computer Science, with a minor in math, but I'm about 2 classes short of a degree in Biology, as well [when classes taken after graduation are added]. I have NEVER had a prof who demanded that I "believe" in evolution. Did you read this on the internet?


"* I have talked to some people who took "theology" classes. "Theology" is one of those areas where people pretend they know something when they don't. "Theology" means "god study". You can't know any more about God than what He reveals about Himself in the bible. Anybody can read the bible and know exactly as much about God as anybody else who has read the bible. "Theology" classes mostly teach the collected confusion of philosophers who spent their time guessing at what the bible says instead of reading it, or worse, studying the ramblings of other confused philosophers."

The Bible isn't the ONLY sacred script that discusses God. I agree with Robert...you've already decided that YOUR sacred script is TRUTH and that anything else is so much hogwash. In addition, your:

Anybody can read the bible and know exactly as much about God as anybody else who has read the bible.

is contrary to what you continuously preach about how one can't KNOW a belief system until/unless you FIRST believe in that belief system.

This is just another post that I hope Null will branch off into the "crutch" debate, if you have no objections.

[Chills]

Just wondering...

If intelligent design = god...
what the hell does Chaos equal :beer:

[Robert]

creationism may be the drive of xians, but teaching the possibility of it doesn't necessarily put religion in schools. what it does is open minds to something that science can't explain.

It certainly does. It establishes the premise that ‘god’ created the world and that is religion. Christianity to be concise.
Again, look back at my statement, “Only teach what we know”. How would we ever prove the theory that ‘god’ created anything?
Look I believe in ‘god’ but to expect a social system to accept my belief is simply arrogant and what’s worse is it infringes on religious freedom.
You want to introduce ‘god’ into the equation then the next logical question is whose ‘god’? Mine, yours or maybe the Satanist’s ‘god’? Is that what you want?
The Christians want this nice neat little package that teaches creationism as an alternative. If we only teach what we know then individuals will look for answers on their own. That’s creativity and it leads to discovery. When you introduce ‘god’ into it the search for ‘truth’ is taken out of the minds of individuals, especially the young.

i have never been a theist and don't have a problem with opening minds. do you have a problem with opening minds?

It’s not ‘opening minds’ at all. Religious systems don’t open minds. They limit thinking to the past. Religion is not in the now, especially Christianity. If ‘god’ is greater then the Bible the Christian never sees this because his book and his thinking have been contoured and controlled. The socialized Christian wants to close minds. Wants to establish his perception as a universal ‘truth’. Faith is the closed mind because it makes him feel safe. It stops seeking and the force behind that is fear. Don’t take my word for it, think about it yourself. Why would anyone have faith? Why would anyone close their mind to reason and what kind of a ‘god’ would expect that?

[Robert]

Just wondering...

If intelligent design = god...
what the hell does Chaos equal :beer:

chaos = suffering

When individuals act outwardly with respect to their subjectivity that creates chaos.

Let’s look at the Inquisition. We had these people who thought ‘god’ was on their side, who thought their perceptions were above reproach. They subjectively labeled innocent people as ‘evil’ and burned them at the stake.

We have chaos in the world now and it’s reflected in war through the subjective opinion of individuals who, like in the past, believe that their perceptions are universal ‘truth’. So each group acts violently based on their subjectivity and this is chaos.

[Anita]

Robert and AZ:

Neither of you responded to my request for permission to ask Null to split out the "crutch" discussion from lcb's thread. May I have it? I'd really like that to be a separate discussion from the ID discussion. [Finally got your moniker correct, lcb...sorry about calling you lcd earlier.]

[Robert]

Anita,
Fine with me.

[Chills]

Robert----

Chaos = suffering

I guess that is as good as answer as any.

Personally I lean more to something like....God(or the universe/all that is etc etc) is Chaos... and anything we happen to understand(or think we do)...
... aint. :beer:

[Ought Six]

R:"Chaos = suffering"The folks that go to Burning Man every year would probably disagree with that forumla. ;)

[Robert]

R:The folks that go to Burning Man every year would probably disagree with that forumla. ;)

I don’t know them. What is the basis of their disagreement, are you in agreement with and represent them or yourself?

Chaos is defined as confusion, basically. Confusion on a massive social level results in suffering.

[nanna]

Chaos = Suffering???

Robert, perhaps you need to catch up on your reading :)

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/5.php




nanna, chaote
(not confused)

[Robert]

I stand corrected!

[SmartAZ]

Anita, if you want a separate thread, all you have to do is start one. You don't need A0 to fo it for you.

[lcb]

robert, it looks like you are afraid of xians. you also seem to think they are the only ones who believe in id. You are living with a closed mind by ignoring the possibility of id and that the unproven theory of macro evolution is the truth. personally, i see no problem teaching both in schools as long as the religion isn't applied too thickly. you seem to want one excluded because of your fear that it may upset your secular views.

anita, it happens all the time. i'm used to the mistake.

[Robert]

robert, it looks like you are afraid of xians. you also seem to think they are the only ones who believe in id.

Not at all but I recognize the damage religion has brought to society through history and let’s face it Christianity doesn’t have a stellar record.
We are now confronted, in this country, with a group of individuals who think it is their mission to restore ‘morality’ to society and what’s worse they want to do it through a political system.
While they are not the only ones believing in ID they are the ones behind the movement here and they know they have a sympathetic president who thinks “ he is doing ‘god’s’ work”. Again you might want to look back through history and examine the wake of suffering this mentality has left.

You are living with a closed mind by ignoring the possibility of id and that the unproven theory of macro evolution is the truth.

Again, I believe in ‘god’ but I don’t believe I have the right to teach my perspective in school.
Is my mind closed because I don’t want to substitute one theory for another? If evolution is flawed should we introduce another theory that we can’t prove? Whose theory should we teach? Because now you have everyone with an agenda with their foot in the door saying,” teach my theory”. So someone has this theory that man came from divine grape leaves that are now extinct. Should we teach that? If we don’t we are denying his religious freedom, denying his grape leave god. Now who is closing their mind.

personally, i see no problem teaching both in schools as long as the religion isn't applied too thickly. you seem to want one excluded because of your fear that it may upset your secular views

It’s not my secular view, it’s everyone’s religious freedom.
That’s the problem. The moment you introduce it you apply it to ‘thickly’. Look at your statement you’re already introducing religion into the equation, already assuming ID is ‘god”. So whose mind is closed?

[H2O]

i look at the concept of a god in this manner: it is said that it always existed, but that doesn’t make sense. if it always existed, where did it exist? The definition of the universe is everything (space, matter, energy, time and any dimension not yet known), therefore if it is a thing, then the universe includes it, by definition. And assuming intelligent design exists, the designer must also have had a designer, and its designer did too, on to infinity. And if it just is, then why could the universe just be? it is a quandary that will never be understood, but that is fun talking about.


just a thought Lcb

What if God created us, so that we would not have the minds/brain power to fully understand the concept of " time+space ".
Like he the Great Creator said he always was.

And what if this life is a place to test the spirit/soul to see if the soul or spirit of an individual was worthy of more brain power. So if given this extra gift, that they would not go out with this new found power and reap havoc.
That's just me musing on the reasons..
But really would you ? If you could build a super computer/robot make it even as powerful as yourself? Knowing everything you know and even an equal, If you did you might find yourself dealing with a monster?
Also if you were just testing this robot,then you may as well not even bothered with the whole creation, because it would be just like you,almost.
I just have to trust the Creator God. Evolution is just too weak and full of guess work for me to stake my faith on..So with that said I will always be biased ! :)

That my 2 cents worth.

[lcb]

rob: "Look at your statement you’re already introducing religion into the equation, already assuming ID is ‘god”."

exactly where was it that i assumed id is 'god?" that would be a good trick since i'm an atheist.

h20, if you read the whole thread you would have already noticed that i have as little faith in evolution as religion.

[Robert]

rob: "Look at your statement you’re already introducing religion into the equation, already assuming ID is ‘god”."


exactly where was it that i assumed id is 'god?" that would be a good trick since i'm an atheist.

Here’s your quote:
“i see no problem teaching both in schools as long as the religion isn't applied too thickly”

What is your “both” referring to in your statement? Evolution and what? Evolution and ID. What is ID? ID in your "both" is religion.

You’re assuming ID is ‘god’ because you are saying that you don’t object to “religion” being taught along with evolution. You’re not saying ID is aliens, you’re equating ID to religion and religion = God. You’re not saying, “as long as alien belief isn’t applied to thickly” are you? You’re saying religion.

Webster:
religion:
The service or worship of God.

So while you may not believe in God you’re assuming others do and their system is a viable alternative to evolution.

[lcb]

religion is a part of evolution also since it hasn't been proved to be a fact and requires faith to believe it. religion is a sword that cuts both ways and you seem to want to dull one edge of it.

[Robert]

religion is a part of evolution also since it hasn't been proved to be a fact and requires faith to believe it. religion is a sword that cuts both ways and you seem to want to dull one edge of it.

You made a statement that I was falsely accusing you of introducing God into ID and I showed you. Now you want to change the subject and tell me how “religion is a sword that cuts both ways”.
First of all religion is not a part of evolution and second it’s not a sword that cuts both ways and third I’m calling a spade a spade. I say teach only what we know. How is that dulling one edge. I’m saying leave ALL theories out of the class room. You are say we should allow religion into the class room. Whose religion?

Again, here’s your statement.

“i see no problem teaching both in schools as long as the religion isn't applied too thickly”

[lcb]

religion is a part of evolution in that it takes faith to believe evolution as fact.

as for your current claim that i introduced "god" into the id discussion, you seem to be confusing it with religion (faith). they are not the same thing whereas faith is a kind of religion whether a god is included or not. and as you can see in my statement, there is no mention of god so your imagination is running wild and you are jumping to conclusions that haven't been proved.

btw, you said "I’m saying leave ALL theories out of the class room."

so now you don't want evolution taught either. interesting twist. and to be inclusive, you would have to eliminate much of science currently being taught as well as some math. statistics would be a no-no. and political "science?" i think you stepped on your tongue with that statement. ;)

[Chills]

religion is a part of evolution in that it takes faith to believe evolution as fact.


Are you suggesting that faith does not exist without religion?

If so please explain how you arrive at that.

Thanx.

[lcb]

i didn't say faith exists without religion. i said faith is religion. it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with gods as robert believes.

for varification, look up the word faith and see what the first term in the thesarus is.

i'll help you out:


faith:
1. A system of religious belief:
a. religion
b. denomination
c. persuasion
d. creed
e. sect
2. Absolute certainty in the trustworthiness of another:
a. belief
b. confidence
c. trust
d. reliance
3. Mental acceptance of the truth or actuality of something:
a. belief
b. credit
c. credence
4. Those who accept and practice a particular religious belief:
a. church
b. denomination
c. communion
d. persuasion
e. creed
f. sect

what i said was that evolution cannot be believed without faith making the belief in it a type of religion. gods may or may not be a part of the theory but have not been shown to be a part of it, even if id is considered.

[Chills]

lcb

I just wondered how were using it there.

I see religion as a social function.
I see faith as a human function....

Anyway thanks for the reply and explaining your position.

[Robert]

religion is a part of evolution in that it takes faith to believe evolution as fact.

What???
Is faith religion? NO! Again, religion is the worship of God. This is getting embarrassing. You have your own private vocabulary!

as for your current claim that i introduced "god" into the id discussion, you seem to be confusing it with religion (faith). they are not the same thing whereas faith is a kind of religion whether a god is included or not. and as you can see in my statement, there is no mention of god so your imagination is running wild and you are jumping to conclusions that haven't been proved.

What’s scary here is that you’re serious! Get a dictionary. Faith is not a “kind of religion” And again you said,” i see no problem teaching both in schools as long as the religion isn't applied too thickly”
And that is introducing God.

btw, you said "I’m saying leave ALL theories out of the class room."

You miss quoted me I said," teach only what we know". We can teach theories if the facts support them. Do we have any facts that God started the universe?

so now you don't want evolution taught either. interesting twist. and to be inclusive, you would have to eliminate much of science currently being taught as well as some math. statistics would be a no-no. and political "science?" i think you stepped on your tongue with that statement. ;)

We know a lot about evolution that can be taught and there’s a far stretch between that and teaching that ‘god’ started the universe.
What part of science do you want to eliminate? Newton’s laws, Quantum physics? What part of math do you want to eliminate? Statistics? It’s based on facts.

[lcb]

robert, you can deny whatever you like but the definitions of the dictionary are what society goes by. you are also the one who keeps making claims about gods and as far as i'm concerned, gods have little or nothing to do with the conversation, except to those like yourself who believe in them. and you are the one who stated that you didn't want theories taught in schools now you have flopped on that statement as well. at least try to be consistent.

[Robert]

robert, you can deny whatever you like but the definitions of the dictionary are what society goes by. you are also the one who keeps making claims about gods and as far as i'm concerned, gods have little or nothing to do with the conversation

The definitions in the dictionary??
Religion: Webster
The service and worship of God.

That’s what I’ve been calling it all along.

YOU brought religion into it, not me! I said, “teach only what we know.” You associated ID and religion.

Read your own statement:

“i see no problem teaching both in schools as long as the religion isn't applied too thickly”

What does it mean?

It means that you think ID IS religion and you have no problem with it being taught in school.
Do you see the word ’both’? ‘Both’ refers to evolution and ID. And what are you calling ID? Religion.

except to those like yourself who believe in them. and you are the one who stated that you didn't want theories taught in schools now you have flopped on that statement as well. at least try to be consistent.

I never said that! First you misquoted me and now your making a statement about your own misquote! Amazing.
And I said about religion that regardless of my beliefs to teach religion opens the door to every one’s belief system. If we don’t do that we are trampling religious freedom.

Faith: Webster has several definitions of faith. All are equal. The most common is #1. When there is an equal but different meaning it is noted with a letter. Faith fits this notation.

A . Belief and trust in and loyalty to God

example: John’s faith is Hinduism.

B. Firm belief for something for which there is no proof.

Now let’s look at your statement:

LCB
”religion is a part of evolution also since it hasn't been proved to be a fact and requires faith to believe it.”

Which one applies to ‘faith’ in your sentence. Is it ‘A’ ? No, it’s ‘B’.

My response to your statement that, “religion is a part of evolution” was

“religion is not a part of evolution”

Your response:
“religion is a part of evolution in that it takes faith to believe evolution as fact.”

What context are you using faith? ‘B’ acceptance without belief.

You are making the assumption that belief without proof is equal to religion because one believes in God without proof and you are wrong. One can believe that tomorrow will be sunny without any indication or forecast of that. Simply on faith. Does that mean he is religious? No he can be an atheist and believe that it will be sunny tomorrow.

Yikes!!

[lcb]

as i said before, you can believe whatever you want to. where is the god mentioned in anything below?

1. A system of religious belief:
a. religion
b. denomination
c. persuasion
d. creed
e. sect
2. Absolute certainty in the trustworthiness of another:
a. belief
b. confidence
c. trust
d. reliance
3. Mental acceptance of the truth or actuality of something:
a. belief
b. credit
c. credence
4. Those who accept and practice a particular religious belief:
a. church
b. denomination
c. communion
d. persuasion
e. creed
f. sect

[Robert]

How about ‘1a’ for starters!!!

Webster:
Religion 1. The service and worship of God.

And again, once more. John’s faith is Episcopalian. Fine Is that what you said. NO!!!

You said, ”religion is a part of evolution also since it hasn't been proved to be a fact and requires faith to believe it.”

Absolutely amazing!!

[lcb]

do you see the mention of any god in 1a or is that just another one of your many assumptions? maybe you forgot about the religion that you brought up - buddhism - a religion/faith about reason but without a god.

[pop pop]

I read this whole thread. Fascinating. Kind of like watching a train wreck.

I'm biased and will defer entry into the God/religion/faith/ID debate for now. But, I have two questions. While reading that impressive critique on ID that someone gave a link to this struck me: "selection is also a cumulative process-analogous to a ratchet-which can build things over time, as long as the intermediate steps are also advantageous.". It may be an example of a bit of free association but that line made me remember a theory? that says something like by simply experiencing (seeing, hearing, etc) something, we change it. I wish I could remember what that was, who said it, and where I read/heard it. Google didn't help. Does anyone know?

The statement made several times here, something like teach only what we know, sounds ridiculous. Why would you want to put that kind of limitation on education? To have done so at any given time in human history would eliminate the consideration and study of the thinking of people like Plato and Socrates, and .... so on. Sad, just sad.

[Robert]

The statement made several times here, something like teach only what we know, sounds ridiculous. Why would you want to put that kind of limitation on education? To have done so at any given time in human history would eliminate the consideration and study of the thinking of people like Plato and Socrates, and .... so on. Sad, just sad.


Plato and Socrates? Have you read ‘Plato’s Republic’? Their thinking was based on reason not on the unknown.
What do you want to teach?
Are we limiting creativity by asking to find facts to substantiate our theories? Are we saying don’t imagine, don’t use creativity? No, just don’t introduce that which has no proof. You want to bring God into it, then prove God exists. Because you are stifling creativity the moment you introduce the unprovable. When we accept a theory simply on faith we no longer seek the truth of the matter. We stop looking, stop inquiring.
You want to introduce God then prove it and again you can start by proving God exists.
Next is whose God do you want to introduce? When you open the door you have to let everyone in.

[nanna]

pop pop said:

It may be an example of a bit of free association but that line made me remember a theory? that says something like by simply experiencing (seeing, hearing, etc) something, we change it. I wish I could remember what that was, who said it, and where I read/heard it. Google didn't help. Does anyone know?

Perhaps you are referring to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?

http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08.htm

"The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa."
--Heisenberg, uncertainty paper, 1927



nanna

[Robert]

do you see the mention of any god in 1a or is that just another one of your many assumptions?

Religion is the belief in God as defined by Webster and you cited religion as your first definition. Is God mentioned in the definition of religion. YES!!! Someone save me from this!!!

maybe you forgot about the religion that you brought up - buddhism - a religion/faith about reason but without a god.

My statement about Buddhism had nothing to do with ID or evolution. It was a response to Dave (Member31).
You made this statement afterwards:
as for buddhism, it is just another religion that man has embraced without really knowing anything other than what other men told him, as is the case with all religion.

And I disagreed with it and gave my reasons. I didn’t use it as an alternative to evolution.

Geeeeeze!!!

[Potemkin]

http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html

Intelligent design (ID) refers to the theory that intelligent causes are responsible for the origin of the universe and of life in all its diversity.* Advocates of ID maintain that their theory is scientific and provides empirical proof for the existence of God or superintelligent aliens. They believe that design is empirically detectable in nature and in living systems. They claim that intelligent design should be taught in the science classroom because it is an alternative to the scientific theory of natural selection.

The arguments of the ID advocates may seem like a rehash of the creationist arguments, but the defenders of ID claim that they do not reject evolution simply because it does not fit with their understanding of the Bible. However, they present natural selection as implying the universe could not have been designed or created, which is nonsense. To deny that God has the power to create living things using natural selection is to assert something unknowable. It is also inconsistent with the belief in an omnipotent Creator.

One of the early-birds defending ID was UC Berkeley law professor Philip E. Johnson, who seems to have completely misunderstood Darwin's theory of natural selection as implying (1) God doesn't exist, (2) natural selection could only have happened randomly and by chance, and (3) whatever happens randomly and by chance cannot be designed by God. None of these beliefs is essential to natural selection. There is no inconsistency in believing in God the Creator of the universe and in natural selection. Natural selection could have been designed by God. Or, natural selection could have occurred even if God did not exist. Thus, the first of several fallacies committed by ID defenders is the false dilemma. The choice is not either natural selection or design by God or some other superintelligent creatures. God could have designed the universe to produce life by random events following laws of nature. God could have created superintelligent aliens who are experimenting with natural selection. Superintelligent aliens could have evolved by natural selection and then introduced the process on our planet. There may be another scientific theory that explains living beings and their eco-systems better than natural selection (or intelligent design). The possibilities may not be endless but they are certainly greater than the two considered by ID defenders.

Two scientists often cited by defenders of ID are Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press, 1996), and William Dembski, author of Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology (Cambridge University Press, 1998). Dembski and Behe are fellows of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle research institute funded largely by Christian foundations. Their arguments are attractive because they are couched in scientific terms and backed by scientific competence. However, their arguments are identical in function to the creationists: rather than provide positive evidence for their own position, they mainly try to find weaknesses in natural selection. As already noted, however, even if their arguments are successful against natural selection, that would not increase the probability of ID.

Behe is an Associate Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University. Behe's argument is not essentially about whether evolution occurred, but how it had to have occurred. He claims that he wants to see "real laboratory research on the question of intelligent design."* Such a desire belies his indifference to the science/metaphysics distinction. There is no lab experiment relevant to determining whether God exists.

In any case, Behe claims that biochemistry reveals a cellular world of such precisely tailored molecules and such staggering complexity that it is not only inexplicable by gradual evolution, but that it can only be plausibly explained by assuming an intelligent designer, i.e., God. Some systems, he thinks, can't be produced by natural selection because "any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional (39)." He says that a mousetrap is an example of an irreducibly complex system, i.e., all the parts must be there in order for the mousetrap to function. In short, Behe has old wine in a new skin: the argument from design wrapped in biochemistry. His argument is no more scientific than any other variant of the argument from design. In fact, most scientists, including scientists who are Christians, think Behe should cease patting himself on the back. As with all other such arguments, Behe's begs the question. He must assume design in order to prove a designer. The general consensus seems to be that Behe is a good scientist and writer, but a mediocre metaphysician.

His argument hinges upon the notion of "irreducibly complex systems," systems that could not function if they were missing just one of their many parts. "Irreducibly complex systems ... cannot evolve in a Darwinian fashion," he says, because natural selection works on small mutations in just one component at a time. He then leaps to the conclusion that intelligent design must be responsible for these irreducibly complex systems. Biology professor (and Christian) Kenneth Miller responds:

The multiple parts of complex, interlocking biological systems do not evolve as individual parts, despite Behe's claim that they must. They evolve together, as systems that are gradually expanded, enlarged, and adapted to new purposes. As Richard Dawkins successfully argued in The Blind Watchmaker, natural selection can act on these evolving systems at every step of their transformation.*

Professor Bartelt writes

if we assume that Behe is correct, and that humans can discern design, then I submit that they can also discern poor design (we sue companies for this all the time!). In Darwin's Black Box, Behe refers to design as the "purposeful arrangement of parts." What about when the "parts" aren't purposeful, by any standard engineering criteria? When confronted with the "All-Thumbs Designer" - whoever designed the spine, the birth canal, the prostate gland, the back of the throat, etc, Behe and the ID people retreat into theology.* [I.e., God can do whatever He wants, or, We're not competent to judge intelligence by God's standards, etc.]

H. Allen Orr writes:

Behe's colossal mistake is that, in rejecting these possibilities, he concludes that no Darwinian solution remains. But one does. It is this: An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required.*

Finally, Behe's argument assumes that natural selection will never be able to account for anything it cannot account for now. This begs the question. In fact, some of the things that Behe and other ID defenders have claimed could not be explained by natural selection have in fact been explained by natural selection.

Dembski

William Dembski (Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology, 1998) is a professor at Baylor University. Dembski claims that he can prove that life and the universe could not have happened by chance and by natural processes; therefore, they must be the result of intelligent design by God. He also claims that "the conceptual soundness of a scientific theory cannot be maintained apart from Christ (209)," a claim which belies his metaphysical bias.

According to physicist Vic Stenger in "The Emperor's New Designer Clothes," Dembski uses math and logic to derive what he calls the law of conservation of information. "He argues that the information contained in living structures cannot be generated by any combination of chance and natural processes....Dembski's law of conservation of information is nothing more than "conservation of entropy," a special case of the second law [of thermodynamics] that applies when no dissipative processes such as friction are present." However, the fact is that "entropy is created naturally a thousand times a day by every person on Earth. Each time any friction is generated, information is lost."

pseudoscience


ID isn't a scientific theory and it isn't an alternative to natural selection or any other scientific theory. The universe would appear the same to us whether it was designed by God or not. Empirical theories are about how the world appears to us and have no business positing why the world appears this way, or that it is probably designed because of how unlikely it is that this or that happened by chance. That is the business of metaphysics. ID is not a scientific theory, but a metaphysical theory. The fact that it has empirical content doesn't make it any more scientific than, say, Spinoza's metaphysics or so-called creation science.

ID is a pseudoscience because it claims to be scientific but is in fact metaphysical. It is based on several philosophical confusions, not the least of which is the notion that the empirical is necessarily scientific. This is false, if by 'empirical' one means originating in or based on observation or experience. Empirical theories can be scientific or non-scientific. Freud's theory of the Oedipus complex is empirical but it is not scientific. Jung's theory of the collective unconscious is empirical but it is not scientific. Biblical creationism is empirical but it is not scientific. Poetry can be empirical but not scientific.

On the other hand, if by 'empirical' one means capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment then ID is not empirical. Neither the whole of Nature nor an individual eco-system can be proved or disproved by any set of observations to be intelligently or unintelligently designed. A design theory and a natural law theory that makes no reference to design can account for Nature as a whole and for individual eco-systems.

Science does have some metaphysical assumptions, not the least of which is that the universe follows laws. But Science leaves open the question of whether those laws were designed. That is a metaphysical question. Believing the universe or some part of it was designed or not does not help understand how it works. If I ever answer an empirical question with the answer "because God [or superintelligent aliens, otherwise undetectable] made it that way" then I have left the realm of science and entered the realm of metaphysics. Of course scientists have metaphysical beliefs but those beliefs are irrelevant to strictly scientific explanations. Science is open to both theists and atheists alike.

If we grant that the universe is possibly or even probably the result of intelligent design, what is the next step? For example, assume a particular eco-system is the creation of an intelligent designer. Unless this intelligent designer is one of us, i.e., human, and unless we have some experience with the creations of this and similar designers, how could we proceed to study this system? If all we know is that it is the result of ID, but that the designer is of a different order of being than we are, how would we proceed to study this system? Wouldn't we be limited in always responding in the same way to any question we asked about the system's relation to its designer? It is this way because of ID. Furthermore, wouldn't we have to assume that since God, the intelligent designer, designed everything, even us, that no matter what happens, it is always a sign of and due to intelligent design. The theory explains everything but illuminates nothing.

The ID proponents are fighting a battle that was lost in the 17th century: the battle for understanding Nature in terms of final causes and efficient causes. Prior to the 17th century, there was no essential conflict between a mechanistic view of Nature and a teleological view, between a naturalistic and a supernaturalistic view of Nature. With the notable exception of Leibniz and his intellectual descendents, just about everyone else gave up the idea of scientific explanations needing to include theological ones. Scientific progress became possible in part because scientists attempted to describe the workings of natural phenomena without reference to their creation, design or ultimate purpose. God may well have created the universe and the laws of nature, but created Nature is a machine, mechanically changing and comprehensible as such. God became an unnecessary hypothesis.

[Chills]

Pote--

Interesting read... thanx.

[Flint]

More on the battle over Intelligent Design being waged in Dover, Pa. Turns out the science teachers have banded together and refused to associate themselves with what they regard as a violation of their responsibilities as educators.

Here (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/PA/304_dover_teachers_refuse_to_read__1_7_2005.asp) is the letter from the Dover schoolteachers:

To: Dr. Richard Nilsen

From: Bertha Spahr
Jennifer Miller
Robert Linker
Robert Eshbach
Leslie Prall
Brian Bahn
David Taylor
Vickie Davis

Date: January 6, 2005

Re: Reading Statement on Intelligent Design

We have individually reviewed the statement you presented yesterday for presentation to our students at the beginning of the Biology unit dealing with evolution. You have indicated that students may "opt-out" of this portion of the class and that they will be excused and monitored by an administrator. We respectfully exercise our right to "opt-out" of the statement portion of the class. We will relinquish the classroom to an administrator and we will monitor our own students. This request is based upon our considered opinion that reading the statement violates our responsibilities as professional educators as set forth in the Code of Professional Practice and Conduct for Educators promulgated by the Professional Standards and Practices Commission and found at 22 Pa. Code section 235.1 et.seq. As noted in the introductory paragraph of the Code, section 235.2 (a): "Generally, the responsibility for professional conduct rests with the individual professional educator." Further, the Code provides in section 235.2 (b): "This chapter makes explicit the values of the education profession. When individuals become educators in this Commonwealth, they make a moral commitment to uphold these values."

Central to the teaching act and our ethical obligation is the solemn responsibility to teach the truth. Section 235.10 (2) guides our relationships with students and provides that "The professional educator may not Knowingly and intentionally misrepresent subject matter or curriculum."

INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT SCIENCE. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT BIOLOGY. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT AN ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

I believe that if I as the classroom teacher read the required statement, my students will inevitably (and understandably) believe that Intelligent Design is a valid scientific theory, perhaps on par with the theory of evolution. That is not true. To refer the students to "Of Pandas and People" as if it is a scientific resource breaches my ethical obligation to provide them with scientific knowledge that is supported by recognized scientific proof or theory.

Reading the statement places us in violation of the following ethical obligations. Section 235.3 of the Code requires Professional educators to develop "sound educational policy" and obligates us "to implement that policy." Section 235.3 (b) makes it explicit that "Professional educators recognize their primary responsibility to the student and the development of the student's potential. Central to that development is the professional educator's valuing the pursuit of truth; devotion to excellence; acquisition of knowledge; and democratic principles." The same section goes on to provide: "Educators encourage and support the use of resources that best serve the interests and needs of students. Within the context of professional experience, the educator and the student together explore the challenge and the dignity of the human experience." Section 235.4 (b) (2) provides: "Professional educators shall be prepared, and legally certified, in their areas of assignment. Educators may not be assigned or willingly accept assignments they are not certified to fulfill." Section 235.5(b) (8) provides: "Professional educators shall be open-minded, knowledgeable and use appropriate judgement and communication skills when responding to an issue within the educational environment." Section 235.4 (b) (10) provides: "Professional educators shall exert reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions which interfere with learning or are harmful to the student's health and safety."

[lcb]

you keep claiming that religion is about gods, and that any mention of it is about gods, yet you haven't backed that up with anything except your own stubbornness. the easiest way for you to be saved from this conversation is for you to bow out of it.

[Robert]

you keep claiming that religion is about gods, and that any mention of it is about gods, yet you haven't backed that up with anything except your own stubbornness. the easiest way for you to be saved from this conversation is for you to bow out of it.

Webster:
Religion 1. The service and worship of God

Are we on the same planet???

[Chills]

Webster:
Religion 1. The service and worship of God

Are we on the same planet???


Correct me if I am wrong but... isnt Buddhism considered a religion.
I was not under the impression they worshipped a god... at all.

& What about Taoism.... I am not sure but I do not think there is a god involved in that one either...

I am not sure... just asking....

[Robert]

Correct me if I am wrong but... isnt Buddhism considered a religion.
I was not under the impression they worshipped a god... at all.

& What about Taoism.... I am not sure but I do not think there is a god involved in that one either...

I am not sure... just asking....

I think this is a good question.

Buddha shunned teaching that he was a god or more aptly a deity but if you go to countries where Buddhism is practiced you will see statues of the Buddha that people do in fact worship as a god.
I guess it is this sense that Buddhism is called a religion.

Taoism is focused on Lao Tse and he is also worshiped as a deity regardless of whether he wanted it or not.

A Christian is one who follows Christ, perhaps one of the greatest souls that walked the earth but if we look at the religion that claims to follow him we see very little that reflects on the root of his teachings. If Christ was not God, as the Jews believe, would that have stopped Christians from calling him one? I don’t think so. I would say Buddhism and Taoism have the same problem although I think they are less diluted of the original teachings of both those great souls then Christianity is.





.

[nanna]

I think this is a good question.

Buddha shunned teaching that he was a god or more aptly a deity but if you go to countries where Buddhism is practiced you will see statues of the Buddha that people do in fact worship as a god.
I guess it is this sense that Buddhism is called a religion.

Taoism is focused on Lao Tse and he is also worshiped as a deity regardless of whether he wanted it or not.

A Christian is one who follows Christ, perhaps one of the greatest souls that walked the earth but if we look at the religion that claims to follow him we see very little that reflects on the root of his teachings. If Christ was not God, as the Jews believe, would that have stopped Christians from calling him one? I don’t think so. I would say Buddhism and Taoism have the same problem although I think they are less diluted of the original teachings of both those great souls then Christianity is.





.


The Buddhists I know are more interested in experiencing the "why is the Buddha smirking" of the statues, than in worshiping them.

;)


Here's an interesting article, along a different vein of thought ...

http://chaozation.com/index.php?pageBody=knowledge&id=100


nanna
(discovered a new site today, heh)

[Robert]

Here's an interesting article, along a different vein of thought ...

http://chaozation.com/index.php?pageBody=knowledge&id=100


nanna
(discovered a new site today, heh)

Yummie.....