Intelligent Design/Creationism/Religion

[youngterrier]

I was talking about in science class, not political philosophy and I'll be honest with you, once I realize you weren't talking about what I was talking about I kinda stopped reading your post

Oh, but I WAS talking about what you were talking about. A little Baptists follishness in the classroom is a small price to pay for your liberty.

...Not sure if you were disparaging me, yourself, or the both of us with your dunce cap smilie.

myself, but as citizens in this country we have a right to be wrong, however our curriculum should not be wrong. They can be foolish if they wish, but once they legislate to put not-science in the science classroom they have crossed the line.

[SunCoastBlueHen]

However or whyever any of us are here is way beyond what any of us can understand. Arguing about it is pointless as all of us are just tiny specks in the great scheme of things.

[native]

However or whyever any of us are here is way beyond what any of us can understand. ...

True! but...

... Arguing about it is pointless as all of us are just tiny specks in the great scheme of things.

I don't begrudge anyone else from arguing their point of view. It is our nature to wonder and learn and debate... Sometimes we grow from the experience. Not arguing might be even worse than arguing.

What gnaws at me is the absolute blind arrogance of some of the committed anti-religious folks and the persistent way they misrepresent the mistakes of religion and viewpoints of religious folk. In this instance, "over the top" is not a compliment.

[uofmman1122]

myself, but as citizens in this country we have a right to be wrong, however our curriculum should not be wrong. They can be foolish if they wish, but once they legislate to put not-science in the science classroom they have crossed the line.

This is what it comes down to for me.

I don't care what anyone believes, or why they do, or how, but intelligent design has no place in the public schools. If you want to pay for your kid to go to a private Christian school where they're taught that bullshit, by all means go ahead.

[Cap'n Cat]

myself, but as citizens in this country we have a right to be wrong, however our curriculum should not be wrong. They can be foolish if they wish, but once they legislate to put not-science in the science classroom they have crossed the line.

This is what it comes down to for me.

I don't care what anyone believes, or why they do, or how, but intelligent design has no place in the public schools. If you want to pay for your kid to go to a private Christian school where they're taught that bullshit, by all means go ahead.

+2

[BlueHen86]

myself, but as citizens in this country we have a right to be wrong, however our curriculum should not be wrong. They can be foolish if they wish, but once they legislate to put not-science in the science classroom they have crossed the line.

This is what it comes down to for me.

I don't care what anyone believes, or why they do, or how, but intelligent design has no place in the public schools. If you want to pay for your kid to go to a private Christian school where they're taught that bullshit, by all means go ahead.

Good post.

[death dealer]

I assume that most proponents of Intelligent Design/Creationism would categorize the Designer/God as a benevolent being. Are they f u c king kidding? Really? There is absolutely no evidence other than the occasional anecdotal personal account to indicate that if there is a God, which there isn't, that he is anything other than one mean motherf u c king POS with a really sick sense of humor. And based on his design work on the planet and the universe, he would have failed out of most decent engineering programs in the first year.

Your provocative and uncharacteristically hateful logic is puzzling, DD.

We are born. We die. Perhaps the benevolence of existence or lack thereof results not from a benevolent or
malevolent God, but from what we ourselves make of the blessings and gifts of life. When a drunk kills an innocent is that the fault of the automotive designer?

The engineering classes you celebrate as superior to God's intelligent design are only part of our latest inadequate
attempts to describe a powerful and orderly universe. How can you see a "failed" engineering design in the universe?

To me, there pretty clearly appears to be order. Physics works in our observable environment. The planets move, the rains fall, life finds a way. Engineering classes are only part of our latest inadequate human attempts to describe a powerful and orderly universe, greater in scope than what the frail human mind can comprehend.

But strive we must to comprehend! When not otherwise occupied in raping and killing each other, humans have spent a considerable portion of their existence pondering the nature of the universe. To wonder and try to comprehend is part of the joy and glory of being human, and we can be glorious indeed! But Big Bang, Intelligent Design, and String Teory aside, do you really think we have done more than scratch the surface in our knowledge of the universe?

We limit ourselves unnecessarily when we look only in the mirror. But that's the essential problem with the
arguments of believers and non-believers alike. We look at ourselves in the mirrow, find what we see to be
inadequate, and blame God. Just because I cannot possibly understand something fully does that mean that I should
not strive to understand? Does it mean that I must confine my understanding to the image I see in the mirror? Does it preclude the possibility of God?

I love math, debates and science projects, but faith is a choice, not a science experiment. Whether you believe in
God, yourself, or nothing, you have chosen to believe something. One of the central truths of the Judeo-Christian
tradition is that when we humans fail to recognize some power greater than ourselves, we tend towards evil. This has been consistently true, at least for the latest 10,000 years of human existence on earth that we know about. We fvck up a great deal more without God than with God.

You may disparage God and Christians all you want, but there is more useless fear and hopelessness in atheism and
atheists than among believers. The response to this thread by all you ardent and committed atheists, although not
surprising, is unnecessarily hateful and limiting. We humans are defined by what we believe. In your near-sighted hubris, you have defined humans hatefully and hopelessly.

There is another choice. I prefer an approach that does not laughably and tragically establish mankind as the limit
to the universe. I vote with Moses, C.S. Lewis, and Hub McCann, and a host of others who have chosen to see the
order, blessings and hopefulness of the universe without hating either God or mankind.

All you had to say was that one thing right there. I can respect that statement. I can respect a man who says that to me. I can't respect a man who insists that I believe what he believes despite the fact that no empirical evidence supports that belief. I don't hate religious people. I know and love several.

[death dealer]

I assume that most proponents of Intelligent Design/Creationism would categorize the Designer/God as a benevolent being. Are they f u c king kidding? Really? There is absolutely no evidence other than the occasional anecdotal personal account to indicate that if there is a God, which there isn't, that he is anything other than one mean motherf u c king POS with a really sick sense of humor. And based on his design work on the planet and the universe, he would have failed out of most decent engineering programs in the first year.

Your provocative and uncharacteristically hateful logic is puzzling, DD.

We are born. We die. Perhaps the benevolence of existence or lack thereof results not from a benevolent or
malevolent God, but from what we ourselves make of the blessings and gifts of life. When a drunk kills an innocent is that the fault of the automotive designer?

The engineering classes you celebrate as superior to God's intelligent design are only part of our latest inadequate
attempts to describe a powerful and orderly universe. How can you see a "failed" engineering design in the universe?

To me, there pretty clearly appears to be order. Physics works in our observable environment. The planets move, the rains fall, life finds a way. Engineering classes are only part of our latest inadequate human attempts to describe a powerful and orderly universe, greater in scope than what the frail human mind can comprehend.

But strive we must to comprehend! When not otherwise occupied in raping and killing each other, humans have spent a considerable portion of their existence pondering the nature of the universe. To wonder and try to comprehend is part of the joy and glory of being human, and we can be glorious indeed! But Big Bang, Intelligent Design, and String Teory aside, do you really think we have done more than scratch the surface in our knowledge of the universe?

We limit ourselves unnecessarily when we look only in the mirror. But that's the essential problem with the
arguments of believers and non-believers alike. We look at ourselves in the mirrow, find what we see to be
inadequate, and blame God. Just because I cannot possibly understand something fully does that mean that I should
not strive to understand? Does it mean that I must confine my understanding to the image I see in the mirror? Does it preclude the possibility of God?

I love math, debates and science projects, but faith is a choice, not a science experiment. Whether you believe in
God, yourself, or nothing, you have chosen to believe something. One of the central truths of the Judeo-Christian
tradition is that when we humans fail to recognize some power greater than ourselves, we tend towards evil. This has been consistently true, at least for the latest 10,000 years of human existence on earth that we know about. We fvck up a great deal more without God than with God.

You may disparage God and Christians all you want, but there is more useless fear and hopelessness in atheism and
atheists than among believers. The response to this thread by all you ardent and committed atheists, although not
surprising, is unnecessarily hateful and limiting. We humans are defined by what we believe. In your near-sighted hubris, you have defined humans hatefully and hopelessly.

There is another choice. I prefer an approach that does not laughably and tragically establish mankind as the limit
to the universe. I vote with Moses, C.S. Lewis, and Hub McCann, and a host of others who have chosen to see the
order, blessings and hopefulness of the universe without hating either God or mankind.

This statement on the other hand is really far from the mark. Atheism for me is not a belief system. It is just a conclusion based upon my observance of the world around me. It is actually very liberating. It doesn't free me from my responsibility as a human. Quite to the contrary, it puts all the impetus on me. There is no God to fall back on, so I'd better be doing it right from the start. I view "doing the right thing" from a very pragmatic standpoint. I do it because ultimately it is better for me and mine, not because some phantom in the sky told me to.

[kalm]

if the designer can design itself, why can't the designed design itself (for the record I'm not putting my opinions of the existence of God here, I just put up with Evangelical Baptist junk everyday and I really don't want ID taught in Science class because it isn't a Scientific theory and I don't want those Baptists to brainwash me otherwise)

Points well taken, YT. I grew up with Bible-thumping Baptists and don't care for their approach, either.

But the Baptists at least recognize a power greater than themselves, and allow humans the consideration of free will, which serve to keep them in reasonable and relatively harmless check.

All the evils of limitations of a Baptist literalism are not as dangerously evil and destructive as the prideful absolutism of the committed atheists and communists on this blog site. They celebrate themselves and avert attention from their own deep inadequacies by overstating and mischaracterizing the evils of religion and downplaying the observable and quantifiable evils of atheistic communism in all its many forms.

It costs nothing for the liberty-minded individual to admit the possibility of God. Why do socialists and progressives work so adamantly to crush the idea of God in the hearts and minds of their neighbors? Because just like Hitler, Lenin, Pol Pot, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh and Mao, they cannot acheive their anti-liberty agenda and the absolute control they desire without crushing religion and taking away your choices by force.

Ironically, Judeo-Christians are willing to compete in the marketplace of the heart in ways that Islamists, communists and the misguided and disguised progressive and socialist children of communists are not willing to tolerate.

Give the Baptists their due. They do more than the socialists or progressives to protect your liberty.

I don't mean to be rude, but that is the biggest pile of hot, steaming, poo I've yet to read by you Nate.

I was raised a Lutheran, have friends and family who are devout christians of various denominations, and perhaps the two greatest most altruistic people I've ever know are catholics.

I consider myself a devout agnostic who hopes and somewhat anticipates to have his belief firmly shaken someday. After all, there's no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole.

I agree with Capt. Cat that going fishing or, in the words of David Alan Greer, seeing a Blue Heron in the mist, or stand of tall cedars at sunset, gets you as close to god as the teachings any church has to offer.

But to lump anyone on this board that fails to pray at the altar of supply side jesus and Ayn Rand as somehow akin to Mao, Stalin, et al is absolutely So if that was your intent (which I'm guessing it was) :

Our fat, wasteful, sloth-full, hyper-competitive, overconsumptive, mononpolistic system under the guise of liberty is about as un-christ like as you can get.

As for I.D. - it would be interesting if it was something other than attempt by christian wing nuts to get religion back into the schools.

[death dealer]

Take all human activity out of the equation. We are after all only a blip in the existence of this planet, much less this universe. Take mankinds self destructive tendencies (another flaw in the design by the way- why give the alpha being in your ecosystem an irresistable bent of self-indulgent narcissistic destructiveness?) and the universe is still and incredible dangerous inhospitable place which ultimately will collapse inward upon itself in a cosmic orgy of death. Granted, this will most likely result in the birth of some other reality, but it won't be this one. How's that a benevolent design?

[93henfan]

If you want to read a book that contemplates all the various scenarios in layman's terms without getting deeply into mathematics and physics, pick up this:



The author covers all the various theories, exposes holes in most of them (including the big bang), and covers some I'd never heard of that will blow your f'ing mind (parallel universes, bouncing branes, the universe as a hologram).

Bottom line is, nobody knows for sure how the universe was created. The greatest physicists in the world are not all in agreement. There is no sound science yet, and trust me, I am a guy that believes heavily in science. I would not rule out that there could be a greater power that triggered all of this either.

To add on to SCBH's comment, there is no right answer. Nobody's been able to prove a damn thing about how we got here, be it the world's best scientists or the world's most fervent clergymen.

[93henfan]

the universe is still and incredible dangerous inhospitable place which ultimately will collapse inward upon itself in a cosmic orgy of death. Granted, this will most likely result in the birth of some other reality, but it won't be this one. How's that a benevolent design?

That's one of the scenarios discussed in the book I mentioned. Our rapidly expanding universe might have been triggered by the end of a cycle of a previously rapidly shrinking universe. We might be on the second, or as high as want to go, iteration of expansion and contraction of the same bit of information (information being substituted for the more traditional concept of matter).

Shit will boggle your mind when you really start to explore all the theories.

[soul man]

I am a person of faith who does not see science as threat to my belief. It is interesting, that people tend to choose science or faith; I think it can be both: see the Einstein quote below.
The bible does not tell us how the universe was created-but why. It is not a science book that people try to make it.

[native]

I am a person of faith who does not see science as threat to my belief. It is interesting, that people tend to choose science or faith; I think it can be both: see the Einstein quote below.
The bible does not tell us how the universe was created-but why. It is not a science book that people try to make it.

Best post of the thread!

Apples are apples and oranges are oranges.

[death dealer]

If you want to read a book that contemplates all the various scenarios in layman's terms without getting deeply into mathematics and physics, pick up this:



The author covers all the various theories, exposes holes in most of them (including the big bang), and covers some I'd never heard of that will blow your f'ing mind (parallel universes, bouncing branes, the universe as a hologram).

Bottom line is, nobody knows for sure how the universe was created. The greatest physicists in the world are not all in agreement. There is no sound science yet, and trust me, I am a guy that believes heavily in science. I would not rule out that there could be a greater power that triggered all of this either.

To add on to SCBH's comment, there is no right answer. Nobody's been able to prove a damn thing about how we got here, be it the world's best scientists or the world's most fervent clergymen.

Again, my original post doesn't even deny the existence of a god necessarily. All I'm saying is that if he does exist, he's a mean motherfucker, with a sadistic sense of humor.

[native]

... I view "doing the right thing" from a very pragmatic standpoint. I do it because ultimately it is better for me and mine, not because some phantom in the sky told me to.

[death dealer]

I am a person of faith who does not see science as threat to my belief. It is interesting, that people tend to choose science or faith; I think it can be both: see the Einstein quote below.
The bible does not tell us how the universe was created-but why. It is not a science book that people try to make it.

science is not a threat to your belief. It is only so if you choose for it to be. I personally do not believe in a higher power, not because I feel I have to choose one or the other, but simply because I don't feel it, and don't see it in the universe around me.

[native]

... But to lump anyone on this board that fails to pray at the altar of supply side jesus and Ayn Rand as somehow akin to Mao, Stalin, et al ...

As far as I am concerned, you don't have to pray at any altar, kalm, but when you pray at the socialist altar you derserve to be lumped in with Mao, Stalin and the rest.

[native]

If you want to read a book that contemplates all the various scenarios in layman's terms without getting deeply into mathematics and physics, pick up this:



The author covers all the various theories, exposes holes in most of them (including the big bang), and covers some I'd never heard of that will blow your f'ing mind (parallel universes, bouncing branes, the universe as a hologram).

Bottom line is, nobody knows for sure how the universe was created. The greatest physicists in the world are not all in agreement. There is no sound science yet, and trust me, I am a guy that believes heavily in science. I would not rule out that there could be a greater power that triggered all of this either.

To add on to SCBH's comment, there is no right answer. Nobody's been able to prove a damn thing about how we got here, be it the world's best scientists or the world's most fervent clergymen.

[SeattleGriz]

I am a person of faith who does not see science as threat to my belief. It is interesting, that people tend to choose science or faith; I think it can be both: see the Einstein quote below.
The bible does not tell us how the universe was created-but why. It is not a science book that people try to make it.

science is not a threat to your belief. It is only so if you choose for it to be. I personally do not believe in a higher power, not because I feel I have to choose one or the other, but simply because I don't feel it, and don't see it in the universe around me.

100% agreeance. As a Christian, I never understood how Christianity got to be associated with hating science. If we are created in the image of our Creator, and He had the knowlegde/power to create, He thus would have to have a solid grasp of such knowledge. So, it would make sense for Christians to pursue knowledge, and science is a powerful means of pursuit.

To reply to some of your posts DD, if one could calculate the odds of life just spontaneously generating from a pool of amino acids to all it is today, those odds would be astronomical. So astronomical that it really isn't any worse, odds wise, to believe in a Intelligent Designer.

How life started has always been an interesting subject for me. The is something that brings us all here. Way too many factors working against life for there not to be. Whether it be chance, some unseen force, or an Intelligent Designer, I don't know, but there is something.

[native]

...You may disparage God and Christians all you want, but there is more useless fear and hopelessness in atheism and atheists than among believers. The response to this thread by all you ardent and committed atheists, although not surprising, is unnecessarily hateful and limiting. We humans are defined by what we believe. In your near-sighted hubris, you have defined humans hatefully and hopelessly.

There is another choice. I prefer an approach that does not laughably and tragically establish mankind as the limit to the universe. I vote with Moses, C.S. Lewis, and Hub McCann, and a host of others who have chosen to see the order, blessings and hopefulness of the universe without hating either God or mankind.

This statement on the other hand is really far from the mark. Atheism for me is not a belief system. It is just a conclusion based upon my observance of the world around me. It is actually very liberating. It doesn't free me from my responsibility as a human. Quite to the contrary, it puts all the impetus on me. There is no God to fall back on, so I'd better be doing it right from the start. I view "doing the right thing" from a very pragmatic standpoint. I do it because ultimately it is better for me and mine, not because some phantom in the sky told me to.

Maybe you are agnostic versus atheist, DD? Maybe I need to recognize a stronger distinction between "atheist" and "anti-theist," as pointed out by YT? I apologize if I have judged you too harshly or with insufficient nuance. The historical record for Judeo-Christian regimes is still better than the historical record for atheist/anti-theist regimes.

If you're not hatin' on Christians and Jews then I have no beef with you. I hope you recognze that reliance on yourself for knowing the difference between right and wrong still requires an article of faith.


...Hugs but no apology for you, kalm, and absolutely no apologies to the chaos brothers or anyone who makes excuses for them. Don't wear the shoe if it does not fit.

[SuperHornet]

I assume that most proponents of Intelligent Design/Creationism would categorize the Designer/God as a benevolent being. Are they f u c king kidding? Really? There is absolutely no evidence other than the occasional anecdotal personal account to indicate that if there is a God, which there isn't, that he is anything other than one mean motherf u c king POS with a really sick sense of humor. And based on his design work on the planet and the universe, he would have failed out of most decent engineering programs in the first year.

Your provocative and uncharacteristically hateful logic is puzzling, DD.

We are born. We die. Perhaps the benevolence of existence or lack thereof results not from a benevolent or
malevolent God, but from what we ourselves make of the blessings and gifts of life. When a drunk kills an innocent is that the fault of the automotive designer?

The engineering classes you celebrate as superior to God's intelligent design are only part of our latest inadequate
attempts to describe a powerful and orderly universe. How can you see a "failed" engineering design in the universe?

To me, there pretty clearly appears to be order. Physics works in our observable environment. The planets move, the rains fall, life finds a way. Engineering classes are only part of our latest inadequate human attempts to describe a powerful and orderly universe, greater in scope than what the frail human mind can comprehend.

But strive we must to comprehend! When not otherwise occupied in raping and killing each other, humans have spent a considerable portion of their existence pondering the nature of the universe. To wonder and try to comprehend is part of the joy and glory of being human, and we can be glorious indeed! But Big Bang, Intelligent Design, and String Teory aside, do you really think we have done more than scratch the surface in our knowledge of the universe?

We limit ourselves unnecessarily when we look only in the mirror. But that's the essential problem with the
arguments of believers and non-believers alike. We look at ourselves in the mirrow, find what we see to be
inadequate, and blame God. Just because I cannot possibly understand something fully does that mean that I should
not strive to understand? Does it mean that I must confine my understanding to the image I see in the mirror? Does it preclude the possibility of God?

I love math, debates and science projects, but faith is a choice, not a science experiment. Whether you believe in
God, yourself, or nothing, you have chosen to believe something. One of the central truths of the Judeo-Christian
tradition is that when we humans fail to recognize some power greater than ourselves, we tend towards evil. This has been consistently true, at least for the latest 10,000 years of human existence on earth that we know about. We fvck up a great deal more without God than with God.

You may disparage God and Christians all you want, but there is more useless fear and hopelessness in atheism and
atheists than among believers. The response to this thread by all you ardent and committed atheists, although not
surprising, is unnecessarily hateful and limiting. We humans are defined by what we believe. In your near-sighted hubris, you have defined humans hatefully and hopelessly.

There is another choice. I prefer an approach that does not laughably and tragically establish mankind as the limit
to the universe. I vote with Moses, C.S. Lewis, and Hub McCann, and a host of others who have chosen to see the
order, blessings and hopefulness of the universe without hating either God or mankind.

[SuperHornet]

These guys preach "tolerance" of all things except Christianity, conveniently forgetting that NO worldview is truly tolerant of other worldviews. ALL are exclusive.

Relativism doesn't hold water, either. So you can do whatever you want so long as you don't harm others? Who's to say what harms another? Theory self-defeated.

What gets really frustrating here or anywhere is the anti-Christian crowd that immediately goes ad hominem instead of providing true arguments that can either be verified or refuted. Clearly, that does NOT apply to everyone around here, but it does happen quite a bit. The whole "Christians never think" schtick comes off just as arrogantly (if not more so) as the Westboro-ites. There ARE Christians who can make a good case, and in most cases, I'll admit they make a better case than I do. (native is a case in point. I can't compete with him in terms of making a case for Christianity, and I'm very grateful for his presence here.)

Just give us a true argument that we can latch on to one way or another. Please.

[Skjellyfetti]

Believing a power that we don't understand had a role in the creation of the universe isn't that wacky.

Believing the earth is 6,000 years old and that Genesis is literal Truth... is pretty fucking wacky.

[native]

If you want to read a book that contemplates all the various scenarios in layman's terms without getting deeply into mathematics and physics, pick up this:



The author covers all the various theories, exposes holes in most of them (including the big bang), and covers some I'd never heard of that will blow your f'ing mind (parallel universes, bouncing branes, the universe as a hologram).

Bottom line is, nobody knows for sure how the universe was created. The greatest physicists in the world are not all in agreement. There is no sound science yet, and trust me, I am a guy that believes heavily in science. I would not rule out that there could be a greater power that triggered all of this either.

To add on to SCBH's comment, there is no right answer. Nobody's been able to prove a damn thing about how we got here, be it the world's best scientists or the world's most fervent clergymen.

Again, my original post doesn't even deny the existence of a god necessarily. All I'm saying is that if he does exist, he's a mean motherfucker, with a sadistic sense of humor.

If you had a child, and kept the child in a hermetically sealed chamber free from all disease and physical dangers, and fed the child perfect organic food and stimulated the child with nothing but wondefull pleasant sights and sounds, free from the attentions of bullies and evil people, would you then be a great and benevolent father, DD?

Since you do have children and you did let them burn their fingers and stub their toes, does that make you a mean mf with a sadistic sense of humor?