Darwin vs. God in PA court

[rockytriton]

To find humor in a tragedy that hasn't happened is much different than finding humor in a tragedy that has happened. I don't find humor in 9/11, the tsunami, katrina or any of that, but I do find humor in a fictional flood that whipes out the whole midwest, mainly because it could never even possibly happen.

[rockytriton]

here's an update, the school starts their response in court:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4353524.stm

[cwes99_03]

Of course, the same was true of Al-Quaida. They immediately said that it was Allah who caused Katrina to damage the US.

 

I understand Rocky's humor, I do not condone it, nor do I laugh at it.

 

As for whether Bush goes to church, I pose this question.

Is it really necessary to go to church if you say you are a member of Christendom? I ask this only because I know far too many people who believe that it is not required. Personally I could cite scriptures that say that you need to, but then I don't belong to those christian religions that say you don't need to.

[C1ay]

here's an update, the school starts their response in court:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4353524.stm

What a shame the court doesn't apply scientific method in this case. If they did they would immediately ask for conclusive proof for statements like this, "A biology professor and leading advocate of intelligent design told the court that evolution alone could not explain complex biological processes." It is one thing to say that it "does not" and another to claim that it "could not". This professor should be taken to task.

[cwes99_03]

Good point, probably a slip of the tongue?

[Buffy]

I know this will throw a wrench into everything, but what if it could be 'proven' that 'science' is the 'true' defender of the Bible, making Mr. Darwin correct?

A lot of people would have no problem with this. In fact the thing I really dislike about a lot of the arguments being spouted (including by Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Center who's defending the ID view in this trial) is the implication that Darwinism = Atheism which is most definitely not true, but sure rouses the base to action. A lot of us read the Bible and other religious tracts and see no contradiction between them and controversial topics like abiogenesis. Why one *would* object has more to do with craving of power and superiority, veiled prejudice and inability to accept other's views than anything else.

 

Even Richard Dawkins--who would argue strongly against the existence of God-of-the-Bible--would agree that if your statement was a *given* to a hypothetical argument, that the conclusion would be just fine, because its quite logical....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[questor]

throughout all these posts of discussion on ID and evolution, i have not seen one definition

or description of who this God is that we're supposed to be against. isn't it usual to define your position? anybody want to try?

[paultrr]

A lot of people would have no problem with this. In fact the thing I really dislike about a lot of the arguments being spouted (including by Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Center who's defending the ID view in this trial) is the implication that Darwinism = Atheism which is most definitely not true, but sure rouses the base to action. A lot of us read the Bible and other religious tracts and see no contradiction between them and controversial topics like abiogenesis. Why one *would* object has more to do with craving of power and superiority, veiled prejudice and inability to accept other's views than anything else.

 

Even Richard Dawkins--who would argue strongly against the existence of God-of-the-Bible--would agree that if your statement was a *given* to a hypothetical argument, that the conclusion would be just fine, because its quite logical....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

Part of that stems from the fact the athiest have tended to look at science as its great defender when it actually is not. Science if anything finds no evidence for or against God in general. That taken at face value can only support an agnostic possition. However, athiests go an extra step in the logic process in making the assumption that no evidence translates to no God at all. But since science only studies nature and since God by definition is supernatural then in itself science cannot actually be made to study the age old God question. As such, its no evidence does not constitute proof there is no God. Making that extra step actually requires pure assumption and nothing else. Assumption in this case might or might not be its own equal to the faith of the true believer in that it believes inspite of no solid supportting evidence since science has not from the beginning actually dwelt with the whole God question.

 

In the reverse, if there is a God and given the evidence science has on the subject of evolution then certain christian thought about the nature and character of this God are in error since there is nothing discovered about nature that would back up the common image of God obtained by most christians today. That begs the real question of who is this God or Intelligent designer?

[paultrr]

It would be interesting to play this out a bit. If we make the assumption for the moment that science is actually fully correct about evolution. What if there is a God would be the attributes of that God if he used evolution as his or her's own tool by design?

 

One attribute would be that he or she prefers order. A second would be that he or she wants life to find its own way which in itself does not eliminate the idea that there would be some end plan in mind given the general scientific bend towards what most term predictability. On the reverse I would see no support of the religious idea that God has stepped into history and directly done anything along the way. At this point one is not dealing with the general evangelical image of God most of the popular christian sects hold to. It would also not be the type of God most of those of Islamic faith believe in. If anything it would not be some God who's out for worship at all, who's acted directly in history outside of starting everything going in the first place, or who sits back listens to our prayers and answers them in his or her's own way. If anything its more of an impersonal God who while he or she may have a personality only really cared that there was life and that life should find its own way.