NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's a link I caught last night before I went to bed, for those following the Dover, PA "New Scopes Monkey Trial" or "Inherit the Idiocy".

Harvard Prof Slams ID (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051012/sc_nm/life_evolution_dc)

Here's a link I caught last night before I went to bed, for those following the Dover, PA "New Scopes Monkey Trial" or "Inherit the Idiocy".

Harvard Prof Slams ID (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051012/sc_nm/life_evolution_dc)

The more this goes on the more it looks like ID actually stands for "Idiocy Displayed".

It's nice to get some news on the case.. I can understand the lack of reporting on it (public interest in the case is basically nonexistent), but I was kinda interested, so.. ;)

The more this goes on the more it looks like ID actually stands for "Idiocy Displayed".

No, no, no, you've got it wrong. Remember, ID is the fancy name behind which Creationism hides; thus it truly stands for "Idiocy Disguised."

While I'm glad to see that it looks like sanity is winning in this case, I'm truly disturbed by the poll numbers I continually see, which is that a majority of the public openly believes in creation or in the "god started evolution" form of creation--and this isn't a slight majority either. If you combine those two options, it's something like 80% of the population.

Beliefs like that wouldn't bother me so much, however, if there weren't this subset of them who are working so hard to undermine scientific learning in the US.

No, no, no, you've got it wrong. Remember, ID is the fancy name behind which Creationism hides; thus it truly stands for "Idiocy Disguised."

Point taken...and an excellent point indeed.

It'll be a sad day when science loses to ID...

No, no, no, you've got it wrong. Remember, ID is the fancy name behind which Creationism hides; thus it truly stands for "Idiocy Disguised."

I stand corrected :)

It'll be a sad day when science loses to ID...

You think this will happen? If it does...I'll flee the country...

You think this will happen? If it does...I'll flee the country...

You shall be more than welcome here in Europe.

It'll be a sad day when science loses to ID...
Actually, it'll likely be justified. If Evolution theory is put on par with Intelliegent Design, it'll most likely have to blame, partly, European America-haters and Unreasonable scientists who have not a scrap of tact and farsightedness, who, instead of trying to allow their science or national belief in evolution stand on its own merits insist on personal attacks against those who disagree with them.

Honestly people. It's pretty hard to convince someone they're wrong while calling them "idiot". Have a little bit of common sense and composure. Not everything has to be a rant.

If "science loses to ID", I'll laugh: out of pity for the pro-science crowd who made themselves lose by acting better and more intelligent than everyone else.

Still, they'll deserve the loss.

You think this will happen? If it does...I'll flee the country...

One reason there are already a lot of Americans in the UK.

Actually, it'll likely be justified. If Evolution theory is put on par with Intelliegent Design, it'll most likely have to blame, partly, European America-haters and Unreasonable scientists who have not a scrap of tact and farsightedness, who, instead of trying to allow their science or national belief in evolution stand on its own merits insist on personal attacks against those who disagree with them.

Honestly people. It's pretty hard to convince someone they're wrong while calling them "idiot". Have a little bit of common sense and composure. Not everything has to be a rant.

If "science loses to ID", I'll laugh: out of pity for the pro-science crowd who made themselves lose by acting better and more intelligent than everyone else.

Still, they'll deserve the loss.


If ID wins it would be a sign of the gross stupidity and/or bias of those judging the case - nothing else.

ID is NOT a science, it has no place in a science class. It should be the duty of schools to point out the that religion belongs in the history books, not the 21st century. Schools should be responsible for educating children and that include not only giving them correct information but also eradicate false knowledge like religion from the children.

If ID wins it would be a sign of the gross stupidity and/or bias of those judging the case - nothing else.

ID is NOT a science, it has no place in a science class. It should be the duty of schools to point out the that religion belongs in the history books, not the 21st century. Schools should be responsible for educating children and that include not only giving them correct information but also eradicate false knowledge like religion from the children.
okay I can deal with the ID not being science arguement. The whole "religion belongs in the history books and not in the 21st century" and the "false knowledge like religion" stuff though? that is offensive. you should learn to be more diplomatic if you really want to sway people to your side.:rolleyes:

You shall be more than welcome here in Europe.

Really? Know of any companies looking for Web Developer/Designer/Programmer?

I'm willing to send my resume to anyone seriously considering hiring me. :)

Actually, it'll likely be justified. If Evolution theory is put on par with Intelliegent Design, it'll most likely have to blame, partly, European America-haters and Unreasonable scientists who have not a scrap of tact and farsightedness, who, instead of trying to allow their science or national belief in evolution stand on its own merits insist on personal attacks against those who disagree with them.

Honestly people. It's pretty hard to convince someone they're wrong while calling them "idiot". Have a little bit of common sense and composure. Not everything has to be a rant.

If "science loses to ID", I'll laugh: out of pity for the pro-science crowd who made themselves lose by acting better and more intelligent than everyone else.

Still, they'll deserve the loss.

I always felt it was the IDers who were bitter and attacking. The scientists who are involved generally just say, "Where's you proof?". The IDers come back with something like "The Flagellum". Biologists come back explaining exactly how the Flagellum evolved. Then the IDers, due to severe lack of integrity, conscience and proof, run off and try to find something else.

Science won't really "lose" per se. Just the students forced to learn creationism as if it has any sort of merit at all.

okay I can deal with the ID not being science arguement. The whole "religion belongs in the history books and not in the 21st century" and the "false knowledge like religion" stuff though? that is offensive. you should learn to be more diplomatic if you really want to sway people to your side.:rolleyes:

I hate to say it Smunkee, but he is accurate. They don't teach about new religions, and there have been no (I'm 99% sure) religions that have sprung up in the last 5 years, therefore making it history and not in the 21st century.

Religion as false knowledge...well that's a tough one. As religion isn't supported by facts, it can't be called "true knowledge" and therefore can only be considered (semantically) as false knowledge. So what he said was linguistically accurate, if said in a harsh tone.

If ID wins it would be a sign of the gross stupidity and/or bias of those judging the case - nothing else.

ID is NOT a science, it has no place in a science class. It should be the duty of schools to point out the that religion belongs in the history books, not the 21st century. Schools should be responsible for educating children and that include not only giving them correct information but also eradicate false knowledge like religion from the children.
And my point is proven.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I believe ID should be taught in the science classroom (though it isn't really true). You have just accused me of excessive stupidity (or perhaps 144 counts of stupidity) and have implied those of similar interests to mine have corrupted the judiciary. Does that sound convincing to you?

Let's turn this around. Let's say I, as a theoretical ID advocate, say "scientists are stupid for not keeping an open mind, and that the liberal media and activist judges are tilting the whole of American politics, unpopularly, to the left." Would this make you recant your opposition to ID?

Of course not. It's really unpersuasive to tell someone else that their viewpoint is "stupid", and accuse them of abuse of the judiciary. I'm surprised that science teachers, of all people, are having trouble educating people on why they think intelligent design doesn't belong in science classes. Perhaps this is the result of scientists being fenced into the anti-social stereotype: protrayed as people with few social graces and an inability to phrase their thoughts well and tolerantly.

Or, more likely, perhaps it's from we haven't actually heard enough from science teachers and the moderates who have no particular opinion on ether evolution or intelligent design (just a desire to be clear and accurate in what is considered 'science'). And from the far too much we've heard from Far Right and Far Left demagogues, trying to "rally their base" (which is a cute way of saying "promoting extremism", or "alienating others") with dramatics.

Actually, lemme requote something.If ID wins it would be a sign of the gross stupidity and/or bias of those judging the case - nothing else.
Actually, it'll be because the people judging the case found one side more persuasive than the other. You forget that a truth can be as absolute as all get out, and if it's less persuasive than another point of view, it's less accepted, and may fulle-well be ruled against.

Really, to think that the judiciary is there to divine the "truth" in a case is naive. A judiciary is created to hear two arguments and choose the most persuasive/most lawful/most sensible. Intelligent design can be a tarot-like card game, and, if the pro-science crowd presents their case poorly in the court, they may full well lose to ID and be forced to teach tarot in the science class.

Worse yet, the more inaccessible and elite the pro-science crowd makes this issue, the more they will provoke the public to feel sympathetic to intelliegent design and thus invite state and local lawmakers to legislate it in the classroom. It's the same principal as the 2004 US Presidential Elecetion. The Democratic party Bush-bashed too snootily, and self-righteously, rallying Bush's base for him, and swinging more moderates to support the apparently less-angry candidate. Maybe the 'left' in America hasn't yet learned its lesson.

I hate to say it Smunkee, but he is accurate. They don't teach about new religions, and there have been no (I'm 99% sure) religions that have sprung up in the last 5 years, therefore making it history and not in the 21st century.

Religion as false knowledge...well that's a tough one. As religion isn't supported by facts, it can't be called "true knowledge" and therefore can only be considered (semantically) as false knowledge. So what he said was linguistically accurate, if said in a harsh tone.

What do you mean? New religions are always appearing, they are just small and are often accused of being cults. Besides as I understand it some groups like the Mormons are actually having their members increase. The idea that religion is "dead" seems inaccurate. If there is a supreme being it is only the Western world that mocks him.

And my point is proven.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I believe ID should be taught in the science classroom (though it isn't really true). You have just accused me of excessive stupidity (or perhaps 144 counts of stupidity) and have implied those of similar interests to mine have corrupted the judiciary. Does that sound convincing to you?

Let's turn this around. Let's say I, as a theoretical ID advocate, say "scientists are stupid for not keeping an open mind, and that the liberal media and activist judges are tilting the whole of American politics, unpopularly, to the left." Would this make you recant your opposition to ID?

Of course not. It's really unpersuasive to tell someone else that their viewpoint is "stupid", and accuse them of abuse of the judiciary. I'm surprised that science teachers, of all people, are having trouble educating people on why they think intelligent design doesn't belong in science classes. Perhaps this is the result of scientists being fenced into the anti-social stereotype: protrayed as people with few social graces and an inability to phrase their thoughts well and tolerantly.

Or, more likely, perhaps it's from we haven't actually heard enough from science teachers and the moderates who have no particular opinion on ether evolution or intelligent design (just a desire to be clear and accurate in what is considered 'science'). And from the far too much we've heard from Far Right and Far Left demagogues, trying to "rally their base" (which is a cute way of saying "promoting extremism", or "alienating others") with dramatics.



Perhaps you should read the link that I started this survey with. Not only is evolution being promoted (and ID demoted?) by a science teacher...but by the science teacher. This man is one of the most respected professors in the US, if not the world, and that is why he is called to testify. He knows the argument, and he is right. Evolution has nothing to with forcing people away from any god. ID has everything to do with forcing people into believing in a christian god. That is the issue.

Science doesn't participate at the town hall level, nor do science teachers, because they do not want to give the idea that ID has a valid debate.

I hate to say it Smunkee, but he is accurate. They don't teach about new religions, and there have been no (I'm 99% sure) religions that have sprung up in the last 5 years, therefore making it history and not in the 21st century.

Religion as false knowledge...well that's a tough one. As religion isn't supported by facts, it can't be called "true knowledge" and therefore can only be considered (semantically) as false knowledge. So what he said was linguistically accurate, if said in a harsh tone.
what would you consider "true knowledge"?

I always felt it was the IDers who were bitter and attacking. The scientists who are involved generally just say, "Where's you proof?". The IDers come back with something like "The Flagellum". Biologists come back explaining exactly how the Flagellum evolved. Then the IDers, due to severe lack of integrity, conscience and proof, run off and try to find something else.


It depends on what you mean. In my mind there are three, possible four groups involved:

1. Science teachers/scientists
2. Those politicians and ideologues attempting to politicize the science (to the left)
3. Advocates for intelligent design
4.? Those politicians and ideologues attempting to politicize the science (to the right)

The reason I question whether there is a fourth group, is because the pro-intelligence design group seems to have politicized the issue itself.

Generally, I'd agree that, in comparing group 1 to group 3 gives the "more bitterness" award to the latter. But, when group 1 and 2 are taken in contrast with groups 3 and 4?, my perception is reversed towards more bitterness being directed at intelligence deisgn advocates.

My main point is that ideological dictatorship doesn't work. Telling people how to think is not going to persuade as many people as providing open proof, and presenting cases in a little less controversial or instigatory way. Perhaps I've just not witnessed the moderates in group 1 and 2 as much as I should to geta grasp on the situation. Perhaps not.

But if this forum is any indication, I fear greatly for those against intelligent design being taught in the classroom.

I'll ask it again, and I'll keep asking: Why do some people think religion and science conflict with each other, do the same job as each other, can substitute for each other? They're not the same, people!!!

Religion can be taught as history/social studies in a public school or as a practice in a parochial school.

Science can be taught as science in both (or parochial schools can skip it if they are that extreme).

It is not appropriate to teach religious beliefs as if they are science, any more than it would be to teach science as if it was a religion. I wish creationists who demand that scientists respect their views would return the courtesy once in a while.

Religion is not science and should not be taught in science class.

Perhaps you should read the link that I started this survey with. Not only is evolution being promoted (and ID demoted?) by a science teacher...but by the science teacher. This man is one of the most respected professors in the US, if not the world, and that is why he is called to testify. He knows the argument, and he is right. Evolution has nothing to with forcing people away from any god. ID has everything to do with forcing people into believing in a christian god. That is the issue.
[emphasis added]

Perhaps you misundestand what I'm saying. I have no objections to the bolded sections. There's no reason for you to preach to me about how bad ID is or how scientific Evolution is. Not only is to not a primary concern of mine, but I'm most likely going to agree with you.

My point is that the case is not seen in as greatly a positive light for Evolutionists as it could be because of the inflammatory things said (such as on this forum) against IDers. Perhaps I mispeak when I comment about the case, per se (as I have not researched it enough to say that much), however, public opinion sways on the messages tehy hear from demagogues and pendants. There needs to be a better outreach by sceintists in the public arena, is what I'm saying.


Science doesn't participate at the town hall level, nor do science teachers, because they do not want to give the idea that ID has a valid debate.
Of course it's a valid debate! Because there are a lot of people who think it's scientific and accurate (which obivously the "evolutionists", for lack of a better name, don't). Do you think it was a waste of Gallileo's time to tell his colleagues that the Earth revolved around the Sun? No, because there was a longstanding belief then that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Look, if there are people who have misconceptions about intelligent design and evolution (as sceintists seem to believe or IDers), then I think it's valid for debate and discussion to take place.

Settin the topic on an unaspirable pedastle is playing right into the IDers' hand.

All I'm saying is that sceintists and ideologues alike could do a whole lot more to convince those of opposing viewpiont and neutral viewpoint that they are correct. All I'm saying is that most people on this forum I've heard come down on ID for not being sceince really don't have a large amount of persuasiveness or a good understanding of consubsantiation. Perhaps you General forumers should swing over to the UN forum once in a while, where differing viewpoints are mixed all the time, without nearly as much vileness and derision as here.

Powerhungry Chipmunks, you seem to be ignoring what's actually going on.

ID proponents try to muscle in via legislation.
ID proponents pull crazy stunts, such as swamping museum personel, forcing them to start taking courses in how to deal with the IDers..

Stuff like that is bound to get a few angry responses. Because these IDers in many cases knows exactly why IDism isn't science, yet they try to get the public to percieve it as such simply by shouting real loud.

The public, in turn, isn't very interested in the debate, and don't have the necessary knowledge to participate. So what happens? People think "alright, these family-oriented, all-American guys shouts it's science. Those scruffy, incomprehensible guys, who're prolly communists or gays, says it's not. I think I'll just stick with what the good all-american guys says".

It's fucking hard not to call something stupid when it is. But perhaps in this case, it would be more fitting to call the whole thing an inane exercise in futility. Is that better than stupid?

Whatever, I'm sure a lot of asian countries are rejoicing.

okay I can deal with the ID not being science arguement. The whole "religion belongs in the history books and not in the 21st century" and the "false knowledge like religion" stuff though? that is offensive. you should learn to be more diplomatic if you really want to sway people to your side.:rolleyes:

There is no time to be diplomatic. It is time for humanity as a whole to recognize that ALL religion is false. At one time humans saw gods in everthing around them, they used gods to explain and define their place in the world. As people began to understand their world in terms we would later come to term "scientific" then the needs for gods became less.

For a strange reason, that nobody has ever been able to explain to me, this led many people from a multitheist religion to a monotheist religion. Ok, so there were still things they could not explain and they needed a "god" to answer. But why only one god?

Anyway, we have now moved on even further. We now have enough of the answers to know that ALL of the answers lie in science and not religion. It is now time to put religion behind us, just like children put fairy stories behine them as they grow up. Religion is the yoke we, as a civilization, can no longer afford to carry.

The public, in turn, isn't very interested in the debate, and don't have the necessary knowledge to participate. So what happens? People think "alright, these family-oriented, all-American guys shouts it's science. Those scruffy, incomprehensible guys, who're prolly communists or gays, says it's not. I think I'll just stick with what the good all-american guys says".
Yup. Like it or lump it, an unattractive argument is a rejected argument. Burkean criticism could'be told you that. In fact, Aristotle could've clued you into that: ethos.

That's all I'm pointing out: that the people doing talking (so far as I've seen in many cases), need to learn how to get audiences to identify with them, instead of claiming some in their audiences are "idiots" and "stupid". It's fucking hard not to call something stupid when it is. But perhaps in this case, it would be more fitting to call the whole thing an inane exercise in futility. Is that better than stupid?
Boohoo.

"It's hard!"

Wah.

So what? Grow some freakin keons and control yourself. It's a fact of life that keeping one's anger in check is hard, the consequences of losing your temper remain. I'm beginning to lose all sympathy for evolutionists, just as I did with Bush-backers: you're all bringing it upon yourselves. How does one expect to convince others with indignation rather than cooperation?

what would you consider "true knowledge"?

The Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776...Christopher Columbus sailed in 1492...a worm has 5 heart chambers...stuff like that.

There is no time to be diplomatic. It is time for humanity as a whole to recognize that ALL religion is false. At one time humans saw gods in everthing around them, they used gods to explain and define their place in the world. As people began to understand their world in terms we would later come to term "scientific" then the needs for gods became less.

For a strange reason, that nobody has ever been able to explain to me, this led many people from a multitheist religion to a monotheist religion. Ok, so there were still things they could not explain and they needed a "god" to answer. But why only one god?

Anyway, we have now moved on even further. We now have enough of the answers to know that ALL of the answers lie in science and not religion. It is now time to put religion behind us, just like children put fairy stories behine them as they grow up. Religion is the yoke we, as a civilization, can no longer afford to carry.

I do not believe that science has ALL the answers and I do not believe that my religion is FALSE.
it is okay if you do. We both have the right to believe whatever we want.
all I am saying is that by calling people stupid and putting down thier beliefs you aren't going to be attracting many people to your point of veiw, in fact you are probably chasing off some good prospects.

The Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776...Christopher Columbus sailed in 1492...a worm has 5 heart chambers...stuff like that.
okay. you win. this time.;) but just you. nobody else. :p

It depends on what you mean. In my mind there are three, possible four groups involved:

1. Science teachers/scientists
2. Those politicians and ideologues attempting to politicize the science (to the left)
3. Advocates for intelligent design
4.? Those politicians and ideologues attempting to politicize the science (to the right)

The reason I question whether there is a fourth group, is because the pro-intelligence design group seems to have politicized the issue itself.

Generally, I'd agree that, in comparing group 1 to group 3 gives the "more bitterness" award to the latter. But, when group 1 and 2 are taken in contrast with groups 3 and 4?, my perception is reversed towards more bitterness being directed at intelligence deisgn advocates.

My main point is that ideological dictatorship doesn't work. Telling people how to think is not going to persuade as many people as providing open proof, and presenting cases in a little less controversial or instigatory way. Perhaps I've just not witnessed the moderates in group 1 and 2 as much as I should to geta grasp on the situation. Perhaps not.

But if this forum is any indication, I fear greatly for those against intelligent design being taught in the classroom.


Two things...

I don't think it is an "ideological dictatorship". Science has no problem allowing tested and flasifiable proof in to the mix. If ID could provide some, they would be respected and science would have no problem adding it to the curriculum.

Why do you fear for those against intelligent design in the classroom? I would make a simple plan to home school my children in the short term while looking into job options in another, better educated and better educating country.

And my point is proven.<snip>
I think your point is only partially proven.

While it is true that angry words seldom persuade, the anger comes from frustration with the blank refusal of creationists to be persuaded and the, imo, reasonable sense that you shouldn't have to persuade people to believe in science.

Scientists are perfectly capable of educating people, but nobody is capable of *forcing* unwilling people to become educated on any given subject. It does not matter how much evidence is presented, those who have an interest in denying science or altering the definition of science will continue to reject it. Creationists are not truly arguing theory, or even belief; rather, they are arguing for an agenda that seeks to replace scientific theories and information with religious doctrine. I base that statement on the simple fact that science and religion are two different things that really have nothing to do with each other. One wonders why the creationists are so intent on getting their information into science classes. On the surface, it seems to make no sense.

Keep in mind that, technically, FACTS are not something people need to be persuaded to believe in. Facts are simply things which people choose to use or not use in their thinking. A person doesn't have to be persuaded or educated to believe that water is wet. A person could deny it if they like, but others will give them little credit as they stand there dripping and shivering.

Likewise, to argue that creationism is anything other than religious doctrine is clearly unsupported by fact as, in fact, the concept originated in and exists nowhere but in religious teachings. Creationism is not a scientific theory; it's a religious belief. They are not the same.

I don't agree that religion is a useless falsehood, but I insist that religion and science serve two very different functions. To try to make the religious doctrine of creationism equivalent to the scientific theory of evolution is like trying to prove that a car and a washing machine are the same thing and do the same job. The fact that they aren't and don't can be proven simply by trying to clean your clothes in your car or ride your washing machine to work. Both are equally useful, but one cannot substitute for the other.

Thus, based solely on what can be proven about both science and religion -- i.e., their respective functions -- then the creationist movement is clearly deliberately choosing to reject facts in order to insist that creationism is the same as evolution, which, in my opinion, counts as ignorance, if not stupidity.

BTW, to my mind, ignorance is worse than stupidity, because it is a deliberate choice.

There is no time to be diplomatic. It is time for humanity as a whole to recognize that ALL religion is false.

-snip-

I prefer "it's time for people to realize that it's none of their business what I beleive", don't you? How about people keep their crummy noses out of mine, and others' religious beleifs; how about they stop trying to impose an ideoligical dictatorship upon us.

Honestlyl. It's as if some people aren't living in the modern world where people actually have rights, freedoms of religious belief.

<Snip>

Anyway, we have now moved on even further. We now have enough of the answers to know that ALL of the answers lie in science and not religion. It is now time to put religion behind us, just like children put fairy stories behine them as they grow up. Religion is the yoke we, as a civilization, can no longer afford to carry.
Uhm, ok.. Not saying that I disagre very much, but do you honestly think our science is capable of answering the question about life, the universe & everything?

I very much doubt such knowledge is obtainable for people confined to the universe. And at the very least, I don't think science will be able to say anything about it in our lifetime.

And that's one of the things people use religion for. Some people don't like the idea that they'll never know that crap, and will just have to make sense of their own lives instead of focusing on the big why. So for them, God(s) is an acceptable answer to why & enables them to move on with their lives.

So... Don't assume people at large are rational just because you are. Most people aren't.

Perhaps you misundestand what I'm saying. I have no objections to the bolded sections. There's no reason for you to preach to me about how bad ID is or how scientific Evolution is. Not only is to not a primary concern of mine, but I'm most likely going to agree with you.

My point is that the case is not seen in as greatly a positive light for Evolutionists as it could be because of the inflammatory things said (such as on this forum) against IDers. Perhaps I mispeak when I comment about the case, per se (as I have not researched it enough to say that much), however, public opinion sways on the messages tehy hear from demagogues and pendants. There needs to be a better outreach by sceintists in the public arena, is what I'm saying.

I think you missed my point. I was simply pointing out that when you said "Why don't science teachers speak up?" I was responding with, "They did" or more specifically he did. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Smunkeeville will testify to the fact that it is a habit of mine at times.


Of course it's a valid debate! Because there are a lot of people who think it's scientific and accurate (which obivously the "evolutionists", for lack of a better name, don't). Do you think it was a waste of Gallileo's time to tell his colleagues that the Earth revolved around the Sun? No, because there was a longstanding belief then that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Look, if there are people who have misconceptions about intelligent design and evolution (as sceintists seem to believe or IDers), then I think it's valid for debate and discussion to take place.

Settin the topic on an unaspirable pedastle is playing right into the IDers' hand.

All I'm saying is that sceintists and ideologues alike could do a whole lot more to convince those of opposing viewpiont and neutral viewpoint that they are correct. All I'm saying is that most people on this forum I've heard come down on ID for not being sceince really don't have a large amount of persuasiveness or a good understanding of consubsantiation. Perhaps you General forumers should swing over to the UN forum once in a while, where differing viewpoints are mixed all the time, without nearly as much vileness and derision as here.

The problem is that these discussions never took place. The ID movement went straight for the jugular and asked it to be added to a school curriculum in Kansas. Scientists in the US said, "What? Where did these people come from?" and meanwhile a school district gets sucked into the ID cult.

Reports have been made that many people in the Dover case that want ID are unable to tell you any of the concepts of it. It is not a real debate when people on the lowest level that are going to court over it, don't even know what they're talking about.

As far as a dialogue between the ideologues and scientists, the scientifc community has requested sit-downs, meetings, and such several times. IDers don't go for it for fear they might be shown as flawed.

And I've been to the UN forum...it's not the utopia you speak of, just hypothetical issues discussed in a slightly more civil way (but barely).

I prefer "it's time for people to realize that it's none of their business what I beleive", don't you? How about people keep their crummy noses out of mine, and others' religious beleifs; how about they stop trying to impose an ideoligical dictatorship upon us.

Honestlyl. It's as if some people aren't living in the modern world where people actually have rights, freedoms of religious belief.
Fine with me, if the favor is returned. How about keeping religion and science to their respective classrooms? Any problem with that?

I prefer "it's time for people to realize that it's none of their business what I beleive", don't you? How about people keep their crummy noses out of mine, and others' religious beleifs; how about they stop trying to impose an ideoligical dictatorship upon us.

Honestlyl. It's as if some people aren't living in the modern world where people actually have rights, freedoms of religious belief.

I agree...and while were at it, let's hold the religious to that too. No more big signs advertising your services. No more proselytizing at the mall or my front door. No more architechture that makes a building look like a cross when seen from above. No more crosses or religious iconography on television. No more god in anything governmental, especially speeches.

Sounds fair. Don't ask, don't tell, don't talk about it.

I agree...and while were at it, let's hold the religious to that too. No more big signs advertising your services. No more proselytizing at the mall or my front door. No more architechture that makes a building look like a cross when seen from above. No more crosses or religious iconography on television. No more god in anything governmental, especially speeches.

Sounds fair. Don't ask, don't tell, don't talk about it.
haha that's funny :p

Two things...

I don't think it is an "ideological dictatorship". Science has no problem allowing tested and flasifiable proof in to the mix. If ID could provide some, they would be respected and science would have no problem adding it to the curriculum.

Well I don't mean that science proper is an "ideological dictatorship". I mean that the scientific periphery (talking heads, et al) is attempting to impose a viewpoint upon another rather than trying to persuade others to change.

Why do you fear for those against intelligent design in the classroom? I would make a simple plan to home school my children in the short term while looking into job options in another, better educated and better educating country.
I fear for them because I think they're getting really angry, and thus alienating others. This of course, could contribute to unpopularity and eventual loss in legislation and/or court. Which would make them more angry (were that possible).


I think your point is only partially proven.

While it is true that angry words seldom persuade, the anger comes from frustration with the blank refusal of creationists to be persuaded and the, imo, reasonable sense that you shouldn't have to persuade people to believe in science.
Actually, I thought that was the basis of scientific thought: that one's thoughts of truth and such were inalid of they could not be tested and proven by another, skeptical source. Skepticism in the "truth" or "factuality" of science is what propels it, not what hinders it, in my opinion.

Scientists are perfectly capable of educating people, but nobody is capable of *forcing* unwilling people to become educated on any given subject.
Granted. And I implicitly conceded this in the past. With even the most persuasive argument, not "everyone" will come to a consensus. However, the likelihood that Jow Schmoe will believe that ID doesn't belong in the classroom will increase the more the evolutionsists can restrain themselves and be diplomatic.
It does not matter how much evidence is presented, those who have an interest in denying science or altering the definition of science will continue to reject it.
Yes. But, again, the more evidence and persuasive (and not domineering) presentations of a certain thing is given, the greater likelihood that more people will come to believe in it. Evolutionists have a lot of evidence for evolution and have a sceintific duty to allow that evidence be tested. I'm just saying that they'd do better to openly present their evidence and arguments, reaching out to discuss the topic with those that are unconvinced in it.

It's when scientists hand down evolution as dogma that they get into trouble.


Keep in mind that, technically, FACTS are not something people need to be persuaded to believe in. Facts are simply things which people choose to use or not use in their thinking. A person doesn't have to be persuaded or educated to believe that water is wet. A person could deny it if they like, but others will give them little credit as they stand there dripping and shivering.

This I completely disagree with, unless you define "facts" as "what a given person regards as a fact". If this is a declaration of absolute truth which is transmittable between persons, it seems to go against logic and scientific thought. People vary and disagree about sets of facts all the time, and who am I to tell them one is more correct than the other. Sure I can have my own opinion of which set of facts is more accurate, but that will simply be me comparing another's subjective view of the world to my own. People must be persuaded to believe in everything, even if that persuasion is shear weight of public consciousness.

Fine with me, if the favor is returned. How about keeping religion and science to their respective classrooms? Any problem with that?Huh? that's funny. Last time I checked I'd said about 100 times that I do not support intellient design being taught in the sceince class. Unless, of course, the science teacher thinks it's approptiate to educate his or her students on the debate.

Regardless, you need to find something else to get mad at. Preferably a punching bag.

I agree...and while were at it, let's hold the religious to that too. No more big signs advertising your services. No more proselytizing at the mall or my front door. No more architechture that makes a building look like a cross when seen from above. No more crosses or religious iconography on television. No more god in anything governmental, especially speeches.

Sounds fair. Don't ask, don't tell, don't talk about it.Yeah, that's fine if we hold to religious to what I actually said.

I interpretted the comments to be about enforcing some sort of anti-religious sentiment, either by national government, or in science education. Thus, I replied that that shouldn't be done, just as pro-religious ideas shouldn't be mandated upon people. If I misinterpretted the original posts, I'm sorry. But I never meant to say people couldn't also exercise their freedom of speech, so as to resepct others right to free religion.

I'll ask it again, and I'll keep asking: Why do some people think religion and science conflict with each other, do the same job as each other, can substitute for each other? They're not the same, people!!!

Religion can be taught as history/social studies in a public school or as a practice in a parochial school.

Science can be taught as science in both (or parochial schools can skip it if they are that extreme).

It is not appropriate to teach religious beliefs as if they are science, any more than it would be to teach science as if it was a religion. I wish creationists who demand that scientists respect their views would return the courtesy once in a while.

Religion is not science and should not be taught in science class.
You're absolutely right. The problem is that ID advocates and creationists wouldn't be satisfied with having their views taught in a religion class or a history class or a social studies class, because it would take their views and place them on a par with other religions (heaven forfend!) and it wouldn't allow them to clash with science, which is what they're after.

Notice that I'm not talking about all religious people here--I'm talking specifically about people who want creationism and ID taught in science classes. They're a small subset of the large number of people who believe in a god of some sort. They just happen to be well-funded and well-organized, and by extension, loud.

okay. you win. this time.;) but just you. nobody else. :p

You owe me pictures...;)

I think you missed my point. I was simply pointing out that when you said "Why don't science teachers speak up?" I was responding with, "They did" or more specifically he did. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Smunkeeville will testify to the fact that it is a habit of mine at times.I didn't qualify what I said as well as I should have either. Sorry about any misunderstanding.

As far as a dialogue between the ideologues and scientists, the scientifc community has requested sit-downs, meetings, and such several times. IDers don't go for it for fear they might be shown as flawed.
This I am unaware of. If this is the case, the guilty party for the any unattractiveness of the Evolution case seems to fall to ideologues and anti-neocons hoping ot gain politically.


And I've been to the UN forum...it's not the utopia you speak of, just hypothetical issues discussed in a slightly more civil way (but barely).
It's not a utopia, of course, but I do sense a much larger degree of tolerance there than here.

Yeah, that's fine if we hold to religious to what I actually said.

I interpretted the comments to be about enforcing some sort of anti-religious sentiment, either by national government, or in science education. Thus, I replied that that shouldn't be done, just as pro-religious ideas shouldn't be mandated upon people. If I misinterpretted the original posts, I'm sorry. But I never meant to say people couldn't also exercise their freedom of speech, so as to resepct others right to free religion.

Sorry...with your statement I couldn't hold back the sarcasm.

You really can't hold to it either way. If you profess your faith (you meaning the general you not the specific you) you must be willing to withstand both the praise and scrutiny of other. Same for those and their lack of faith. Such is the way of living in a culture of more than one person or point of view.

I do not believe that science has ALL the answers and I do not believe that my religion is FALSE.

Then you will have to learn that you are wrong about BOTH.

it is okay if you do. We both have the right to believe whatever we want.

Not when it has an effect on all our futures.

all I am saying is that by calling people stupid and putting down thier beliefs you aren't going to be attracting many people to your point of veiw, in fact you are probably chasing off some good prospects.

I'm not seeking converts, I'm just giving the facts. If people are afraid to face up to the facts then I feel very sorry for them.

Two things...

I don't think it is an "ideological dictatorship". Science has no problem allowing tested and flasifiable proof in to the mix. If ID could provide some, they would be respected and science would have no problem adding it to the curriculum.

Why do you fear for those against intelligent design in the classroom? I would make a simple plan to home school my children in the short term while looking into job options in another, better educated and better educating country.

Personally, if ID had even one single scrap of evidence I would love to see it - but it hasn't, so I can't.

I prefer "it's time for people to realize that it's none of their business what I beleive", don't you? How about people keep their crummy noses out of mine, and others' religious beleifs; how about they stop trying to impose an ideoligical dictatorship upon us.

Honestlyl. It's as if some people aren't living in the modern world where people actually have rights, freedoms of religious belief.

What you do in the privacy of your own home, which has no effect on outsiders, is up to you. But when your religion has a direct effect on the lives of others then the rights of the majority have to override yours.

Keep your religion inside your home (or your church) and I don't have a problem - though I would still feel sorry for you.

Take your religion into the outside world, attempt to use it in politics, education or business and you have to be challanged - that is society's right.

Then you will have to learn that you are wrong about BOTH.
you have no proof that I am wrong, and you never will, why does it matter to you what I believe anyway? I could care less what you believe, what I do care about is you going around putting down others beliefs and making false statements that you can't back up with fact.



Not when it has an effect on all our futures.
How do my beliefs have any "effect" on your future?



I'm not seeking converts, I'm just giving the facts. If people are afraid to face up to the facts then I feel very sorry for them.
I assumed that by making statements about how people need to "face the facts" that you are indeed wanting people to see things your way instead of their own, thus they would be "converting" to your point of veiw.

What you do in the privacy of your own home, which has no effect on outsiders, is up to you. But when your religion has a direct effect on the lives of others then the rights of the majority have to override yours.

Keep your religion inside your home (or your church) and I don't have a problem - though I would still feel sorry for you.

Take your religion into the outside world, attempt to use it in politics, education or business and you have to be challanged - that is society's right.

The only problem I have with this statement is that you said the majority. The majority is the christians and those who support ID. So essentially, you and I are the minority. Just wanted to clarify that point.

Then you will have to learn that you are wrong about BOTH.

I have to jump in on Smunkee's defense here. Religion may be false, but it still exists. So really, it isn't that religion is false it's that people believe in things that have no basis in reality. Which isn't truly "false".

Science doesn't have all the answers. Science is the quest to obtain all the answers, and we aren't there yet.


Not when it has an effect on all our futures.

No one person's actions has an effect on my future...that would be giving up too much personal power.



I'm not seeking converts, I'm just giving the facts. If people are afraid to face up to the facts then I feel very sorry for them.

People are afraid to face facts, just as they fear change. This why we must work with them kindly...not attack.

Fuck Creationism

Thank you.

Sorry, my stance isn't gonna change on this issue, and let's face it, neither will the "ID"ers. Ever. Why bother with this bullshit about "convincing" people? especially here on NS. It's not like this place matters anyway.

People *already* believe that largely, the Creationist version of reality is hard-coded truth. There isn't any arguing with that, no diplomacy. Believe me, I've tried. I've tried since I was the one atheist kid in a class full of Creationists. The arguments have not changed just cuz we grew up. It's still "Oh yeah? Oh yeah? Well prove me wrong, neener neener!"

Frankly, I don't even care anymore. If ID wins, well whatever. +1 to stupidity. It wasn't my fault. Blaming people who prefer scientific explanations of reality to Biblical fundamentalism for bringing on Biblical fundamentalism is kind of like blaming Poland for provoking the Nazi invasion.

You owe me pictures...;)
wow. I completely missed that. :p

The only problem I have with this statement is that you said the majority. The majority is the christians and those who support ID. So essentially, you and I are the minority. Just wanted to clarify that point.

Problem is, whose figures do we work with. I think this article explains things quite well: http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/numbers.html

Since the fall of the Iron Curtain most eastern european countries have been classified as "christian" - dispite the fact that most of their citizens have grown up in an athiest society. At one time they would always have answered "yes" to supporting the communist party, now like sheep they tick the box for being christian. Tiz a funny old world isn't it :)

I have to jump in on Smunkee's defense here. Religion may be false, but it still exists. So really, it isn't that religion is false it's that people believe in things that have no basis in reality. Which isn't truly "false".

Yes, that is a good point. It doesn't really make a difference, but it was a point worth mentioning.

Science doesn't have all the answers. Science is the quest to obtain all the answers, and we aren't there yet.

I'm not foolish enough to have ever said science has all the answers.

What I do say is, given the answers science has already found, I do believe science will have all the answers one day. How soon that day will be depends on a number of things, but the way religion holds us back certainly delays that time.

No one person's actions has an effect on my future...that would be giving up too much personal power.

You underestimate the powers of one person.


People are afraid to face facts, just as they fear change. This why we must work with them kindly...not attack.

Maybe some need a slap on the face to wake them up to reality?

wow. I completely missed that. :p
But you see..haha...pictures for me!!! ;) :)

Huh? that's funny. Last time I checked I'd said about 100 times that I do not support intellient design being taught in the sceince class. Unless, of course, the science teacher thinks it's approptiate to educate his or her students on the debate.

Regardless, you need to find something else to get mad at. Preferably a punching bag.
I'm not angry. I'm just trying to steer towards the issue. I get it that you don't support ID being taught as science, but if everyone thought like you, there wouldn't be a big, unfriendly, circular debate going on around the country, now would there? Your position is that the pro-evolution crowd needs to be less angry in their approach, but I'm pointing out the uncooperativeness of the pro-creationist crowd, which fuels anger on the evolution side.

In order to not accept evolution, you would have to throw out major sciences that are based on it.

Like agronomy.
Genetics.
Crop science.
Soil Science.
Botany.

There is natural selection and evolution in progress RIGHT NOW - bacteria are doing it all the time.

Of course, if you want to believe that everything was already designed, and will never change, I guess you won't need a vaccination, either, because you don't believe in updating your flu shot.

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

Evolution is a theory.
theory a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses."

Intelligent Design and Creation Science are hypotheses. Not theories.

hypothesis a tentative unproven theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"

So far, evolution has survived decades of review.

Intelligent design hasn't passed any significant scientific muster - ever.

You're absolutely right. The problem is that ID advocates and creationists wouldn't be satisfied with having their views taught in a religion class or a history class or a social studies class, because it would take their views and place them on a par with other religions (heaven forfend!) and it wouldn't allow them to clash with science, which is what they're after.

Notice that I'm not talking about all religious people here--I'm talking specifically about people who want creationism and ID taught in science classes. They're a small subset of the large number of people who believe in a god of some sort. They just happen to be well-funded and well-organized, and by extension, loud.
Why thanks. :) But this is why I keep bringing this point up -- my forlorn hope that sane religious people will stop letting this extremist minority claim to speak for them.

Intelligent design hasn't passed any significant scientific muster - ever.

And nor will it - as long as it continues to refuse to put up even a shread of evidence to suppost itself.

I keep asking ID/Creationists to come up with some evidence, butI'm still waiting.

okay I can deal with the ID not being science arguement. The whole "religion belongs in the history books and not in the 21st century" and the "false knowledge like religion" stuff though? that is offensive. you should learn to be more diplomatic if you really want to sway people to your side.:rolleyes:

Why?

The people fighting for ID will not be swayed.....

Why?

The people fighting for ID will not be swayed.....

Smunk, you and I should be happy that religion belongs in churches, and schools shouldn't mention it at all.

If you want to teach ID to someone, do it yourself. Personally, I'll stick with evolution.

There isn't anywhere in the Bible where Jesus says you'll smoke a turd in hell for believing in evolution.

And my point is proven.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I believe ID should be taught in the science classroom (though it isn't really true). You have just accused me of excessive stupidity (or perhaps 144 counts of stupidity) and have implied those of similar interests to mine have corrupted the judiciary. Does that sound convincing to you?

Let's turn this around. Let's say I, as a theoretical ID advocate, say "scientists are stupid for not keeping an open mind, and that the liberal media and activist judges are tilting the whole of American politics, unpopularly, to the left." Would this make you recant your opposition to ID?

Of course not. It's really unpersuasive to tell someone else that their viewpoint is "stupid", and accuse them of abuse of the judiciary. I'm surprised that science teachers, of all people, are having trouble educating people on why they think intelligent design doesn't belong in science classes. Perhaps this is the result of scientists being fenced into the anti-social stereotype: protrayed as people with few social graces and an inability to phrase their thoughts well and tolerantly.


Nice try but said people aren't going to be swayed by evidence. The creationist/ID crowd view it as an attempt to abolish their religion. They aren't going to listen to evidence.

Being "nice" to them isn't going to change they efforts.

However, you should be professional about it. ;)


Or, more likely, perhaps it's from we haven't actually heard enough from science teachers and the moderates who have no particular opinion on ether evolution or intelligent design (just a desire to be clear and accurate in what is considered 'science'). And from the far too much we've heard from Far Right and Far Left demagogues, trying to "rally their base" (which is a cute way of saying "promoting extremism", or "alienating others") with dramatics.

Actually more then enough has been said. Even in the article it mentions a survey that teachers are being pressured to teach ID.


Actually, lemme requote something.
Actually, it'll be because the people judging the case found one side more persuasive than the other. You forget that a truth can be as absolute as all get out, and if it's less persuasive than another point of view, it's less accepted, and may fulle-well be ruled against.


Science doesn't deal in absolutes.....



Worse yet, the more inaccessible and elite the pro-science crowd makes this issue, the more they will provoke the public to feel sympathetic to intelliegent design and thus invite state and local lawmakers to legislate it in the classroom. It's the same principal as the 2004 US Presidential Elecetion. The Democratic party Bush-bashed too snootily, and self-righteously, rallying Bush's base for him, and swinging more moderates to support the apparently less-angry candidate. Maybe the 'left' in America hasn't yet learned its lesson.

Ahhhh the don't argue against our efforts or we will force them on you? Sounds like you loose no matter what.

Sorry but what you are saying is that if people choose to be stupid then there is not much you can do about it. In that you are correct.

Ahhh well if what you suggest will happens, it just means it the dark ages for the US. At least the rest of the world will keep science on track......

Of course it's a valid debate! Because there are a lot of people who think it's scientific and accurate (which obivously the "evolutionists", for lack of a better name, don't). Do you think it was a waste of Gallileo's time to tell his colleagues that the Earth revolved around the Sun? No, because there was a longstanding belief then that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Look, if there are people who have misconceptions about intelligent design and evolution (as sceintists seem to believe or IDers), then I think it's valid for debate and discussion to take place.


Sorry but Gallileo had evidence to offer. Evolution has evidence to suggest it's actions.

You can't prove or disprove the existence of God so there is no science debate.

Evolution has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God.

I'm beginning to lose all sympathy for evolutionists, just as I did with Bush-backers: you're all bringing it upon yourselves. How does one expect to convince others with indignation rather than cooperation?

:D as if you ever had sympathy for them.

Smunk, you and I should be happy that religion belongs in churches, and schools shouldn't mention it at all.

If you want to teach ID to someone, do it yourself. Personally, I'll stick with evolution.

There isn't anywhere in the Bible where Jesus says you'll smoke a turd in hell for believing in evolution.

That's my whole point too!! Keep it in the church. And no one is trying to take that away. I think most IDers and Creationists (one in the same really) seem to miss this point. They feel evolution is an attack on religion, which it isn't.

Smunk, you and I should be happy that religion belongs in churches, and schools shouldn't mention it at all.

If you want to teach ID to someone, do it yourself. Personally, I'll stick with evolution.

There isn't anywhere in the Bible where Jesus says you'll smoke a turd in hell for believing in evolution.
I have never ever ever ever advocated teaching ID in schools in fact I have said many times that I realize that ID is not science and that I believe in separation of church and state. I only responded that I thought that calling the ID crowd idiots and insulting them by saying that thier faith is false, isn't going to make you any friends in fact it is quite counterproductive.

I have never ever ever ever advocated teaching ID in schools in fact I have said many times that I realize that ID is not science and that I believe in separation of church and state. I only responded that I thought that calling the ID crowd idiots and insulting them by saying that thier faith is false, isn't going to make you any friends in fact it is quite counterproductive.
I agree with this. Getting into a debate about whether or not Religion itself is valid is not within the realm of science.
By the way, know what else Henry Ford said?
"I don't like to read books. They muss up my mind."

I agree with this. Getting into a debate about whether or not Religion itself is valid is not within the realm of science. exactly

By the way, know what else Henry Ford said?
"I don't like to read books. They muss up my mind."
I am not a fan of Henry Ford, I just like the quote and it would feel wrong to me to quote someone without crediting the quote.

exactly

I am not a fan of Henry Ford, I just like the quote and it would feel wrong to me to quote someone without crediting the quote.
That quote just always makes me laugh. I think it's the "muss" that does it.

I have never ever ever ever advocated teaching ID in schools in fact I have said many times that I realize that ID is not science and that I believe in separation of church and state. I only responded that I thought that calling the ID crowd idiots and insulting them by saying that thier faith is false, isn't going to make you any friends in fact it is quite counterproductive.

Their "faith" is not false rather it is the thing/idea that is the subject of their faith that is false.

Intellegent design may not be a sciene of itself, but creationisim is. Creationism is pointing out what can be regarded as scientific flaws in the throries around the origins of the universe and life at this time. There is no reason why such flaws should not be discussed within a science classroom setting

Intellegent design may not be a sciene of itself, but creationisim is. Creationism is pointing out what can be regarded as scientific flaws in the throries around the origins of the universe and life at this time. There is no reason why such flaws should not be discussed within a science classroom setting

Creationism is a load of malarkey and you know it.

Intellegent design may not be a sciene of itself, but creationisim is. Creationism is pointing out what can be regarded as scientific flaws in the throries around the origins of the universe and life at this time. There is no reason why such flaws should not be discussed within a science classroom setting

Said "flaws" have been offered and debunked time and time again. Care to offer a few to this crowd?

Creationism failed so they went back to the drawing board and came up with ID......

Sorry but Gallileo had evidence to offer. Evolution has evidence to suggest it's actions.

You can't prove or disprove the existence of God so there is no science debate.

Evolution has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Science, including evolution, does not set out with the precept of disproving the existance of god(s). However, what it has do is to remove from the realms of the supernatural so many of the secrets of the universe that the supernatural now has nothing to stand on.

The very foundation of three of the worlds biggest religions - the books of the old testiment bible - have crumbled as science has explained the workings of the universe.

I used to say that there was still one place left for god to hide. We know he had/has no hand in the development of the universe or in the evolution of life. The omnipotant father figure of the bible is long dead. But believers could still claim one (and only one) involvement for a god - the cause of the Big Bang.

But now even that has vanished with M-Brane Theory. We are now pushing the boundary of our knowledge to (in effect) a time before time existed.

So where is this god now? Hiding behind another layer of structure?

No. It is far simpler to just accept the fact that there is no god. If there was, we would by now have evidence he existed.

Intellegent design may not be a sciene of itself, but creationisim is. Creationism is pointing out what can be regarded as scientific flaws in the throries around the origins of the universe and life at this time. There is no reason why such flaws should not be discussed within a science classroom setting

Creationism is not a science - it is primitive, superstitious, unscientific mumbo-jumbo. It cannot pick holes in something unless it puts forward scientific evidence, which it never does.

I'm sure I've asked you before to come up with some evidence for ID/Creationism but so far I've seen none.

Said "flaws" have been offered and debunked time and time again. Care to offer a few to this crowd?

Creationism failed so they went back to the drawing board and came up with ID......

Not really. They are still around. I dont know enough on the subject to go into detail about them but the point is that they should still be discussed in the classroom. Its perfectly legiamate as opposed to ID. For example, one problem I am aware of is the galactic age issue. If the galaxy is as old as some claim then it should be a flat disc by now as oppsed to the fleshier object we do see.

The very foundation of three of the worlds biggest religions - the books of the old testiment bible - have crumbled as science has explained the workings of the universe.

I used to say that there was still one place left for god to hide. We know he had/has no hand in the development of the universe or in the evolution of life. The omnipotant father figure of the bible is long dead. But believers could still claim one (and only one) involvement for a god - the cause of the Big Bang.

But now even that has vanished with M-Brane Theory. We are now pushing the boundary of our knowledge to (in effect) a time before time existed.

So where is this god now? Hiding behind another layer of structure?

No. It is far simpler to just accept the fact that there is no god. If there was, we would by now have evidence he existed.

Not true. Notice, Gensis does not explain HOW Earth was created. Simply that it was. You cannot disprove his existance, Science cannot disprove his existance, and there is enough material out there in the world to prove it to justify for some debate in classrooms.

Not true. Notice, Gensis does not explain HOW Earth was created. Simply that it was. You cannot disprove his existance, Science cannot disprove his existance, and there is enough material out there in the world to prove it to justify for some debate in classrooms.
Science really doesn't give a rat's ass what the bible says. Genesis can not be proven (and certain sections of it have been disproven, re: age of the earth).

Not true. Notice, Gensis does not explain HOW Earth was created. Simply that it was. You cannot disprove his existance, Science cannot disprove his existance, and there is enough material out there in the world to prove it to justify for some debate in classrooms.
Not the science class room for exactly the reasons you stated … god is non-falsifiable

Not true. Notice, Gensis does not explain HOW Earth was created. Simply that it was.

By god, which we now know is not true.

You cannot disprove his existance, Science cannot disprove his existance, and there is enough material out there in the world to prove it to justify for some debate in classrooms.

Science doesn't set out to do that, the lack of any evidence for god(s) does it on its own.

And I see that, once again, you fail to come up with any evidence for your side of the debate. Now, if YOU have any evidence for the existance of a god, or any evidence for something that cannot be explained without the existance of a god or gods - why don't you present it?

Not really. They are still around. I dont know enough on the subject to go into detail about them but the point is that they should still be discussed in the classroom. Its perfectly legiamate as opposed to ID. For example, one problem I am aware of is the galactic age issue. If the galaxy is as old as some claim then it should be a flat disc by now as oppsed to the fleshier object we do see.

Where do you get that idea from. We look around the universe and a large number of galaxies are similar in shape to the Milky Way. Our nearby twin, Andromeda, is the same shape. Shape is not a function of age bud of how the mass is destributed within the galaxy.

You know, the US is probably the only western country and SURELY the only first-world country in which this is even AN ISSUE!!! For crying out loud, can't you keep your inbred fundamentalists on check? Because Afghanistan couldn't either and you invaded them precisely for that!

Avalon II, perhaps you can begin to grasp exactly what it is you're saying, if you replace the word "God" with the words "Don't Ask"

So how does life evolve (this, by the way, is the entire scope of what evolytion theories deals with. Everything else is unrelated to that particular debate)? "Don't Ask".
How did life start? Don't Ask.
How was the world/Earth created? Don't Ask.
How did the universe come about? Don't Ask.

That's basically the point of Creationism/IDism. Instead of utilising our ingenuity to solve the mysteries that surround us, Creationism/IDism simply says godidit, or more precisely "Don't Ask".

Why does it rain? "God did it" isn't an answer. It's a full stop sign. It's (unlikely as hell, but...) possible God is the cause of rain, but if that's the case, God isn't the direct cause.

Science is all about exploring how the universe works. Slapping stop signs on various questions doesn't explain anything. If anything, it brings science in conflict with God, for two reasons.
For one, it's not exactly acceptable to question God or it's methods.
And for another, science is based on logic. Occam's Razor is one of the logical tools employed by science, and it instantly kills Gods if you try to apply it to them.
You see, God isn't actually an answer to anything. It's just an inexplicable complexity that adds a whole host of unanswerable questions to something.

So how did humans come to be? Did we evolve from another species? If we did, there's a natural process at work we can examine, and we can confirm or reject the possibility based on such an examination.
If we invoke God instead, we end up with a vastly more complex set of questions and no more explanation than we started with. For example, how did God do it? Why did God do it? What is God? Where is God? all sorts of questions that can't be verified at all.

If you use Occams Razor on that (and that's actually what the tool was invented to be used for), it neatly cuts God away as a possible solution, because it makes no sense & offers no actual explanation. Now instead of having your superstition intact, you suddenly have had your God killed with logic.

And the question that started this mishap remains unanswered.

Creationism/IDism has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with science. And you shouldn't try pairing up the two. God will die & science will be rendered useless.

Of course, it doesn't work on any other level either, as God isn't an explanation for anything, cannot be used to make predictions, and cannot be falsified, but as you seem more concerned about your god than future knowledge, the "Don't Ask" and Occam's Razor probably seems like more valid reasons for not getting these things mixed up.

Their "faith" is not false rather it is the thing/idea that is the subject of their faith that is false.
saying that what they have faith in is false, means to many that thier faith is false.

instead of attacking people's beliefs why not just try to educate them with known facts? saying that there is no God, is not a known fact, and it makes people lose respect for your entire arguement.

Avalon II, perhaps you can begin to grasp exactly what it is you're saying, if you replace the word "God" with the words "Don't Ask"

So how does life evolve (this, by the way, is the entire scope of what evolytion theories deals with. Everything else is unrelated to that particular debate)? "Don't Ask".
How did life start? Don't Ask.
How was the world/Earth created? Don't Ask.
How did the universe come about? Don't Ask.

That's basically the point of Creationism/IDism. Instead of utilising our ingenuity to solve the mysteries that surround us, Creationism/IDism simply says godidit, or more precisely "Don't Ask".

Why does it rain? "God did it" isn't an answer. It's a full stop sign. It's (unlikely as hell, but...) possible God is the cause of rain, but if that's the case, God isn't the direct cause.

Science is all about exploring how the universe works. Slapping stop signs on various questions doesn't explain anything. If anything, it brings science in conflict with God, for two reasons.
For one, it's not exactly acceptable to question God or it's methods.
And for another, science is based on logic. Occam's Razor is one of the logical tools employed by science, and it instantly kills Gods if you try to apply it to them.
You see, God isn't actually an answer to anything. It's just an inexplicable complexity that adds a whole host of unanswerable questions to something.

So how did humans come to be? Did we evolve from another species? If we did, there's a natural process at work we can examine, and we can confirm or reject the possibility based on such an examination.
If we invoke God instead, we end up with a vastly more complex set of questions and no more explanation than we started with. For example, how did God do it? Why did God do it? What is God? Where is God? all sorts of questions that can't be verified at all.

If you use Occams Razor on that (and that's actually what the tool was invented to be used for), it neatly cuts God away as a possible solution, because it makes no sense & offers no actual explanation. Now instead of having your superstition intact, you suddenly have had your God killed with logic.

And the question that started this mishap remains unanswered.

Creationism/IDism has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with science. And you shouldn't try pairing up the two. God will die & science will be rendered useless.

Of course, it doesn't work on any other level either, as God isn't an explanation for anything, cannot be used to make predictions, and cannot be falsified, but as you seem more concerned about your god than future knowledge, the "Don't Ask" and Occam's Razor probably seems like more valid reasons for not getting these things mixed up.


I would like to propose the above for a "Best Post In The Thread" award. In fact it is one of the best posts I've seen in any of the ID-v-Evolution debates so far.

Well done Similized, very well done.

Erg. These debates are almost always pointless excursions into the horrific realm of useless, stupid attacks.

Personally, I think that unless ID can present some solid scientific evidence, it should not be taught as a scientific theory. Having it discussed in Philosophy or similar classes is fine, and probably desirable, to give students an idea of what different viewpoints are (always a good thing) without them getting it into their heads that these ideas were conceived through scientific method. Mixing science and religion is simply not a good idea, because as was said earlier, they are not the same thing and they do not serve the same function.

So trying to push religion into science is bad. Trying to have religious doctrine taught as scientific theory without any scientific evidence is not doing any students any good, and running around screaming that your religion is the One and Only Truth is stupid. Trying to push science into religion is also bad. Running around foaming at the mouth and yelling about how science can disprove religion and how all religious people are delusional doesn't do anyone any good either and is equally stupid. Trying to insinuate science into religion is as bad as trying to insinuate religion into science.

Science is science and religion is religion. Trying to mix them belittles them both.

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/atheist.htm
http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/deacon.htm

Not really. They are still around. I dont know enough on the subject to go into detail about them but the point is that they should still be discussed in the classroom. Its perfectly legiamate as opposed to ID. For example, one problem I am aware of is the galactic age issue. If the galaxy is as old as some claim then it should be a flat disc by now as oppsed to the fleshier object we do see.You do not know enough on the subject? Please go here (http://www.talkorigins.org) and learn about the subject (read through the FAQ). A lot of "evidence" in favor of creationism doesn't hold water.

I would like to propose the above for a "Best Post In The Thread" award. In fact it is one of the best posts I've seen in any of the ID-v-Evolution debates so far.

Well done Similized, very well done.
Why, thank you very much. I think my ego just grew with about a mile or so :p

Not true. Notice, Gensis does not explain HOW Earth was created. Simply that it was. You cannot disprove his existance, Science cannot disprove his existance, and there is enough material out there in the world to prove it to justify for some debate in classrooms.

The problem is, you have to prove he exists. Otherwise, he doesn't.

You know there are more persuasive methods to get your point across, but you're not using them.

Not the science class room for exactly the reasons you stated … god is non-falsifiable

Its not "God" I am talking about. Its the flaws in the evolutionary model that can be seen to exist. Those are fair game for science classrooms

Its not "God" I am talking about. Its the flaws in the evolutionary model that can be seen to exist. Those are fair game for science classrooms
Of course they are. And they already are fair game there. But it has nothing to do with Idism or Creationism. Part of the scientific method is to ask questions & centest findings.

Recently, some "hobbit" skeletons were excavated. Some speculate that these are a seperate species, while others contest that it's regular homo sapiens afflicted with dwarfism.

Creationists rarely make findings of their own & question theories because of them. They take already contested claims & add the word God into the mix. There's no reason to do that, as I hopefully showed quite clearly, invoking a random word offers no explanation at all.

There is no time to be diplomatic. It is time for humanity as a whole to recognize that ALL religion is false...

Which would include your own religion. As, you're not formulating your own set of Dogma.

You will, of course, deny it. "I'm not religious!"...

The sad thing, the only distinction between you, and say, Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell; as far as a totalling of your religious ideologies (in general); is Falwell and Robertson adhere to a God, and you do not.... Yet, you expect the rest of us to actually buy the refuse that spews from your mouth, foaming like some Fundamentalist preacher, lashing out at everyone he hates in the world.

You'ld do well to listen to PC.... You of course won't, however... Because it is agaisnt your religion to gain wisdom.


Anyway, we have now moved on even further. We now have enough of the answers to know that ALL of the answers lie in science and not religion. It is now time to put religion behind us, just like children put fairy stories behine them as they grow up. Religion is the yoke we, as a civilization, can no longer afford to carry.

Nice religious view.... Though no less (or more) valid than any other religious view.

Its not "God" I am talking about. Its the flaws in the evolutionary model that can be seen to exist. Those are fair game for science classrooms

Creationism advocates have brought up the so-called "flaws" only to have them all shot down.

You still haven't bothered to post one.

Not really. They are still around. I dont know enough on the subject to go into detail about them but the point is that they should still be discussed in the classroom. Its perfectly legiamate as opposed to ID. For example, one problem I am aware of is the galactic age issue. If the galaxy is as old as some claim then it should be a flat disc by now as oppsed to the fleshier object we do see.

Creationists are still around, although more and more are joining the specific ID sub-culture that is part of creationism. Basically, ID is Creationism without specific use of the word god. They will say aliens did it before they say god, but eventually they all add up to god.

Either way, neither movement can provide any evidence whatsoever. Creationism is not a science and therefore should not be discussed in a science classroom. It is not "perfectly legitamate (sic)" at all as far as science is concerned. There is no evidence, no data, nothing to support it.

As far as the galaxy is concerned, why would it be "a flat disc"? It makes sense given outward expansion over millions of years that our very young galaxy would be the shape it is.

Its not "God" I am talking about. Its the flaws in the evolutionary model that can be seen to exist. Those are fair game for science classrooms

First, you have to find a flaw. Then you can investigate it. Only if the flaw is then proven can we proceed.

So, one again. The ball is in your court. Find evidence for god(s) or flaws in science, either way we can debate them. Falling back on faith makes your case impossibly weak.

Yet, you expect the rest of us to actually buy the refuse that spews from your mouth, foaming like some Fundamentalist preacher, lashing out at everyone he hates in the world.

Hohohohoho!!!

A preacher works with fairy tales, I work with the facts of science. Very big difference.

Nice try though, it did give me a brief laugh :)

Hohohohoho!!!

A preacher works with fairy tales, I work with the facts of science. Very big difference.

Nice try though, it did give me a brief laugh :)
not always. saying the religion is false has nothing to do with facts or science.
stating that something is false because you 'believe" it is has nothing to do with facts and everything to do with trying to push your veiw on others.

saying that what they have faith in is false, means to many that thier faith is false.

instead of attacking people's beliefs why not just try to educate them with known facts? saying that there is no God, is not a known fact, and it makes people lose respect for your entire arguement.

The education system has already failed - they still believe in information that has been proven false.

How do you cope with someone who has already show themselves unwilling or unable to learn?

The education system has already failed - they still believe in information that has been proven false.the fact is that what they still believe hasn't been proven false.

How do you cope with someone who has already show themselves unwilling or unable to learn?
just about the same way I deal with people like you. I try to be patient and explain without namecalling, even if I do have to repeat the same thing over and over and over again.

Creationists are still around, although more and more are joining the specific ID sub-culture that is part of creationism. Basically, ID is Creationism without specific use of the word god. They will say aliens did it before they say god, but eventually they all add up to god.
ID doesn't have to do with god.

While I'm willing to admit that you would be hardpressed to find someone who believes in ID but not into a god of sorts, there are still ID (-like) theories that don't preclude g/God(s) like Quantum Evolution. It also follows that if we could discover a "guiding" effect that might be causing evolution then we'd have a sort of proof for ID and against purely chance guided evolution.

However, as long as a theory relies on a supernatural effect then it can't be called a scientific theory.

the fact is that what they still believe hasn't been proven false.

just about the same way I deal with people like you. I try to be patient and explain without namecalling, even if I do have to repeat the same thing over and over and over again.

I think the problem is that people have a misperception about what is taught when you are taught evolution.

The teacher isn't standing there saying, "God doesn't exist," or, "You're stupid to believe in God."

They are just presenting the theory of evolution.

People who are sensitive hear stories that somehow they are going to be ridiculed for their beliefs - and they get apprehensive and want to keep that from happenning.

I have no trouble believing in evolution (or modern cosmology) and believing in God at the same time.

That doesn't make me stupid. I actually believe it makes me rather open minded and flexible.

The people who push creationism and ID need to get a grip. The people who push evolution by saying that the people who believe in God are stupid need to get a grip.

Just teach evolution. Leave it at that.

I think the problem is that people have a misperception about what is taught when you are taught evolution.

The teacher isn't standing there saying, "God doesn't exist," or, "You're stupid to believe in God."

They are just presenting the theory of evolution.

People who are sensitive hear stories that somehow they are going to be ridiculed for their beliefs - and they get apprehensive and want to keep that from happenning.

I have no trouble believing in evolution (or modern cosmology) and believing in God at the same time.

That doesn't make me stupid. I actually believe it makes me rather open minded and flexible.

The people who push creationism and ID need to get a grip. The people who push evolution by saying that the people who believe in God are stupid need to get a grip.

Just teach evolution. Leave it at that.

I can absolutely agree with all of that. :)
I really don't understand why people assume that I am trying to push ID into the classroom just because I am a conservative Christian. maybe I should change my signature to include my veiws about that and certain other hotbutton issues so that people will quit assuming that I am a clone of Pat Robertson.;)

I think the problem is that people have a misperception about what is taught when you are taught evolution.

The teacher isn't standing there saying, "God doesn't exist," or, "You're stupid to believe in God."

They are just presenting the theory of evolution.

People who are sensitive hear stories that somehow they are going to be ridiculed for their beliefs - and they get apprehensive and want to keep that from happenning.

I have no trouble believing in evolution (or modern cosmology) and believing in God at the same time.

That doesn't make me stupid. I actually believe it makes me rather open minded and flexible.

The people who push creationism and ID need to get a grip. The people who push evolution by saying that the people who believe in God are stupid need to get a grip.

Just teach evolution. Leave it at that.


As a matter of fact, in my first anthroplogy class in high school (the first of it's kind in the US in High Schools), my teacher was forced to read a statement indicating that theory of evolution has been accepted by EVERY MAJOR CHURCH in the US and therefore this is not intended to interfere with anyone's religious beliefs. That is a paraphrase, his speech took up 1/2 a class period.

Sierra, you seem to have found a happy medium between your beliefs and science, I think Smunkee has too. And I am glad for both of you, though i think there is no god.

However, I think the problem is that there are many (many many many many) religious people who are less enlightened than the two of you and therefore they want their beliefs to be held and taught in the same light as science.

That's my problem. Those people are unaccepting of reality (essentially) and should not be given a forum for their ID or Creationist attitude.

I can absolutely agree with all of that. :)
I really don't understand why people assume that I am trying to push ID into the classroom just because I am a conservative Christian. maybe I should change my signature to include my veiws about that and certain other hotbutton issues so that people will quit assuming that I am a clone of Pat Robertson.;)

I never thought you were a Pat Robertson clone. But I think the problem is that many people see Pat Robertson as the voice of christianity in America. Fact it, he does have the audience and the media loves him (whether what he says is good or bad makes no difference).

Sadly, you get lumped in that group because he is that public voice. And I'm sorry, because I understand. Being an atheist, we get lumped together with Wiccans, devil worshippers and the like. Obviously we aren't, that's kind of the point.

That's my problem. Those people are unaccepting of reality (essentially) and should not be given a forum for their ID or Creationist attitude.To creationists bible is the reality.

You can't debunk belief with observational facts as long as the other side can pull the trump card: "God did it".

I never thought you were a Pat Robertson clone. But I think the problem is that many people see Pat Robertson as the voice of christianity in America. Fact it, he does have the audience and the media loves him (whether what he says is good or bad makes no difference).

Sadly, you get lumped in that group because he is that public voice. And I'm sorry, because I understand. Being an atheist, we get lumped together with Wiccans, devil worshippers and the like. Obviously we aren't, that's kind of the point.

Here's a news flash: the majority of Christians (even the majority of fundamentalists) do not see Pat Robertson as an authority of any kind.

Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory.

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.

Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....

So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

Scientific facts? That's a laugh... You may quote SOME science... But a large chunk of your statements have been effective statements of creed (faith/belief) with no firm stance from an empirical view...

None of the following are science:


religion belongs in the history books, not the 21st century.


Statement of belief: not grounded in the empirical.


Schools should be responsible for... eradicat[ing] false knowledge like religion from the children.

Assumes relgion is FIRST false [including all religion], and a belief [read religious convition] for the schools to impose upon it... [And you claim seperation... What a load of bullshit]


It is time for humanity as a whole to recognize that ALL religion is false.


Another statement based upon conviction of faith.


We now have enough of the answers to know that ALL of the answers lie in science and not religion.

This isn't even a scientific view. Science does not assume the capacity to answer EVERYTHING. And later you claim not even to have said, what you indeed just said here.


It is now time to put religion behind us...


Another statement of faith and belief.


Religion is the yoke we, as a civilization, can no longer afford to carry.


Anotherb belief.


Then you will have to learn that you are wrong about BOTH.


Anotherb belief.


I do believe science will have all the answers one day.


There it is again...


However, what it has do is to remove from the realms of the supernatural so many of the secrets of the universe that the supernatural now has nothing to stand on.


Assumption.


We know he had/has no hand in the development of the universe or in the evolution of life.


Another statement of belief.

And, then call you on outright contradictions:


I'm not foolish enough to have ever said science has all the answers.


Yes, you were...

In the end, your present direction has prooved just as true as your past direction. A foolish religious fundamentalist attempt to assert your [effectively religious views] upon the populace as a whole; while operating in denial of them being religious in the first place.... Using deceit where it suits you, using denial where it suits you...

You consider yourself different from the likes of Fundamentalists, only by some imaginary line you've drown through your philosophies... Still, it's a load of tripe, and worthless... Despite all of the "knowledge" you've gleened; you have absolutely no wisdom honed from that knowledge... Proceeding down your blind path of self-deception, lies and deceit...

In the end, others of like mind may love to flock around your bullshit to get their ears scratched.... But that's all it is... Bullshit... And all it is, is ear-scratching... Getting told what they want to hear.. While you win at absolutely nothing, in the absolute sense...

Intellegent design may not be a sciene of itself, but creationisim is. Creationism is pointing out what can be regarded as scientific flaws in the throries around the origins of the universe and life at this time. There is no reason why such flaws should not be discussed within a science classroom setting
Creationism/ID is not a science. It is a religious doctrine. Sciences are notable for questioning and testing themselves continously through repeated experimentation. Religious doctrine requires no questioning or testing, and in fact, usually discourages it. It is impossible to test whether or not god made the universe and its processes, or whether or not the universe and its processes are directed by an intelligent will. Creationism/ID simply assumes that such is the case and moves on from there, without testing or questions. Therefore, Creationism/ID is not a science, but a doctrine, and is completely irrelevant to science and useless as a tool to examine the flaws of any given scientific theory. Why? Because, as an unquestionable set of assumptions, it offers no tool with which to question -- anything, let alone a scientific theory.

Using religious doctrine to show up the flaws of a scientific theory is like using an orange to show up the flaws in an architectural design -- the building is obviously not functional because it doesn't contain vitamin C. It is nonsense, because the building is not supposed to be a source of vitamin C. It is not science's job to reveal god to the masses, therefore, to criticize it for not conforming to religous doctrine is meaningless.

the fact is that what they still believe hasn't been proven false.

Yes it has.

just about the same way I deal with people like you. I try to be patient and explain without namecalling, even if I do have to repeat the same thing over and over and over again.

Find some evidence, then your voice may be viewed differently, until then your opinion continues to be based on falsehoods.

<cut a bunch of lies>
Yes, you were...


You know, one thing I hate more than an idiot who will not accept fact is a liar who will not accept facts.

Science does not, as yet, have all the answers. But the vast number of answers it has already provided have done enough to prove the basis of most religious belief to be false. It has also shown that, in time, we will be able to say science has all the answers.

In the end, your present direction has prooved just as true as your past direction. A foolish religious fundamentalist attempt to assert your [effectively religious views] upon the populace as a whole; while operating in denial of them being religious in the first place.... Using deceit where it suits you, using denial where it suits you...

I prefer to deal with the facts given to us by science rather than the fairy stories given to us by religion.

You consider yourself different from the likes of Fundamentalists, only by some imaginary line you've drown through your philosophies... Still, it's a load of tripe, and worthless... Despite all of the "knowledge" you've gleened; you have absolutely no wisdom honed from that knowledge... Proceeding down your blind path of self-deception, lies and deceit...

Find a lie - even one :) I know you can't, because there are none. I have no need to lie as I have the benifit of a knowledge based on truth rahter than religion.

In the end, others of like mind may love to flock around your bullshit to get their ears scratched.... But that's all it is... Bullshit... And all it is, is ear-scratching... Getting told what they want to hear.. While you win at absolutely nothing, in the absolute sense...

One thing I have clearly won is the upper hand in this exchange because, unlike you, I've not had to stoop to lies to make a reply.

Yes it has.
Find some evidence, then your voice may be viewed differently, until then your opinion continues to be based on falsehoods.
okay I can play your game. you find me evidence that God has been proven false. Real objective empirical evidence.


Find a lie - even one I know you can't, because there are none. I have no need to lie as I have the benifit of a knowledge based on truth rahter than religion.
saying that religion has been proven false, when in fact it has not, is a lie.

okay I can play your game. you find me evidence that God has been proven false. Real objective empirical evidence.

Its rather difficult to disprove something that isn't there.

saying that religion has been proven false, when in fact it has not, is a lie.

It hasn't been 'proven' either. So treating it as fact would also be a bit of a lie, now wouldn't it?

Its rather difficult to disprove something that isn't there.
I wasn't really expecting any evidence. I am just tired of the "if there is a God prove it scientifically"
God has nothing to do with science. Trying to use science to 'prove' the existance of God (or lack thereof) is pointless and impossible.

It hasn't been 'proven' either. So treating it as fact would also be a bit of a lie, now wouldn't it?
Evolution hasn't been 'proven' either, you may have a lot of evidence and it is a full fledged scientific theory, but it hasn't been 'proven', do doesn't treating it as fact count as a bit of a lie too?


* I am not in with the ID crowd, I am not one of those people who takes the creation story literally either. I just think that it is counterproductive and rude for Brenchley to prance around saying that "religious people are stupid" and lying when he says that "all religion has been proven false" because it hasn't


RELIGION AND SCIENCE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS PEOPLE NEED TO QUIT TRYING TO COMBINE THEM!!! AND QUIT TRYING TO PLAY ONE AGAINST THE OTHER.

thank you and have a nice day.:D

I wasn't really expecting any evidence. I am just tired of the "if there is a God prove it scientifically"
God has nothing to do with science. Trying to use science to 'prove' the existance of God (or lack thereof) is pointless and impossible.

Evolution hasn't been 'proven' either, you may have a lot of evidence and it is a full fledged scientific theory, but it hasn't been 'proven', do doesn't treating it as fact count as a bit of a lie too?


* I am not in with the ID crowd, I am not one of those people who takes the creation story literally either. I just think that it is counterproductive and rude for Brenchley to prance around saying that "religious people are stupid" and lying when he says that "all religion has been proven false" because it hasn't


RELIGION AND SCIENCE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS PEOPLE NEED TO QUIT TRYING TO COMBINE THEM!!! AND QUIT TRYING TO PLAY ONE AGAINST THE OTHER.

thank you and have a nice day.:D

Ahhh, Smunkee. I like you. Yer my kinda people! Have a cookie! (Gingernut, because they're my favourite, so it means I like you a lot, see? :D )

<snip>RELIGION AND SCIENCE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS PEOPLE NEED TO QUIT TRYING TO COMBINE THEM!!! AND QUIT TRYING TO PLAY ONE AGAINST THE OTHER.

thank you and have a nice day.:D
So far, I've counted 4 people in this thread, including Smunkeeville, who is a devout Christian, who understand the difference between religion and science. We have brought up this point over and over, and it has been ignored. I don't really expect the Creationists to address it because it doesn't support their agenda, but what's wrong with all you science types, eh? Can't you wrap your brains around this concept? It's not trivial, it's not off topic, and I, for one, think the debate would go farther if it was acknowledged. (Please read with appropriate tone of exasperation. :rolleyes: )

So far, I've counted 4 people in this thread, including Smunkeeville, who is a devout Christian, who understand the difference between religion and science. We have brought up this point over and over, and it has been ignored. I don't really expect the Creationists to address it because it doesn't support their agenda, but what's wrong with all you science types, eh? Can't you wrap your brains around this concept? It's not trivial, it's not off topic, and I, for one, think the debate would get farther if it was acknowledged. (Please read with appropriate tone of exasperation. :rolleyes: )

Hopefully you counted me as well. I'm a Christian, and I posted an extensive pro-evolution post.

Hopefully you counted me as well. I'm a Christian, and I posted an extensive pro-evolution post.
Sorry, I've read your posts, but I never count you for anything.

Ahhh, Smunkee. I like you. Yer my kinda people! Have a cookie! (Gingernut, because they're my favourite, so it means I like you a lot, see? :D )
I have never heard of gingernut cookies? now I have to find a recipe.....

darn you..... now I have to bake.......

:p

okay I can play your game. you find me evidence that God has been proven false. Real objective empirical evidence.

No, it is you that needs to provide the evidence of your god.


saying that religion has been proven false, when in fact it has not, is a lie.

No lie at all. Every single cornerstone of the bible creation story has proven false. We know the universe was not created in 6 days. We know at man was not molded out of clay but evolved from lower life forms. We know these things because science has found the real explinations and we no longer need to rely on fairy tales.

This god of yours has had 15,000,000,000 million years to give us some evidence for his existance - but none has been found. I think that is a fact you have to face up to.

Here's the post that Muravyets thinks is worthless:

Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory.

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.

Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....

So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

No, it is you that needs to provide the evidence of your god.
I don't have to prove anything, I couldn't even if I wanted to.

I realized early yesterday that trying to debate anything with you would be pointless, but I thought maybe I could turn the tide of the conversation, into intelligent debate. I have failed.

so last post, unless you have anything intelligent to add.....

Here's the post that Muravyets thinks is worthless:

I didn't say your post was worthless. I said I don't count you in my reckoning -- of people whose view I agree with, that is. Remember, I told you that I would no longer respond directly to any of your posts because of my extreme opposition of your views re foreign relations? My opposition to those views and all who hold them is so extreme that I cannot ally myself with you even on other topics. This is just me sticking to my own principals. Please don't take it personally. I don't say that others should take the same stand.

Now that I've explained myself, I will go back to not responding directly. 'Bye.

I said I don't count you in my reckoning -- of people whose view I agree with.

Therefore you don't agree with my defense of evolution.

I don't have to prove anything, I couldn't even if I wanted to.

I realized early yesterday that trying to debate anything with you would be pointless, but I thought maybe I could turn the tide of the conversation, into intelligent debate. I have failed.

so last post, unless you have anything intelligent to add.....

And hence why ID shouldn't be involved in a science class.

And hence why ID shouldn't be involved in a science class.
I never said it should, in fact I have said many times that ID isn't science.

I never said it should, in fact I have said many times that ID isn't science.


Sorry, not attacking you. Just ID in general.

Sorry, not attacking you. Just ID in general.
sorry that I am so defensive today, I have had a stressful day. ;) didn't mean to jump on you or anything.

I don't have to prove anything, I couldn't even if I wanted to.

I realized early yesterday that trying to debate anything with you would be pointless, but I thought maybe I could turn the tide of the conversation, into intelligent debate. I have failed.

so last post, unless you have anything intelligent to add.....
Shrug it off, Smunkee. Brenchley obviously has a very serious issue with the idea of religion, but while expressing his stance in strong language, he fails to explain it so others will understand why he's so vehement. It does come off as hostile, and I don't know whether he means to be hostile (i.e. trying to start a fight), or if he doesn't realize that others don't understand where he's coming from. But what's clear to me is that he is falling into the same intellectual trap that the Creationists do, in which he offers only unquestioned assumptions to support his statement, closing off dialogue and reducing the debate to a shouting match.

Meanwhile, I think you and I agree that, because religion and science are different things, it is pointless to argue whether either is more "valid" than the other.

Shrug it off, Smunkee. Brenchley obviously has a very serious issue with the idea of religion, but while expressing his stance in strong language, he fails to explain it so others will understand why he's so vehement. It does come off as hostile, and I don't know whether he means to be hostile (i.e. trying to start a fight), or if he doesn't realize that others don't understand where he's coming from. But what's clear to me is that he is falling into the same intellectual trap that the Creationists do, in which he offers only unquestioned assumptions to support his statement, closing off dialogue and reducing the debate to a shouting match.

Meanwhile, I think you and I agree that, because religion and science are different things, it is pointless to argue whether either is more "valid" than the other.
of course it is pointless, that is like trying to compare math and etiquette.
(something full of absolutes with something that is highly subjective)

of course it is pointless, that is like trying to compare math and etiquette.
(something full of absolutes with something that is highly subjective)
See? We don't even have the same religion or the same attitude about practicing religion, but we can still be in full agreement on this. It's really not that difficult to find common ground. It's everywhere you step. Honestly, I really believe most of the world's bitterest conflicts are driven by a bunch of people just determined to get their own way at the other guy's expense, and everything else be damned.

See? We don't even have the same religion or the same attitude about practicing religion, but we can still be in full agreement on this. It's really not that difficult to find common ground. It's everywhere you step. Honestly, I really believe most of the world's bitterest conflicts are driven by a bunch of people just determined to get their own way at the other guy's expense, and everything else be damned.

Like you wanting to get your own way at my expense, and everything else be damned.

This god of yours has had 15,000,000,000 million years to give us some evidence for his existance - but none has been found. I think that is a fact you have to face up to.

Two words. Jesus Christ.

Try disproving that with science

Like you wanting to get your own way at my expense, and everything else be damned.
what is the deal sierra? were you two fighting elsewhere and it carried over here? I don't see why you are so mad??

what is the deal sierra? were you two fighting elsewhere and it carried over here? I don't see why you are so mad??

Muravyets single method of arguing with me is to assert that I'm insane and evil, and that the US is insane and evil. Other than ad hominems, he has no other arguments. Then he wants to bolt away from the thread so he won't be called out on having no argument to stand on.

He also confuses personal morality with international game theory.

Point of fact: international affairs game theory and realpolitik admits of no morality.

Therefore, he assumes that I'm crazy. I find his level of ignorance shocking beyond belief.

Two words. Jesus Christ.

Try disproving that with science

That he probably existed is not in question. Source any contemporary documents that confirm the supernatural elements of the myth.

Two words. Jesus Christ.

Try disproving that with science
Did you just intentionally prove that no rational being would ever consider religion to have any validity?!

.... Wow...

Here's a link I caught last night before I went to bed, for those following the Dover, PA "New Scopes Monkey Trial" or "Inherit the Idiocy".

Harvard Prof Slams ID (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051012/sc_nm/life_evolution_dc)
I just don't understand why those who support teaching ID are so insistent that it be taught in Science class.

I don't get it.

There is no time to be diplomatic. It is time for humanity as a whole to recognize that ALL religion is false. *snip*
Religion is only "false" for those looking for literal truth in it. And they are seeking nonsense.

At one time humans saw gods in everthing around them, they used gods to explain and define their place in the world. As people began to understand their world in terms we would later come to term "scientific" then the needs for gods became less.

For a strange reason, that nobody has ever been able to explain to me, this led many people from a multitheist religion to a monotheist religion. Ok, so there were still things they could not explain and they needed a "god" to answer. But why only one god?

Anyway, we have now moved on even further. We now have enough of the answers to know that ALL of the answers lie in science and not religion. It is now time to put religion behind us, just like children put fairy stories behine them as they grow up. Religion is the yoke we, as a civilization, can no longer afford to carry.
Oddly enough, the answer to your plea for understanding is in those fairy stories. The study of comparative mythology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_mythology).

I just don't understand why those who support teaching ID are so insistent that it be taught in Science class.

I don't get it.
Ditto. I doubt anyone would raise an eyebrow if they tried to have it taught in a relevant class. Fundies are weird as hell.

Two words. Jesus Christ.

Try disproving that with science

Ok repeat after me.

Evolution has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Say it about 100 times and you will feel better.

Muravyets single method of arguing with me is to assert that I'm insane and evil, and that the US is insane and evil. Other than ad hominems, he has no other arguments. Then he wants to bolt away from the thread so he won't be called out on having no argument to stand on.

He also confuses personal morality with international game theory.

Point of fact: international affairs game theory and realpolitik admits of no morality.

Therefore, he assumes that I'm crazy. I find his level of ignorance shocking beyond belief.
oh okay. that makes more sense then. I have debated with him many times and never had those problems so it was out of my experience, and I didn't understand.;)

Two words. Jesus Christ.

Try disproving that with science

Who is he?

A man?

Well there is some evidence for the existance of a man who fits some of the bill, though in fact very little considering he was supposed to have lived in a Roman province at a time when Rome was renowned for keeping very good records. Certainly there is no documentation of many of the clearly political events he was supposed to have been involved with.

The son of god?

Pull the other one - its got bells on.

Muravyets single method of arguing with me is to assert that I'm insane and evil, and that the US is insane and evil. Other than ad hominems, he has no other arguments. Then he wants to bolt away from the thread so he won't be called out on having no argument to stand on.

He also confuses personal morality with international game theory.

Point of fact: international affairs game theory and realpolitik admits of no morality.

Therefore, he assumes that I'm crazy. I find his level of ignorance shocking beyond belief.
You are taking my opposition to your views personally, after all. In fact, I never said you were insane or evil, and I further never said anything of the sort about the US. In fact, I described YOUR VIEWS (not you) as "disgusting," "foul," and "self-defeating" (all just my opinion) and in several instances in other threads, I stated that I do not associate myself with people who hold such views because of my extreme opposition (as evidenced by the strength of the words I used). If you were ever to change your views, I would certainly re-evaluate my attitude towards you (not that you need to care about that). I have never in anyway implied that you should not be allowed to express your views, but I also will not pretend they don't exist just to be sociable. However, just because I'm not inclined to be friendly, it doesn't mean I want to have a fight, so I'm not going to participate in one. That's why, I choose not to respond directly, rather than attack your posts.

Smunkee, Sierra and I have never had a fight about this, as far as I'm concerned, because we have not baited each other into one -- it would be pointless as neither of us is in a position to change the other's mind.

If anyone is interested in what the hub-bub's about, there are foreign relations and terrorism threads in which he and I express the views in question. They are completely off the topic of this thread.

Religion is only "false" for those looking for literal truth in it. And they are seeking nonsense.

Without truth you what have you got?

Oddly enough, the answer to your plea for understanding is in those fairy stories. The study of comparative mythology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_mythology).

Oh don't get me wrong. I have an interest in religious writing and what it can tell us about our primitive forebears and the way they looked at the world around them. There are also some really good stories to read, especially in Ancient Greek religions. However, where you see the answers to my questions, I'm not sure.

Ok repeat after me.

Evolution has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Say it about 100 times and you will feel better.

I can think of several other folks who may need to do the same... And not all of them are non-atheists.... [if you get my meaning].

Two words. Jesus Christ.

Try disproving that with science
Try proving that with science

Science teacher: "good morning class"
students groan
Science teacher: "Today we will be learning about intelligent design"
Little Billy: "OH GOD"

Two words. Jesus Christ.

Try disproving that with science

There has never been a documented and verified case of someone returning from actual and complete death after three days.

A man walking on water without some kind of mechanical aid defies the laws of physics.

Turning water into wine without a packet of "Instant Wine, Just Add Water" likewise is a seeming impossibility. No one has ever witnessed it in laboratory conditions, nor can the mechanics be explained.