life's too complex so obviously somebody (or something) really smart designed it? maybe corb or flw really is god. frankly, i feel that intelligent design is about the most ridiculous rationalization that i have heard yet.

however, from a marketing standpoint they are being pretty sneaky by selling their god beliefs as a "theory"

he has not read any Plato. It's all about mythos and logos.

two paths to the same old truths

ok, there's an arguement, but in what class should this theory be taught? It certainly doesn't belong in science, so I don't see where it would fit in.

It should be taught in Political Science.

do you guys not believe in God?

evolution is a fact. darwin has/had a theory that explains evolution. but we will continue to evolve - no matter what you believe. creationists are the same people who jailed galileo. they should be burnt at the stake - a punishment fitting their midieval beliefs.

if we can get design education funded in middle school and high school, i'd be glad to teach it and make a discussion of 'intelligent design' vs. evolution part of the curriculum...

hotsies- I believe in the remote possibility of god, but I also believe that if there is a god, we probably shouldn't concern ourselves with him because he's going to do what he's going to do, regardless of our miniscule little actions.

i believe the same thing about the tooth fairy.

norm. please if you're making intellectual statements, please please please spell medieval correctly.

i'm not so into the god thing, but if there WAS to be a god, i much prefer the in-your-face aggro judeo-christian god of the old testament. floods, famine, plague. that was soooo much more bad ass than the "i love all my children" new testament fluff.

no one ever accused me of being intellectual, or of spelling well.

I really didn't know that they were using the words "intelligent design" for that. I thought it was about housing automation or archigram-esque stuffs. I guess the word "design" can also relate to the creation of life, but that's almost a Philip K.Dick quote to call the belief in god "intelligent design"...

French- I've got it! There IS a god, physically, but he's a simulacra jointly controlled by the Pope and George W. Bush. Now that would explain everything.

yeah, french, i was initially confused too. i thought that "intelligent design" was something related to the "design intelligence" that michael speaks & co have been writing about the last few years.

and for the record, no, i do not believe in god.

rationalist
Maybe you're right. I'm sure they drug people to make sure that they have a problem with reality, to make sure they believe all the bullshit they talk about. I mean, I'm sure ANY science teacher has an opinion about the existence of a higher intelligence, and this opinion affects the way he teaches science. Why would there be a theory promoted about that (don't know if I made myself clear there)?
You think US kids would get it better than me? Wouldn't they get confused with the word "design" too?

why dont you believe in God? Im just wondering.

why would we? There is nothing in life that shows a person first-hand that this theory is anything but a bedtime story. Any ideas of 'God' that a person is taught are from their parents, from priests, from schoolteachers who've forgotten their place and their jobs. At some point a person must realize that these sources know nothing more than we do ourselves about that particular subject matter, and question why we should believe their tales.

why do you believe in god? just wondering.

Why do you believe in love? nothing in life shows love exists?

but something surely feels different when you are in love.

same thing for me with God.

norm: evolution is not a fact, its a theory.. and a holy one at that..

it has more holes than my colander.. listen to some debates between creationists and evolutionists.. it'll really shake your faith in evolution..

and it is a faith.. faith that something comes from nothing..
personally i find that silly to believe.. but what do i know..

hotsies
I label myself as an agnostic, not an atheist. Since I was raised in a chatolic environnment, I had to make a decision: I had no sign of the existence of god, therefore I don't believe in god. It's not that I don't want to, it's just that I don't believe because I have no other report of a higher intelligence than various representations from various religions or beliefs. I believe that people believe, but they have not given me a proof to make me believe. I don't blame them from believing. I've tried when I was a kid. When I was going to church on sundays with my grandma, I was always waiting for something to happen, and nothing did. That's why I don't believe.

crap.. lets not group me with "Pasha".

i dont know if there is a god. but i believe in one.

but i also dont think that belief in god means you have to tehn believe in the man made catholic religion which i think has too many man made components meant to dominate and contain other people...


im just wondering why some people believe and others dont. I do.

but i also think evolution is prety established by facts...

hotsies- something DOES show me that love exists. My mother showed me that love existed (dad not so much, but whatever). My current boyfriend shows me that love exists. The things people I know do for each other every day show me that love exists. You can see the results of love. I can feel it myself. I hope that you've felt love at one time in your life, either from someone or for someone.
I can't feel 'god'. And yes, I've tried. I thought for a long time that I wasn't good enough to feel god, and then I found out that there are people all over the world just like me, who sat in church and listened, and could never feel it, and could only conclude that if 1) so many of us were left empty of this and 2) it didn't make a damned bit of sense!, then more than likely, it was just a social construct.

maybe.

i think both the creationist/intelligent design proponents and the evolutionists have great stories. i like stories. i make them up all the time.

well.. theres no need to belittle either belief system, mr. ward.

but if it makes you feel more in control of your life, ill let you.

hotsie: that hurts.. where is the love?!!!

pasha? arent you the person who posts rather seriously against gay couples? etc?

yes, that it is i. so what is your point? am i sub-human or something?
we just have different opinions, isn't it what diversity is all about?

or do you find it hard to embrace different opinions?

i think you are narrow minded.. but that's ok.. i am 2..

i just don't pretend that i am not..

why don't i believe in god?

because there is no god. that's the short answer.

despite being raised by/in a culture that (for the most part) assumes there is a god. i can't get over the fact that everything i know about god or hear about god is told to me by someone else, whether its a parent, a clergy member, a long since deceased writer of scripture, the preaching bum on the street, whatever.

i've never really bought into it, even as a young child. the older i get, the more i see and do, the more that i observe of human nature, the more convinced i am that there is not a god.

i do believe that people will both consciously and subconsciously do whatever they can to manipulate others for their own benefit and emotional reassurance.

sorry if that's a bit lengthy but it is as succinct as i can get.

when i first realised the creationists hijacked *design* to promote their cause, which is not a scientific theory, i was kinda perturbed. but then again, why not? karl rove is bush's *architect*. though i prefer to view him as a more of an anarchitect, ala matta clark without the prestige, finesse, intelligence, irony, etc.

the only class i am comfortable with creationism being taught in would be a survey of religions, which is where it belongs anyway. though there are "holes" in evolution, doesn't refute it's existence. it's based on observable facts, which is more than i can say for creationism, at least the kind based on the book of genesis. yes, plato espoused the possibility of a preternatural force. and i am a deist for those counting.

hotsies-

wasn't meaning to belittle anything. my memory of my life is a story i tell myself, presumably more impt to me than to you. is it a true story? i don't know.

i really do enjoy the stories that are told by both sides of the creation/evolution argument and, not knowing which to believe - or even if there are other stories that i should believe instead - i'll allow any and all versions some space in my overall understanding of things. the stories help me understand the (sometimes inexplicable) actions/beliefs of others.

i also believe that our stories are impt in understanding our culture. having grown up in a few different denominations of christianity and having graduated from a church school where i was required to take classes in old testament, new testament, comparative religion, and church history, i value the fact that i know all of these stories and can therefore understand even the most obscure religious references when they pop up in secular contexts. our religious stories are touchstones for our culture.

pasha - evolution is a fact. if it isn't i would ask that you to point to one piece that is out of place. it is fact because it has been confirmed to the point that to argue it would be - in the words of stephen gould - perverse. darwin theorized about evolution - and that theory has some short-comings - but darwin and evolution are not the same thing.
on the other hand creationism has absolutely no proof to back it up. to teach creationism next to evolution is to teach magic next to physics. (by the way - i just plagarized that line - but i can't find the original source right now).
evolution has all of history to prove it. i have never seen any proof that god - or a so-called intelligent designer - exists.

puddles-

'because there is no god. that's the short answer'

you look silly stating the answer to a question that philosophers and theologians having been grappling with for thousands of years.

or puddles' staement has made the philosophers and theologians that have been grappling with it for thousands of years look silly.

perhaps, but i feel that philosohers and theologians look silly for grappling with the same question for thousands of years

pasha.. i do believe in diversity.

you however, do not. because you believe that gays are "defects"

theres a differnce between believing in diversity and simply knowing that it exists.

interesting....

do you have a new question, one that has been ignored by philosophers and theologians?

puddles, architects must look just as silly by still arguing what is and isnt architecture?

pasha, norm- on the subject of evolution, there's proof all around us. For example: elephants now have a shorter average tusk length than they did 50 or 100 years ago, and a greater percentage of elephants have no tusks at all. Why? There were always random elephants who for some reason never grew tusks, and they and those with shorter tusks were more likely to survive and procreate, because those with long beatiful tusks were poached for ivory, often before they had a chance to procreate. Thus the genes which limited or eliminated tusks flourished in the elephant population. Evolution. Even if you don't believe in evolution as a source of species distinction, you can't deny that evolution does occur.

rationalist -
right. that supports my argument. thanks - now show me proof that god exists.

hotsies: so you only accept people that agree with you? what kind of diversity is that? i think that's called uniformity..

norm: fact huh? did you see a rabbit give birth to a snake? i didn't and no one else did..
man, to say that a theory shouldn't be questioned because its so right.. what the hell is this? you want to burn people at the stake?!how different are you from the inquisitors who burned people at the stake for questioning their theories? don't you want to do the same thing?

there isnt any scientific proof that god exists. thats why its a "faith," norm.

but, something to consider: we didnt have any empirical evidence that tectonic plate action was taking place until the past 200 years. and there wasnt any science proving atomic activity until the past 160 years either..that didnt mean those things didnt exist or werent occuring until they were discovered. just meant that we didnt have the toold of perception at the time.

so. right now. believe in god is largely due to anecdotal evidence from the past, and faith.

no pasha.

a few things.

1) i accept people for who they are and accept difference, and enjoy it. idont think gay people are unnatural.

2) you understand they exists, but dont accept their existance as natural, thats not embracing diversity, thats fighting it.

3) youre whats considered a "troll"

I'll give you two words that prove God exists:

Michael Landon

hotsie: comeon, namecalling is so first grade.. what if i am right?
did you investigate my claims or do you just go with the flow?

i don't care if people disagree with me, i don't hate them for it.. nor do i call them names or want to burn them at a stake..
and its hard to raise these issues without getting people angry..
and that is the real tragedy..

again, where is the love? i thought you believed in that?

i do believe in love.

i hope some day you feel comfortable enough with yourself not to feel threatened and scared of people who experience feelings you dont.

calling you a troll, is fairly accurate. its what people on the internet are called when they make posts simply to get other fired up and arguing.

although i feel that evolution is a more credible explanation for the state of the world/universe today. this argument will never be resolved via facts, whether its proof of god or proof of man coming from apes.

i am not an expert on this stuff, but i'm going to throw a few more things out there anyways since that is what the mis-information age is all about.

i read not too long ago (i think it was in karatani's "architecture as metaphor" book) that darwin himself was seriously spooked by his own theory and that he published it somewhat reluctantly. the reason being is that it undermined all scientific thought up until that point in time, not just all religous thought. before darwin, since plato (actually i think karatani traced it back to the egyptions, whatever) science supported the idea of a clockwork universe. this was in alignment with belief in a god who had created the universe, set the rules which science had slowly been uncovering (think of newton's equations explaining gravity). both science and religion privileged the idea of a "made" universe. darwin undermined this by suggesting that the universe was not in fact "made" but rather evolving or "becoming." this has not been insignificant because it has lead to many additional scientific insights that allowed for the emergence einstein's theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, or thermodynamics for example.

to believe in an "evolving" world, non-linear dynamics, or any other modern idea that allows for the inclusion of the aleatory, ultimately diminishes god's role as all-powerful creator and thus we have today's conflict.

at any rate, i don't really have any problem with anybody believing whatever they want. it really only concerns me when people see it as a contest or battle that must be won (with inevitable human casualties). all things considered, it's probably better that we continue to debate because if any single view became over dominant, then it would limit every's one ability to stay open and flexible to both the new problems of the world and the solutions for dealing with those problems.

as for architects looking silly arguing over what is and is not architecture...1. there's nothing wrong with looking silly and 2. nobody's really paying much attention to what we say anyhow. but i agree, we do look silly...better to build architecture than argue about it.