Should Intelligent Design be taught in science class?

[Tormod]

You may think it's funny - I am being serious. Your attitude shows exactly what I stated above - which is a violation of our rules.

 

Why am I so interested in our rules? Because they are there to be observed.

[Tormod]

In case you're wondering, my post was a paraphrase of the rules:

 

"Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted."

[TRoutMac]

You may think it's funny - I am being serious. Your attitude shows exactly what I stated above - which is a violation of our rules.

 

Why am I so interested in our rules? Because they are there to be observed.

 

Then OBSERVE them.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[Tormod]

Then OBSERVE them.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

 

There's not stopping you, is there. How long can we keep you off topic?

[pgrmdave]

TRoutMac, you are out of line. Tormod has tried, repeatedly, to show you that you are in violation of our rules. If you continue violating the rules of our forums, the moderators of this forum will have no choice but to take administrative action.

[TRoutMac]

In case you're wondering, my post was a paraphrase of the rules:

 

"Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted."

 

Big whup. But just for the record, since you're gonna give me the third degree, this is what I meant by "Christianity is not a religion":

 

All the world "religions" are systems of works. Do this, don't do that, eat this, don't eat that, etc. And some form of salvation is offered as a reward for the good behavior, and at some point your good works will be stacked up against your bad behavior and, if you've been "good enough", and your good works outweighs your bad works, then you receive the salvation in whatever form it's promised. This does not describe Christianity. Christianity does not operate on a system of works or good deeds 'weighed against" your bad deeds. You are saved based on faith in Christ. Because of this distinction, I don't personally like to refer to Christianity as a religion because to lump it together with all the others is not really accurate. Christianity is profoundly different than other religions in this respect and others.

 

Now generally, most people aren't real sensitive to that distinction, so they might indeed be offended by me saying "Christianity is not a religion". But I stand by the statement, and I think that now that my reasoning is "out there", any offense I caused by that remark has probably been repaired.

 

Now, if those of you who are ill-prepared to debate the issue at hand (and avoid nit-picking me about off-topic subjects) would kindly not make useless postings that don't contribute to an otherwise serious discussion, maybe we could get somewhere.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[Erasmus00]

Well, for one thing, I find it humorous that you've now referred twice to the laws of thermodynamics as a defense, of sorts, of evolution… a theory which flies in the face of the laws of thermodynamics. But that aside…

 

Anyone who thinks evolution "flies in the face of the laws of thermodynamics" doesn't understand the laws of thermodynamics. If you wish to come to some understanding, private message me, as I'm sure everyone here is sick of such debate.

-Will

[Tormod]

Christianity does not operate on a system of works or good deeds 'weighed against" your bad deeds. You are saved based on faith in Christ. Because of this distinction, I don't personally like to refer to Christianity as a religion because to lump it together with all the others is not really accurate. Christianity is profoundly different than other religions in this respect and others.

 

No, it is not. Christianity is based not only on faith but on practising that faith, just like every other religion. Whether you choose to ignore that is your business, but it does not change the way most Christian Americans practise their religion.

 

Now generally, most people aren't real sensitive to that distinction, so they might indeed be offended by me saying "Christianity is not a religion". But I stand by the statement, and I think that now that my reasoning is "out there", any offense I caused by that remark has probably been repaired.

 

For the record: It makes no difference to me. The topic at hand is Intelligent Design. You are showing what I claimed earlier: ID is simply a Christian front.

 

Now, if those of you who are ill-prepared to debate the issue at hand (and avoid nit-picking me about off-topic subjects) would kindly not make useless postings that don't contribute to an otherwise serious discussion, maybe we could get somewhere.

 

You are in no position to dictate who gets to voice their opinion anywhere in these forums.

[CraigD]

Could the 'Intelligent Designers' be future scientists who developed time travelling abilities and came back through time to cause macro-evolution, along with causing the Big Bang?

Yes, I believe that is a possibility.

 

Since it’s not at all clear that future->past time travel will ever be practical, or is actually even possible, I think the probable of space traveling non-supernatural designers is greater, since it is proven that space travel is at least possible.

 

The problem with these kinds of speculations is, while they make great science fiction (eg: Clarke’s Rama series, Hogan’s "Giants" series), we seem far from having the technological ability to carry out experiments to validate/falsify them as scientific hypotheses. Unless one were to luck into something like what Hogan describes in “Inherit the Stars” – the preserved remains of an ancient human astronaut on the surface of the moon, or an exotic metal instrument case buried in intact pre-historic strata at an archeological dig – the only obvious way to find unambiguous evidence of such an event seems to be to detect some massive artifacts of these advanced space or time traveler using very advanced telescopes, spacecraft, or both, a capability we seem far from having.

 

I’d feel more comfortable with proponents of “Intelligent Design” if they were more passionate about these outlandish possibilities, and less about casting aspersions at mainstream Evolutionary Biology. Exuberance is an easy personality trait to accept. A desire to tear down Science – even flawed Science (being a process, not an infallible doctrine, all Science is to some degree flawed) – is less agreeable.

[C1ay]

Well, for one thing, I find it humorous that you've now referred twice to the laws of thermodynamics as a defense, of sorts, of evolution

No I haven't. I've stated that I don't believe in the creation of matter and on a seperate note I mentioned there is some evidence for some evolution.

 

That something exists IS "evidence" that it was created EVEN IF it doesn't conclusively PROVE that it was created. Proof is not the same as evidence.

I'll say it again, that something exists is only evidence that it exists. It IS NOT evidence that anything was created. We simply don't know if it was created or that it has existed forever. To conclude that existance mandates creation is a leap of faith.

[CraigD]

… All the world "religions" are systems of works. Do this, don't do that, eat this, don't eat that, etc. And some form of salvation is offered as a reward for the good behavior, and at some point your good works will be stacked up against your bad behavior and, if you've been "good enough", and your good works outweighs your bad works, then you receive the salvation in whatever form it's promised. This does not describe Christianity. Christianity does not operate on a system of works or good deeds 'weighed against" your bad deeds. You are saved based on faith in Christ. Because of this distinction, I don't personally like to refer to Christianity as a religion because to lump it together with all the others is not really accurate. Christianity is profoundly different than other religions in this respect and others. …

An interesting distinction, and one I have not heard since I was in an apocalyptic evangelical Baptist youth group in the 1970s (A group focused primarily on study of Revelation of John the Divine, and Hal Hinsey’s “Late, Great Planet Earth”)

 

Years later, I learned that this idea, (which theological encyclopedists term “salvation by grace”), widely accepted by Baptists, is far from undisputed among Christians. In fact, by the time of the Council of Trent in 1545, what a modern intellectual Baptist would recognize as salvation by grace was explicitly condemned as heresy by the (Catholic) Church of Rome! By this time, the protestant revolution was in full swing, with Protestant sects favoring strict salvation by grace, and the Catholics opposing it.

 

More than a decade later, I became acquainted with a more obscure Christian controversy, known by a plurality of terms such as “original Gospel”, “Templar Heresy”, or even “Aquarian Gospel”, an idea that seems to have had a significant literary impact first around the 13th century, most recently with Dan Brown’s “The DaVinci Code”, and, oddly, on the strange, small-print missives found to this day on bottles of Dr Bonners Peppermint Soap. The gist of this heretical idea is simple: the actual gospel as spoken by Jesus is radically different than the one to be found in the books of the New Testament. Although some versions attribute some very strange ideas to this “genuine Gospel”, the most reasonable ones assert that Jesus taught a doctrine similar to Hillel (estimated 30BC – 10AD, whom some contend was one Jesus’s main teachers/marvel-at-his-wisdomers). The very antithesis of salvation by grace, this doctrines is alleged to hold (my paraphrasing) “the only moral law is the Golden Rule”. The emotional appeal of the idea of that the teachings of Jesus have been profoundly altered is one that many people find compellingly strong.

 

So, not only is Christianity profoundly different from other religions (except possibly Mithraism, about 200BC-500AD), as you claim, the Christianity of some Christians is profoundly different from that of some others.

 

Although the methods of Science and Religion are very different, they have in common that both seem to be processes, more journeys than destinations, and that both have the potential to inspire lifetimes of study.

[Lolic]

That old hoary chestnut still needs to be answered: If God created everything, who created God?

 

Why would an eternal being need to be created?

 

read Robert Jastrow's "God and the Astronomers", he's no theist, but he puts cosmology into perspective and would probably be very informative if you sincerely asked that question.

[Boerseun]

Why would an eternal being need to be created?

Shows you what happens to a thread when you go to bed and switch your pc off for the night!

 

Lolic: This is a fundamental problem regarding the science/religion debate. Scientifically speaking, an eternal being is simply less probable than pulsation theory, for instance. An eternal universe going through a infinite series of big bangs followed by big crunches. A big crunch would need a serious rethink of the popular concept of eternity, because inside the resultant singularity consisting out of all the matter, energy and space making up the universe, even time itself comes to a complete and utter stop. In all scientific view regarding the origins and eventual destination of the universe, the concept of such an eternal being is not necessary - it is an unnecessary complication that answers nothing, and serves mainly to make humans feel that there's actually a purpose to the universe. Technically speaking, there's no purpose. Out of all the millions of possible universes (that could be floating around like bubbles in foam somewhere out there, we got the one with a set of Natural Laws that make our existence possible. Simply put, if that wasn't the case, we wouldn't be here to ask the question. So, this accidental good fortune makes us speculate on whether there's a reason or a purpose. This anthropocentric view only serves to expose our human chauvinisms, and not much more.

 

Like I have said plenty on hypography, if there is such a thing as an eternal, omnipotent being, that being must consist out of all the matter in the universe. Seeing as matter=energy, if you take even one atom out of the equation, that being simply cannot be omnipotent. Which means that even you and I form part of the body of God. Even Osama Bin Laden. Then again, if matter in our universe is finite, then their can't be such a thing as an omnipotent being, because by definition that implies having access to infinite energy.

 

If Intelligent Design is to be taught in school, it should be taught in an Intelligent Design class, not in a science classroom - because it simply isn't science.

[johnkwhite]

An interesting distinction, and one I have not heard since I was in an apocalyptic evangelical Baptist youth group in the 1970s (A group focused primarily on study of Revelation of John the Divine, and Hal Hinsey’s “Late, Great Planet Earth”)

 

.....Dr. Bonner's Peppermint Soap...

 

So, not only is Christianity profoundly different from other religions (except possibly Mithraism, about 200BC-500AD), as you claim, the Christianity of some Christians is profoundly different from that of some others.

 

Although the methods of Science and Religion are very different, they have in common that both seem to be processes, more journeys than destinations, and that both have the potential to inspire lifetimes of study.

 

CraigD..

 

What a smile-producing and thoughtful, and gentle segue (at least to my eyes)--Dr. Bonner's Peppermint Soap! with its mildly stimulating peppermint oil--into zoroastrian criticism of Mithraism, e.g., sacrificing animals and taking stimulants as if god rewards such bribery isn't required by or condoned by God! One of my favorite "religion" webpages has a very interesting take on current religions in the author's chagrined attempt to clarify how zarathrustra condemned the mithra religion of his time as being a perversion of zoroastrism....The parallel of Zrathrustra's actions with with Christ's actions regarding the Pharisees is obvious and the parallel with zoroastrism with christianity is clear in the author's comparison of zoroastrism with mithraism at this website:

 

http://www.zoroaster.net/indexe.htm

 

Delightful!

 

jkw

[TRoutMac]

To conclude that existance mandates creation is a leap of faith.

 

That's exactly why I've explained THREE TIMES NOW that I do NOT equate "evidence" with "proof". How many times do I have to explain this? I am NOT claiming that existence "MANDATES" creation, so you are arguing against something that I have never claimed, and in fact, have EXPLICITLY avoided claiming.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[Tormod]

That's exactly why I've explained THREE TIMES NOW that I do NOT equate "evidence" with "proof". How many times do I have to explain this? I am NOT claiming that existence "MANDATES" creation, so you are arguing against something that I have never claimed, and in fact, have EXPLICITLY avoided claiming.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

 

But you were the one who mentioned proof, not C1ay. He simply pointed out that existence is not evidence for anything but existence. And stop shouting.

[Boerseun]

Intelligent Design taught in science class:

 

"Verily, ye are in great error..."

The Q'uran, Surah 57