Jules: There's a passage I got memorized. Ezekiel 25:17. "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you."
I been sayin' that shit for years. And if you ever heard it, it meant your ass. I never really questioned what it meant. I thought it was just a cold-blooded thing to say to a motherfucker before you popped a cap in his ass. But I saw some shit this mornin' made me think twice. Now I'm thinkin': it could mean you're the evil man. And I'm the righteous man. And Mr. .45 here, he's the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could be you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. I'd like that. But that shit ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin, Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be the shepherd.
hotsies... why is the Catholic Church made up by man and other Christian sects aren't? Especially since Catholicism accepts evolution, unlike some ridiculously strict, literal interpreation sects such as most evangelical protestant denominations.
that having been said, I'm not sure where I stand as far as a belief in God. I was raised Catholic and until a few years ago, pretty much believed the line towed by all the clergy and that deal. However, if there is a god, I'm much more inclined to believe that he/she/(more likely) it is probably entirely merciful, loving and so on and could probably care less about whether or not you believe in he/she/it, so long as you follow your beliefs. I think it makes much more sense that God would "judge" you on your intentions and character rather than on some blind faith handed to you by bigots and hipocrites. Also, I think you can find "god" much more easily and purely in nature than in any church. After all, to follow hotsies' line, church's are man-made.
and a side note, assuming that Jesus is the son of God and all, take a look at the life of Jesus in the Bible and historical accounts of the early church--it's basically communism (in the sense of equality and all that). Not saying that Jesus is the son of God or that communism is the way to go, only that neo-cons are not Christian in the least.
oh also, evolution is a theory, which in terms of science means that is something that can essential be proven or disproven. Intelligent design cannot, therefore it is not a theory, it is just a bullshit, back door way of teaching creationism, which is fine to teach.... in sunday school! (not CCD though, hotsies, because Catholics believe in evolution)
whoa, pasha you need to lighten up a bit... you sound like an extremist... i have the fear of God in me... I just don't agree that people who are mentally ill with depression and kill themselves have committed a mortal sin... or that gays and lesbians are evil and unequal to heterosexuals... or that 9 year olds should be given blank anti-abortion bumper stickers and told to color in the fetuses with crayolas (that actually happened to me in sunday school, i didn't even know what abortion was!)...
i don't argue that Jesus existed and was an exceptional human being, he could have been the messiah, i don't know for sure, we never hung out...
but i do think that his teachings have been seriously misconstrued and contorted over the years... i doubt he would condone the excommunication of gays... what if God created homosexuals as a form of population control?... no one knows for sure, so how is it ok to just say, that is not right, the Bible says it is not right? how is it ok to to teach prejudice to kids and call it the will of God?...
my other beef with religion, while i'm venting, is the declaration that 'my God is the only way to salvation'... do people really believe that all non-catholics are going to hell, or that devout buddhists, jews or any other person of any other denomination whose religion is a part of their daily lives have it all wrong... i just don't get it!
its hard to have blind faith if you keep your eyes open...
all i am saying that no one is really looking for God..
and these discussions are a good illustration of that..
we want God to be what we think He should be. so this "god" is a projection of ourselves.. its like in Rome, where a senate had to approve a god, before people can worship it.
isn't that hypocritical?
why accuse others of the same thing?
ok, story time..
two boys are sitting on a hill and looking at the sky.
older one says,
"the sun moved today".
the younger said,
"dad said, the sun doesn't move".
"yes it does!" the older exclaimed.
"i saw the sun move, in the morning it was over there, now its here!
and i didn't feel the earth move! i believe what i see and what i feel!"
the original point of this threat was Intelligent Design.... my comment about belief in god was secondary.. and i dont think important to the topic of whether intelligent design should be taught or not..
Most mainstream religious groups have long since made their peace with evolutionary theory. As in, most Protestant denominations, the Catholic Church, Judaism in its Conservative, Reform, and most Orthodox groups. The stipulation, in most cases, is simply that evolution is part of God's plan for the creation of life.
Few have any real beef with that stipulation because it is one that is just not relevant to the sorts of question evolutionary biologists study. It allows religion and science to happily coexist.
What you have here with the president and the intelligent design hucksters is an attempt to teach creationism as a rival theory to evolution in science classes. And more broadly, it is a brief for Biblical literalism being taught in the public schools, despite the fact that people as far back as Origen could figure out that at least certain parts of the Bible could not possibly be intended to be understood as literal truth.
'If It wasn't out there we wouldn't spend our whole lives searching for It.'
- a quote from Shanghai Diaries
I know my search for It, weather it be God, the quantum field or some other higher power i can't even conceive, is ongoing...
as i think it is with many of us... we don't have to go to church, temple or whatever, to be looking for 'God'...
from the notes board of the church of the flying spaghetti monster homepage:
"Today I was blessed to receive a divine revelation from our Almighty
Flying Spaghetti Monster. I have the privilege of informing you that
it is His will that I become His Bride, in order that the Savior of
mankind (who is to be called Macaroni) may be born on this earth. The
FSM has revealed to me that your body is to be the vehicle by which
his holy seed shall be transmitted in earthly form.
To that end, I have reserved a room for us at the Best Western Airport
Inn, Boise, Idaho, for the evening of [removed]. I will be
the woman wearing the WWFSMD t-shirt and eye patch.
I look forward to meeting you and fulfilling the will of our noodly master.
I hope this doesn't sound corny... but my faith in the existance of God has alot to do with animals. When I see an animal that is happy, my thought is always that there has to be a God, because I don't see how science and evolution could be responsible for all the beautiful animals that are out there in the world.
I just don't see how science could create such variety, so many shapes, purposes, colors, faces, of living breathing creatures.
Like this pregnant cheetah, about to become a mother.
I do believe i God. but this is always something that hasnt been that hard for me to think about.
The universe is very large (nearly infinite). which means that there is plenty of room for all sorts of things to happen. most of the time there is no life at all (mercury, venus, mars, jupiter, etc) but very rarely.. there are the exact right set of circumstances that allows for what is earth to happen. its hard for us to sometimes grasp that we could be the product luck and the beneficiaries of it.
but in a cosmic, galactic sense our world is a lot like being born paris hilton is on a local sense.
someone had to be born in the hilton family. turns out its paris.
just like, some planet had to have all the right elements and lenght of time for the world to evolve and life to exist. and that planet and time is us.
the way is perfect like vast space
where nothing is lacking and nothing is in excess.
indeed it is due to our choosing to accept or reject
that we do not see the true nature of things,
nor the inner feeling of emptiness.
be serene in the oneness of things
and such erroneonous views will disappear by themselves.
when you try to stop activity to achieve passivity
your very effort fills you with activity.
As long as you remain in one extreme or the other,
you will never know oneness.
my friend's brother got a tattoo of Bob on his arm, then said it was only a joke. my friend pointed out that he said he's only kidding, but he got the tattoo.
Oh sure, that's how it starts "as a joke.' Then, they see that it IS NO joke.
Then the joke's on us. I saw a guy w/ Bob tatooed on his back - strange MoFo, but a true believer.
Why do people treat science as something other than a religion itself? Evolution is completly illogical and not even scientific- parts of it are and parts are not. It doesnt even answer fundimental questions - namely the issue of origin-poof it exists? or one species crossed over and became another one- evn though there is not one example of it. A short beak becoming long is not a new species. None of the origin theories are repeatable in a lab and nobody was there.
intelligent design is just as scienctific and certainlly more logical than evolution because at least it has an answer.
the issue of origin is a historical one.
science is a tool that has become a god- why do people trust scientists? they have too much to loose like their pride if they are wrong and they want fame and fortune, recognition etc-its a flawed system because it depends on men handling evidence correctly without contamination and it constantly changes with new information. They are willing to abandom previous laws instantly. It could all fall apart at any moment.
carbon dating is a farse- it is based on a guestimate of the carbon 14's half life- but the variables cannot be isolated- things like solar activity etc could change the rate of decay. there have also been inconsistencies in the results.
most people i have met who categorically say there is no god have had a bad experience with a person in the past- a priest or another person. Its obvious by their anger- scientists dont get angry if they are unbiased they just observe the data.
i dont blame science because it is just a tool- i blame scientists because they are biased which corrupts the data.
a real scientist has to hold out for the possibility of God until there is scientifically proven that there is none.
its amazing people are willing to believe in aliens more than god
"oh also, evolution is a theory, which in terms of science means that is something that can essential be proven or disproven. Intelligent design cannot, therefore it is not a theory, it is just a bullshit, back door way of teaching creationism, which is fine to teach.... in sunday school! (not CCD though, hotsies, because Catholics believe in evolution)"
of course its a theory you idiot- because it can be proven - you just have to wait longer- it just shows your narrow minded selfish- selfcentered point of view. You cant fathom anything that is outside your lifetime or viewpoint- do you realize how small you are?
amazing that the only topic people can be rude- and hateful is when someone says they are christian or believe in God- anywhere else it is unacceptable
someone also mentioned something about the stoneage- amazing that people who live now are arrogant enough to think they "got it" lots of people before have had these ideas that there is no God but those ideas come and go.
anyway evolution has got huge holes in it and intelligent design should be taught in the science class because the evidence is in nature that there could be a designer- much more eveidence than oops it just happened by accident or chance-
Science used to claim that it was the strong that survived but they found out that wasnt true either. Then there is the theory of relativity and how that was a paragdigm shift in the scientific world. What about quantum physics
we are just babies playing with things we are too small to understand.
good to see you doing your research. I am a big believer in research.
Surely this is a statement of evolution. Everything is in constant flux and change, progressing along a huge time scale, edging towards perfection, gradual changes, chances and probablities.
What perfection is, is hard to know. Perfection might be described as the point of attainment or progress of an entity where nothing needs to change because it suits its ultimate purpose/context.
If this is evolutions endgame, then one could argue that evolution has divine ends.
However, there are many natural mysteries that tend to promote the idea of a natural consciousness or the hand of a designer. For example, the change in colour of the leaves of Autumnal trees has been hypothesised as a deterrent for aphids and other pests.
Whilst this may or may not be the case, it implies a decision making process at some point, either that, or a base of massive singular examples that gradually get weeded out.
In either case, massive amoutns of time are necessary. What is time except the momentary, non-linear calculation of possibilities?
evolution is very credible due to the many evidence out there but there are still major problems that make evolution more a theory than a proven fact.
I also think there's a difference between adaptation and evolution. Animals can adapt to their environments by modifying their physique..but there's no explanation as to how animals can, through natural selection, change the 'intent' of their design. For example, if kangaroos wanted to climb trees because it'd help them survive in a jungle, then it makes sense for them to grow longer legs. But if you look into other things, such as an anatomy of an eyeball, the design of an eyeball cannot be created through natural selection. It doesn't make sense to have all these different parts within an eye to work together to give vision to a human being. This is the part where I think intelligent design can become a legitimate argument...there must have been some source of creator that gave the design an intent, or function...be it God, or whatever you call it.
natural selection makes sense especially in such a versatile world like ours but what is it that ever gave animals an instinct to survive?
So intelligent design could try to explain the flaws of evolution, which doesn't make it a scientific theory, but rather, brings another perspective to evolution..and could make it a legitimate topic for students in school to discuss.
there are rules to science- a scientific method of observation. it is really a very simplistic way of looking at things.
"From Latin ex- + -periri (akin to periculum attempt). In the scientific method, an experiment is a set of actions and observations, performed to verify or falsify a hypothesis or research a causal relationship between phenomena. The experiment is a cornerstone in empirical approach to knowledge." this is one of many definitions of an experiment.
the causal relationship is a big concern- we are using deductive reasoning to decipher the past - deductive reasoning has a major problem - the evidence or fact that you need may not be available for you to observe especially when considering past events
inductive reasoning is much better.
science is not a very good tool to decipher the past because things could have been drastically different. - there are surely some facts missing so we have to keep the book open for new discovery.
The issue i think we should ask ourselves is how do philosophies become scientific theories- and what do we mean when we say scientific theory.
"In the life sciences, evolution is a change in the traits of living organisms over generations, including the emergence of new species. Since the development of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to the next.In other fields evolution is used more generally to refer to any process of change over time. "
there is no real proof of the emergence of a new species- there are other options like all the species found existed throughout time and are only beginning to be discovered now. Just because a tiger and a saber toothed tiger look similar doesnt mean one begat the other. Did anyone see it happen? we assume. It could be a possiblity-
there is evidence, but proof is a different matter.
"natural selection makes sense especially in such a versatile world like ours but what is it that ever gave animals an instinct to survive? " the answer is simply survival- they just are that way.
natural selection says only the strong survive(the ones that genetically adapt to their environment best) but there is evidence to the contrary- so scientists have changed their story to include "sometimes things happen randomely or by chance" I think humans should have been extinct along time ago - physically they are inferior
i ll take a risk here but if man came from monkeys or chimps, apes etc- and they are superior why are the monkeys still around- they should just die out?
the message of natural selection is that the weak have no purpose in this world but the system seems to show they just have their place on the chain- on a very simplistic level it would be like Highlander- "there could be only one" .
The implications are even worse- if we start applying the theory to human kind we see only certain types of people are valuable- what about certain races? what about old people? it becomes a utilitarian society with no moral compass- is that perfection? is that what evolution brings? sounds more like devolution. believe it or not the arian race- japan's "proper place" theory come from this type of thinking.
scientific theory doesnt happen in a vacuum-
random and chance are words we have given definitions- they could be patterns we just don't understand.
there is just too much disagreement in the scientific community
the universe is contracting- the universe is expanding-
intelligent design asks - is there scientific evidence of a pattern of design in the biological and natural world?
why is that so scary to people? because Christians are bringing it to the table? doesn't sound very scientific and it isn't. People are opposed to it not for logical reasons but because they dont like Christians. Education has always been something the Christian comunity has valued and brought to much of the world. Most of the best universities in the US started as Christian institutions.
scientific theory doesnt happen in a vacuum- and there is a process of how people reach the point of theory- it starts with questions. Right now Humanism is the religion taught in schools-
with so many differing views in the evolutionary theory and flaws it should be considered the evolutionary idea and no longer a theory - for starters if it supposed to based on scientific experiments and experiments are used to explain causal relationships- and the evolutionary theory cannot explain the initial cause of biological life using science. How did this hypothesis become a theory at all?
Wow the christian right is turning post-modern! Put Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and Gödel's incompleteness theorem in there, and we're back to 1979. Don't you understand that trying to prove the existence of God will also fail to be an exact deductive logic by using the same kind of reasoning? Just to say that we can't prove everything, and therefore God exists seems like very weak reasoning to me. It's like shooting oneself in the foot, since faith ultimately must exist independant of proof (otherwise it would be useless). Go and read your Karamazov.
"faith ultimately must exist independant of proof (otherwise it would be useless). "
who says that statement is true? you i dont believe they are independant that is a humanistic falacy. the point is at some point because you are one person in space and time with one brain your perspective is limited and you must have faith- humanist or christian that faith is in some authority figure-
to put it in plain language you are not objective so dont act like you are and christians are just stupid because they dont put their faith in the same thing you do.
"Don't you understand that trying to prove the existence of God will also fail to be an exact deductive logic by using the same kind of reasoning?"
wow your so smart- Dont you understand I was not trying to prove the existence of god? Sorry i dont fit into your carefully crafted box of who a Christian is nor with prepared speeches. Just call people the christian right and you dont have to make any real point- maybe we are from monkeys i think you might be convincing me.
I was just saying that science or evolution also requires faith and is not bullet proof like some people appear to think. science requires faith as well. again science is just a tool. Thats the point.
somewhere along the line we have come to value empiracle evidence more than other types of knowledge like intuition. Why? I can remember being in physics class and when an experiment didnt fit the expected results we had to write an error report 95% of the time it was friction or human error.
"Just to say that we can't prove everything, and therefore God exists seems like very weak reasoning to me"
that is not what i said or implied. the point was science is a poor tool to prove evolution- but to prove intelligent design is a different matter- as a scientist you must say there is the possiblity of the existence of God until it is proved that there is no god. No need to get emotional about it is just the rules- if that sounds unreasonable that is science. Science cannot prove historical events either does that mean they didn't happen?
You also assume i have to prove the existence of God- how arrogant- again you are looking at it from your perspective- if God exists or anyone else for that matter they just do and their existance does not depend on whether anyone can empiraclly prove it or not.but thats a different matter.
the intent of the original post was if intelligent design should be considered something that can be scientifically examined. I think it can be. the other comments are my perspective.
science is represented as some cure all and unquestionable and religion is peresented as stone age material. which is based on nothing substantial.
I mentioned inductive reasoning as the preferred method not exact deductive logic (whatever that is)- you do know logic and reason are 2 different concepts right?
you assumed alot of things in your post and you ended up wrong because you started wrong. How do you even know whether i am a Christian at all? Does believing in God mean i am part of the christian right?
i haven't seen this distinction discussed since last year some time, so i'll bring it up again - simple but critical in light of various decisions over the last year:
intelligent design is an interesting philosophical idea and should be discussed in philosophy class.
because it is not testable - is not able to be subjected to scientific method - it should not be considered a theory and should not be taught in science class. if a science teacher or a student want to discuss it as an idea (a TEACHER'S decision - not something handed down by a school board or a legislature), that should be at the teacher's discretion.
evolution is a scientific theory. it is able to be subjected to scientific method, having started as a hypothesis and grown into common acceptance through a history of testing and learning. because it is a tested theory, it is relevant to science classes. no credible scientists i've read have yet called it 'fact'.
Ease up there - I enjoy discussion with Christians and have many friends that are. (Even yesterday I listened to the latest Danielson album during the whole day) The "christian right" was a bit provoking I agree, but not necessarily directed to you, but rather to the recent coupling of politics and religion spreading from the US. It's also an ironic comment to the fact that post-modernism, which long has been detested by the neoconservatives, is nowadays partly used to explain their religious beliefs.
You are right saying that education has been an important part of christianity, most notably in Europe after the collapse of the Roman empire. However, science (not necessarily education) has come under scrutiny when it doesn't fit into the symbolicism of religion - not because its methods. For example, spatial centrality of the human being was under attack with astronomy. Temporal centrality of the human being was under attack with geology. Biological centrality of the human being is/was under attack with evolution.
Newness in this situation is that (some) religious groups argue back using the same methods of reasoning as in science. Firstly, I find that these are incompatible systems, like beautifully demonstrated in "The Brother's Karamazov". If God's existence could be proven, christianity (or any other religion) would not be a matter of free choice anymore, just a simple fact. And as such, principles of morality, sin, condemnation etc. would lose their meaning, since no one can be seriously judged if they have rejected a fact which is as evident as the gravity of the earth. Secondly, sashimi's "doesn't make sense" theorem is not a scientific argument. I could also say the same about the fact that the universe has more than three dimensions - I just can't picture that in my head. My appendix or Coccyx don't make sense either, but maybe that's because I'm not looking for "sense" in the right place.
DID ANY ONE READ THE HARPER'S ARTICLE with Darwin's great grandson reporting intelligent design court case in Idaho. It was great - It was basically a bunch of really smart scientists and some great ACLU lawyers tearing apart some oxy cotton (not joking at all) red necks. The one scientist who stepped champion the idea was torn apart and made a fool of. Ten other scietists from his department testified against him and said he was doing it for the publicity. Anyone who believes in this bullshit should take a long hard look at whose defending it.
Plus the leep from creationism to intelligent design is discussed. It was basically a PR move to make it sound more scientific- a bit IRONIC - but as with most religious people you need to pat them on the head and remind them that there was no concept of Stem Cells when your bible was rewritten fot the 8th time -
I agree with SW, i don't understand why this is such a controversial debate...2 very different means of questioning that require different logic: i.e. 'why?' vs 'how?' or 'truth' vs 'fact'. There is no point for comparison.
Evolution is a theory that keeps, ahem evolving ... and to say that it is not proveable does not do justice to the fact that it is a work in progress. Take the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium, for example: that sexually active species evolve at a slower rate than other species. Also, in response to the confusion as to why monkeys and humans co-exist, noone that I've read on this thread (at least not my knowledge) seems to have brought up the issue of divergent vs. convergent evolution. It is an infinitely more complex issue than either saying that "evolution cannot be proved" or that "it is just a theory."
And although I strongly disagree with the idea of intelligent design, I have to admit with hilldomain's assertion that science requires faith as well. And no example makes this more clear than Darwin's own voyage on the H.M.S. Beagle. Darwin was acting on a bit of a hunch, and was eager to rebut Sir Charles Lyell's theory of uniformitarianism (which is another name for the historical argument hilldomain was pointing out).
And to this day, I do not undertand why people are so eager to quote the "Grand Inquisitioner" chapter from Brothers Karamazov. If you are looking for literary inspiration, illumintation, or fuel to balze your very own ideological agitprop, read Tolstoy's A Confession, Nikos Kazanzakis' The Last Temptation of Christ, or even J.D. Salinger's Franny and Zooey. But, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do once I've gleaned any insight from these works. In the end, I am just as confused as anyone else.
i think to "prove" the "theory" of mutation via selection, you might only have to show a hcange in genes of a certain measurement(not sure what that would be).
then check to see how common the differences between existing species has same (or larger) measure.
the problem becomes a bit like "comparing oranges and apples".
you need to define or agree to a definition of "genes" or genetic change. maybe still need to define what separates species from each other (new data and reclassification. that's what keeps taxonomists busy)
but there's no doubt that sunday school teaching will leave a person clueless about this subject.
to a-f,
just playing the noncompliant christian-and maybe i was getting a little defensive.
"the recent coupling of politics and religion spreading from the US"
this is a good thing- but i would exchange personal faith with religion- or you could say your "self"- when people of a like personal faith get together we call it religion and it becomes a swear word for some reason. I guess its from the whole misunderstanding of "separation of church and state" people always fail to look at the context and especially in this case. We don't want the church running the state but we do want personal ideas whether religeous or otherwise influencing politics, people,and politicians.
science certainly isn't any good for providing us with any moral compass.
i am not particularly offended by any comments on a forum- but i do like to challenge assumptions. and the general sentimate in the US is "we hate Christians and Christians are stupid". If that was said about anyone else the ACLU would be allover it but since they are the instigators of the proganda war ... (read any of Dr. Francis Schaeffers books)
Steven Ward says this
"because it is not testable -...
evolution is a scientific theory. it is able to be subjected to scientific method, having started as a hypothesis and grown into common acceptance through a history of testing and learning. because it is a tested theory, it is relevant to science classes. no credible scientists i've read have yet called it 'fact'."
a tested theory- but should it be a theory still? what test or experiments can you repeatedly perform that will give consistent results leading to a conclusion of how /where/ from what, biological life began?
I believe design or intelligent design can be tested scientifically and i challenge the assumption that evolution has been legitimately subjected to the scientific method.
the calling of evolution as fact is something that has evolved in the average persons mind- maybe "true" or "the only answer", would be a better word.
I believe evolution should be reevaluated as to whether in light of new information,it can remain a theory or should we put it back to the philosophy class.
Its philosophy in my opinion or at least hypothesis because you cannot perform reliable experiments to determine biological origin. Evolution does not have the first piece of the puzzle- ORIGIN- there is nothing to build on. We have scaps of information and we are trying to piece it together the best we can.
the scientific method involves experiments and whether variables can be isolated to determine cause. evolution has not undergone that process legitimately in my opinion- there are assertions in evolutionary theory that cannot be tested. we are refering to species that are extinct and theoretical missing links.
Its not really evolution thats the problem- but how we see evolution- we dont really know what it is or what significance it holds but we have elevated it to god like status. its weird- imagine if we did the same with quantum physics or gravity.
It is an inferior theory because it doesnot answer all the key questions. Maybe that is not the purpose of evolution but it has taken on a cult like status by the ACLU and other humanists to try to politically push their agenda.
Another irrelevant issue but since it was mentioned:by yep
"when your bible was rewritten fot the 8th time -"
lets set the record straight if you look at more modern translations like new internation version or nasb- you will realize that it is the most reliablly translated achient book or text ever - i believe Homer's Illiad is next in line. The number of original texts is unrivaled.
If you dont subscribe to the teachings of the Bible just say so- but it says what the original authors meant it to say as far as Greek Hebrew and Aramaic can be translated into other languages.
Christianity is a very logical and reasonable if you are objective and can see it as a philosophy outside of your personal experience. It has its presuppositions that are logically arrived at and it is reasonable and believable when compared to any other idea on the planet.
As far as stem cells are concerned scientists have no idea what they are playing with. stem cells are just scientists way of explaining something that was already there-
Christians dont need to know everything even though they act like they do - they have a God who does- That is a major problem with science is that man who suffers from pride is interpreting the data and they are not objective.
science is a way to explain things we dont understand
Can we scientifically test whether there is a Design to the biological world? forget the intellegent part for a moment. I believe we can - we just look for patterns- whether those patterns are consistent- is contrary data an exception-
science is a process idea- question- test- hypothesis- theory
some people want to cut out all of the other parts and just teach the accepted theories- accepted by who is a good question? do all those people have the same world view? isnt that what the church did when it controlled science? its dangerous- we are not teaching our kids real science-
for example we talk about exploring life on Mars but there is not evidence that is any- all they have is maybe there was water on the planet at one time- and since they already hold evolution as truth and in that theory life came from water then its logical to conclude the possibility of life on Mars. But if we did not come from water- and there is NO proof that we did then we will be wrong about Mars.
we teach that stuff in school- and the issue of Design or intelligent design is not discussed in science classes. its not good science.
[i]Plus the Bleep from creationism to intelligent design is discussed. It was basically a PR move to make it sound more scientific[/b]
renaming the same old trabant was a tactic to evade past court decisions that snubbed efforts to religiously brainwash public schoolkids with "cretinism" (misspelling intended).
i've seen only snips of this: http://www.google.com/search?q=draft+%7C+manuscript+creationism+%22intelligent+design%22+1983
next rename may be "smart architecture" or "life architecture". beware!
intelligent design
ah crap.
i don't think the church should change - their rigidity will hopefully speed their irrelevance and demise.
Pasha your entertaining, and you speak the language of God. Are you sorry for us or angry at us? Do you think He will forgive us?
Jules: There's a passage I got memorized. Ezekiel 25:17. "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you."
I been sayin' that shit for years. And if you ever heard it, it meant your ass. I never really questioned what it meant. I thought it was just a cold-blooded thing to say to a motherfucker before you popped a cap in his ass. But I saw some shit this mornin' made me think twice. Now I'm thinkin': it could mean you're the evil man. And I'm the righteous man. And Mr. .45 here, he's the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could be you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. I'd like that. But that shit ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin, Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be the shepherd.
hotsies... why is the Catholic Church made up by man and other Christian sects aren't? Especially since Catholicism accepts evolution, unlike some ridiculously strict, literal interpreation sects such as most evangelical protestant denominations.
that having been said, I'm not sure where I stand as far as a belief in God. I was raised Catholic and until a few years ago, pretty much believed the line towed by all the clergy and that deal. However, if there is a god, I'm much more inclined to believe that he/she/(more likely) it is probably entirely merciful, loving and so on and could probably care less about whether or not you believe in he/she/it, so long as you follow your beliefs. I think it makes much more sense that God would "judge" you on your intentions and character rather than on some blind faith handed to you by bigots and hipocrites. Also, I think you can find "god" much more easily and purely in nature than in any church. After all, to follow hotsies' line, church's are man-made.
and a side note, assuming that Jesus is the son of God and all, take a look at the life of Jesus in the Bible and historical accounts of the early church--it's basically communism (in the sense of equality and all that). Not saying that Jesus is the son of God or that communism is the way to go, only that neo-cons are not Christian in the least.
oh also, evolution is a theory, which in terms of science means that is something that can essential be proven or disproven. Intelligent design cannot, therefore it is not a theory, it is just a bullshit, back door way of teaching creationism, which is fine to teach.... in sunday school! (not CCD though, hotsies, because Catholics believe in evolution)
whoa, pasha you need to lighten up a bit... you sound like an extremist... i have the fear of God in me... I just don't agree that people who are mentally ill with depression and kill themselves have committed a mortal sin... or that gays and lesbians are evil and unequal to heterosexuals... or that 9 year olds should be given blank anti-abortion bumper stickers and told to color in the fetuses with crayolas (that actually happened to me in sunday school, i didn't even know what abortion was!)...
i don't argue that Jesus existed and was an exceptional human being, he could have been the messiah, i don't know for sure, we never hung out...
but i do think that his teachings have been seriously misconstrued and contorted over the years... i doubt he would condone the excommunication of gays... what if God created homosexuals as a form of population control?... no one knows for sure, so how is it ok to just say, that is not right, the Bible says it is not right? how is it ok to to teach prejudice to kids and call it the will of God?...
my other beef with religion, while i'm venting, is the declaration that 'my God is the only way to salvation'... do people really believe that all non-catholics are going to hell, or that devout buddhists, jews or any other person of any other denomination whose religion is a part of their daily lives have it all wrong... i just don't get it!
its hard to have blind faith if you keep your eyes open...
all i am saying that no one is really looking for God..
and these discussions are a good illustration of that..
we want God to be what we think He should be. so this "god" is a projection of ourselves.. its like in Rome, where a senate had to approve a god, before people can worship it.
isn't that hypocritical?
why accuse others of the same thing?
ok, story time..
two boys are sitting on a hill and looking at the sky.
older one says,
"the sun moved today".
the younger said,
"dad said, the sun doesn't move".
"yes it does!" the older exclaimed.
"i saw the sun move, in the morning it was over there, now its here!
and i didn't feel the earth move! i believe what i see and what i feel!"
"well, i believe dad" the younger said..
who is right?
Apparently, you're the judge.
the original point of this threat was Intelligent Design.... my comment about belief in god was secondary.. and i dont think important to the topic of whether intelligent design should be taught or not..
Most mainstream religious groups have long since made their peace with evolutionary theory. As in, most Protestant denominations, the Catholic Church, Judaism in its Conservative, Reform, and most Orthodox groups. The stipulation, in most cases, is simply that evolution is part of God's plan for the creation of life.
Few have any real beef with that stipulation because it is one that is just not relevant to the sorts of question evolutionary biologists study. It allows religion and science to happily coexist.
What you have here with the president and the intelligent design hucksters is an attempt to teach creationism as a rival theory to evolution in science classes. And more broadly, it is a brief for Biblical literalism being taught in the public schools, despite the fact that people as far back as Origen could figure out that at least certain parts of the Bible could not possibly be intended to be understood as literal truth.
'If It wasn't out there we wouldn't spend our whole lives searching for It.'
- a quote from Shanghai Diaries
I know my search for It, weather it be God, the quantum field or some other higher power i can't even conceive, is ongoing...
as i think it is with many of us... we don't have to go to church, temple or whatever, to be looking for 'God'...
"They say the goodness in life
belongs to those who believe...
So, I believe."
-Mos Def
hotsies, sorry, I think I misunderstood a previous post. I agree with you there, then.
Maybe we should all go read this:
Intelligent Design
classic.
from the notes board of the church of the flying spaghetti monster homepage:
"Today I was blessed to receive a divine revelation from our Almighty
Flying Spaghetti Monster. I have the privilege of informing you that
it is His will that I become His Bride, in order that the Savior of
mankind (who is to be called Macaroni) may be born on this earth. The
FSM has revealed to me that your body is to be the vehicle by which
his holy seed shall be transmitted in earthly form.
To that end, I have reserved a room for us at the Best Western Airport
Inn, Boise, Idaho, for the evening of [removed]. I will be
the woman wearing the WWFSMD t-shirt and eye patch.
I look forward to meeting you and fulfilling the will of our noodly master.
Julie
Boise, Idaho"
WWFSMD t-shirt and eye patch....good one.
I hope this doesn't sound corny... but my faith in the existance of God has alot to do with animals. When I see an animal that is happy, my thought is always that there has to be a God, because I don't see how science and evolution could be responsible for all the beautiful animals that are out there in the world.
I just don't see how science could create such variety, so many shapes, purposes, colors, faces, of living breathing creatures.
Like this pregnant cheetah, about to become a mother.
See.
I do believe i God. but this is always something that hasnt been that hard for me to think about.
The universe is very large (nearly infinite). which means that there is plenty of room for all sorts of things to happen. most of the time there is no life at all (mercury, venus, mars, jupiter, etc) but very rarely.. there are the exact right set of circumstances that allows for what is earth to happen. its hard for us to sometimes grasp that we could be the product luck and the beneficiaries of it.
but in a cosmic, galactic sense our world is a lot like being born paris hilton is on a local sense.
someone had to be born in the hilton family. turns out its paris.
just like, some planet had to have all the right elements and lenght of time for the world to evolve and life to exist. and that planet and time is us.
Repetition is the only form of perfection that nature can achieve.
C.S.Holling
the way is perfect like vast space
where nothing is lacking and nothing is in excess.
indeed it is due to our choosing to accept or reject
that we do not see the true nature of things,
nor the inner feeling of emptiness.
be serene in the oneness of things
and such erroneonous views will disappear by themselves.
when you try to stop activity to achieve passivity
your very effort fills you with activity.
As long as you remain in one extreme or the other,
you will never know oneness.
-carry on grasshoppers.
I look to Bob for guidance:
http://www.subgenius.com/scatalog/membership.htm
..or TRIPLE your money back!
no way! I can't believe the Church of the Subgenius made it to Archinect! Rejoice!
my friend's brother got a tattoo of Bob on his arm, then said it was only a joke. my friend pointed out that he said he's only kidding, but he got the tattoo.
Rejoice indeed.
Oh sure, that's how it starts "as a joke.' Then, they see that it IS NO joke.
Then the joke's on us. I saw a guy w/ Bob tatooed on his back - strange MoFo, but a true believer.
Hmmmm.
This worship of false prophets is alarming. Not Bob, I'm talking about George...errr, Karl.
Why do people treat science as something other than a religion itself? Evolution is completly illogical and not even scientific- parts of it are and parts are not. It doesnt even answer fundimental questions - namely the issue of origin-poof it exists? or one species crossed over and became another one- evn though there is not one example of it. A short beak becoming long is not a new species. None of the origin theories are repeatable in a lab and nobody was there.
intelligent design is just as scienctific and certainlly more logical than evolution because at least it has an answer.
the issue of origin is a historical one.
science is a tool that has become a god- why do people trust scientists? they have too much to loose like their pride if they are wrong and they want fame and fortune, recognition etc-its a flawed system because it depends on men handling evidence correctly without contamination and it constantly changes with new information. They are willing to abandom previous laws instantly. It could all fall apart at any moment.
carbon dating is a farse- it is based on a guestimate of the carbon 14's half life- but the variables cannot be isolated- things like solar activity etc could change the rate of decay. there have also been inconsistencies in the results.
most people i have met who categorically say there is no god have had a bad experience with a person in the past- a priest or another person. Its obvious by their anger- scientists dont get angry if they are unbiased they just observe the data.
i dont blame science because it is just a tool- i blame scientists because they are biased which corrupts the data.
a real scientist has to hold out for the possibility of God until there is scientifically proven that there is none.
its amazing people are willing to believe in aliens more than god
"oh also, evolution is a theory, which in terms of science means that is something that can essential be proven or disproven. Intelligent design cannot, therefore it is not a theory, it is just a bullshit, back door way of teaching creationism, which is fine to teach.... in sunday school! (not CCD though, hotsies, because Catholics believe in evolution)"
of course its a theory you idiot- because it can be proven - you just have to wait longer- it just shows your narrow minded selfish- selfcentered point of view. You cant fathom anything that is outside your lifetime or viewpoint- do you realize how small you are?
amazing that the only topic people can be rude- and hateful is when someone says they are christian or believe in God- anywhere else it is unacceptable
someone also mentioned something about the stoneage- amazing that people who live now are arrogant enough to think they "got it" lots of people before have had these ideas that there is no God but those ideas come and go.
anyway evolution has got huge holes in it and intelligent design should be taught in the science class because the evidence is in nature that there could be a designer- much more eveidence than oops it just happened by accident or chance-
Science used to claim that it was the strong that survived but they found out that wasnt true either. Then there is the theory of relativity and how that was a paragdigm shift in the scientific world. What about quantum physics
we are just babies playing with things we are too small to understand.
No, you are a baby playing with things you dont understand.
"i dont blame science because it is just a tool"
I don't blame hilldomain because it is just a tool
diabase
Total Entries: 55
Total Comments: 1154
08/04/05 15:41
Repetition is the only form of perfection that nature can achieve.
C.S.Holling
how could natural selection progress or evolution if its just repetition- it doesnt fit
crowbert- thanks, an intelligently designed tool that can rip you a new one.
hilldomain,
good to see you doing your research. I am a big believer in research.
Surely this is a statement of evolution. Everything is in constant flux and change, progressing along a huge time scale, edging towards perfection, gradual changes, chances and probablities.
What perfection is, is hard to know. Perfection might be described as the point of attainment or progress of an entity where nothing needs to change because it suits its ultimate purpose/context.
If this is evolutions endgame, then one could argue that evolution has divine ends.
However, there are many natural mysteries that tend to promote the idea of a natural consciousness or the hand of a designer. For example, the change in colour of the leaves of Autumnal trees has been hypothesised as a deterrent for aphids and other pests.
Whilst this may or may not be the case, it implies a decision making process at some point, either that, or a base of massive singular examples that gradually get weeded out.
In either case, massive amoutns of time are necessary. What is time except the momentary, non-linear calculation of possibilities?
here's my view on intelligent design:
evolution is very credible due to the many evidence out there but there are still major problems that make evolution more a theory than a proven fact.
I also think there's a difference between adaptation and evolution. Animals can adapt to their environments by modifying their physique..but there's no explanation as to how animals can, through natural selection, change the 'intent' of their design. For example, if kangaroos wanted to climb trees because it'd help them survive in a jungle, then it makes sense for them to grow longer legs. But if you look into other things, such as an anatomy of an eyeball, the design of an eyeball cannot be created through natural selection. It doesn't make sense to have all these different parts within an eye to work together to give vision to a human being. This is the part where I think intelligent design can become a legitimate argument...there must have been some source of creator that gave the design an intent, or function...be it God, or whatever you call it.
natural selection makes sense especially in such a versatile world like ours but what is it that ever gave animals an instinct to survive?
So intelligent design could try to explain the flaws of evolution, which doesn't make it a scientific theory, but rather, brings another perspective to evolution..and could make it a legitimate topic for students in school to discuss.
there are rules to science- a scientific method of observation. it is really a very simplistic way of looking at things.
"From Latin ex- + -periri (akin to periculum attempt). In the scientific method, an experiment is a set of actions and observations, performed to verify or falsify a hypothesis or research a causal relationship between phenomena. The experiment is a cornerstone in empirical approach to knowledge." this is one of many definitions of an experiment.
the causal relationship is a big concern- we are using deductive reasoning to decipher the past - deductive reasoning has a major problem - the evidence or fact that you need may not be available for you to observe especially when considering past events
inductive reasoning is much better.
science is not a very good tool to decipher the past because things could have been drastically different. - there are surely some facts missing so we have to keep the book open for new discovery.
The issue i think we should ask ourselves is how do philosophies become scientific theories- and what do we mean when we say scientific theory.
"In the life sciences, evolution is a change in the traits of living organisms over generations, including the emergence of new species. Since the development of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to the next.In other fields evolution is used more generally to refer to any process of change over time. "
there is no real proof of the emergence of a new species- there are other options like all the species found existed throughout time and are only beginning to be discovered now. Just because a tiger and a saber toothed tiger look similar doesnt mean one begat the other. Did anyone see it happen? we assume. It could be a possiblity-
there is evidence, but proof is a different matter.
"natural selection makes sense especially in such a versatile world like ours but what is it that ever gave animals an instinct to survive? " the answer is simply survival- they just are that way.
natural selection says only the strong survive(the ones that genetically adapt to their environment best) but there is evidence to the contrary- so scientists have changed their story to include "sometimes things happen randomely or by chance" I think humans should have been extinct along time ago - physically they are inferior
i ll take a risk here but if man came from monkeys or chimps, apes etc- and they are superior why are the monkeys still around- they should just die out?
the message of natural selection is that the weak have no purpose in this world but the system seems to show they just have their place on the chain- on a very simplistic level it would be like Highlander- "there could be only one" .
The implications are even worse- if we start applying the theory to human kind we see only certain types of people are valuable- what about certain races? what about old people? it becomes a utilitarian society with no moral compass- is that perfection? is that what evolution brings? sounds more like devolution. believe it or not the arian race- japan's "proper place" theory come from this type of thinking.
scientific theory doesnt happen in a vacuum-
random and chance are words we have given definitions- they could be patterns we just don't understand.
there is just too much disagreement in the scientific community
the universe is contracting- the universe is expanding-
intelligent design asks - is there scientific evidence of a pattern of design in the biological and natural world?
why is that so scary to people? because Christians are bringing it to the table? doesn't sound very scientific and it isn't. People are opposed to it not for logical reasons but because they dont like Christians. Education has always been something the Christian comunity has valued and brought to much of the world. Most of the best universities in the US started as Christian institutions.
scientific theory doesnt happen in a vacuum- and there is a process of how people reach the point of theory- it starts with questions. Right now Humanism is the religion taught in schools-
with so many differing views in the evolutionary theory and flaws it should be considered the evolutionary idea and no longer a theory - for starters if it supposed to based on scientific experiments and experiments are used to explain causal relationships- and the evolutionary theory cannot explain the initial cause of biological life using science. How did this hypothesis become a theory at all?
Wow the christian right is turning post-modern! Put Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and Gödel's incompleteness theorem in there, and we're back to 1979. Don't you understand that trying to prove the existence of God will also fail to be an exact deductive logic by using the same kind of reasoning? Just to say that we can't prove everything, and therefore God exists seems like very weak reasoning to me. It's like shooting oneself in the foot, since faith ultimately must exist independant of proof (otherwise it would be useless). Go and read your Karamazov.
"faith ultimately must exist independant of proof (otherwise it would be useless). "
who says that statement is true? you i dont believe they are independant that is a humanistic falacy. the point is at some point because you are one person in space and time with one brain your perspective is limited and you must have faith- humanist or christian that faith is in some authority figure-
to put it in plain language you are not objective so dont act like you are and christians are just stupid because they dont put their faith in the same thing you do.
"Don't you understand that trying to prove the existence of God will also fail to be an exact deductive logic by using the same kind of reasoning?"
wow your so smart- Dont you understand I was not trying to prove the existence of god? Sorry i dont fit into your carefully crafted box of who a Christian is nor with prepared speeches. Just call people the christian right and you dont have to make any real point- maybe we are from monkeys i think you might be convincing me.
I was just saying that science or evolution also requires faith and is not bullet proof like some people appear to think. science requires faith as well. again science is just a tool. Thats the point.
somewhere along the line we have come to value empiracle evidence more than other types of knowledge like intuition. Why? I can remember being in physics class and when an experiment didnt fit the expected results we had to write an error report 95% of the time it was friction or human error.
"Just to say that we can't prove everything, and therefore God exists seems like very weak reasoning to me"
that is not what i said or implied. the point was science is a poor tool to prove evolution- but to prove intelligent design is a different matter- as a scientist you must say there is the possiblity of the existence of God until it is proved that there is no god. No need to get emotional about it is just the rules- if that sounds unreasonable that is science. Science cannot prove historical events either does that mean they didn't happen?
You also assume i have to prove the existence of God- how arrogant- again you are looking at it from your perspective- if God exists or anyone else for that matter they just do and their existance does not depend on whether anyone can empiraclly prove it or not.but thats a different matter.
the intent of the original post was if intelligent design should be considered something that can be scientifically examined. I think it can be. the other comments are my perspective.
science is represented as some cure all and unquestionable and religion is peresented as stone age material. which is based on nothing substantial.
I mentioned inductive reasoning as the preferred method not exact deductive logic (whatever that is)- you do know logic and reason are 2 different concepts right?
you assumed alot of things in your post and you ended up wrong because you started wrong. How do you even know whether i am a Christian at all? Does believing in God mean i am part of the christian right?
i haven't seen this distinction discussed since last year some time, so i'll bring it up again - simple but critical in light of various decisions over the last year:
intelligent design is an interesting philosophical idea and should be discussed in philosophy class.
because it is not testable - is not able to be subjected to scientific method - it should not be considered a theory and should not be taught in science class. if a science teacher or a student want to discuss it as an idea (a TEACHER'S decision - not something handed down by a school board or a legislature), that should be at the teacher's discretion.
evolution is a scientific theory. it is able to be subjected to scientific method, having started as a hypothesis and grown into common acceptance through a history of testing and learning. because it is a tested theory, it is relevant to science classes. no credible scientists i've read have yet called it 'fact'.
Ease up there - I enjoy discussion with Christians and have many friends that are. (Even yesterday I listened to the latest Danielson album during the whole day) The "christian right" was a bit provoking I agree, but not necessarily directed to you, but rather to the recent coupling of politics and religion spreading from the US. It's also an ironic comment to the fact that post-modernism, which long has been detested by the neoconservatives, is nowadays partly used to explain their religious beliefs.
You are right saying that education has been an important part of christianity, most notably in Europe after the collapse of the Roman empire. However, science (not necessarily education) has come under scrutiny when it doesn't fit into the symbolicism of religion - not because its methods. For example, spatial centrality of the human being was under attack with astronomy. Temporal centrality of the human being was under attack with geology. Biological centrality of the human being is/was under attack with evolution.
Newness in this situation is that (some) religious groups argue back using the same methods of reasoning as in science. Firstly, I find that these are incompatible systems, like beautifully demonstrated in "The Brother's Karamazov". If God's existence could be proven, christianity (or any other religion) would not be a matter of free choice anymore, just a simple fact. And as such, principles of morality, sin, condemnation etc. would lose their meaning, since no one can be seriously judged if they have rejected a fact which is as evident as the gravity of the earth. Secondly, sashimi's "doesn't make sense" theorem is not a scientific argument. I could also say the same about the fact that the universe has more than three dimensions - I just can't picture that in my head. My appendix or Coccyx don't make sense either, but maybe that's because I'm not looking for "sense" in the right place.
DID ANY ONE READ THE HARPER'S ARTICLE with Darwin's great grandson reporting intelligent design court case in Idaho. It was great - It was basically a bunch of really smart scientists and some great ACLU lawyers tearing apart some oxy cotton (not joking at all) red necks. The one scientist who stepped champion the idea was torn apart and made a fool of. Ten other scietists from his department testified against him and said he was doing it for the publicity. Anyone who believes in this bullshit should take a long hard look at whose defending it.
Plus the leep from creationism to intelligent design is discussed. It was basically a PR move to make it sound more scientific- a bit IRONIC - but as with most religious people you need to pat them on the head and remind them that there was no concept of Stem Cells when your bible was rewritten fot the 8th time -
I agree with SW, i don't understand why this is such a controversial debate...2 very different means of questioning that require different logic: i.e. 'why?' vs 'how?' or 'truth' vs 'fact'. There is no point for comparison.
Evolution is a theory that keeps, ahem evolving ... and to say that it is not proveable does not do justice to the fact that it is a work in progress. Take the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium, for example: that sexually active species evolve at a slower rate than other species. Also, in response to the confusion as to why monkeys and humans co-exist, noone that I've read on this thread (at least not my knowledge) seems to have brought up the issue of divergent vs. convergent evolution. It is an infinitely more complex issue than either saying that "evolution cannot be proved" or that "it is just a theory."
And although I strongly disagree with the idea of intelligent design, I have to admit with hilldomain's assertion that science requires faith as well. And no example makes this more clear than Darwin's own voyage on the H.M.S. Beagle. Darwin was acting on a bit of a hunch, and was eager to rebut Sir Charles Lyell's theory of uniformitarianism (which is another name for the historical argument hilldomain was pointing out).
And to this day, I do not undertand why people are so eager to quote the "Grand Inquisitioner" chapter from Brothers Karamazov. If you are looking for literary inspiration, illumintation, or fuel to balze your very own ideological agitprop, read Tolstoy's A Confession, Nikos Kazanzakis' The Last Temptation of Christ, or even J.D. Salinger's Franny and Zooey. But, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do once I've gleaned any insight from these works. In the end, I am just as confused as anyone else.
i think to "prove" the "theory" of mutation via selection, you might only have to show a hcange in genes of a certain measurement(not sure what that would be).
then check to see how common the differences between existing species has same (or larger) measure.
the problem becomes a bit like "comparing oranges and apples".
you need to define or agree to a definition of "genes" or genetic change. maybe still need to define what separates species from each other (new data and reclassification. that's what keeps taxonomists busy)
but there's no doubt that sunday school teaching will leave a person clueless about this subject.
to a-f,
just playing the noncompliant christian-and maybe i was getting a little defensive.
"the recent coupling of politics and religion spreading from the US"
this is a good thing- but i would exchange personal faith with religion- or you could say your "self"- when people of a like personal faith get together we call it religion and it becomes a swear word for some reason. I guess its from the whole misunderstanding of "separation of church and state" people always fail to look at the context and especially in this case. We don't want the church running the state but we do want personal ideas whether religeous or otherwise influencing politics, people,and politicians.
science certainly isn't any good for providing us with any moral compass.
i am not particularly offended by any comments on a forum- but i do like to challenge assumptions. and the general sentimate in the US is "we hate Christians and Christians are stupid". If that was said about anyone else the ACLU would be allover it but since they are the instigators of the proganda war ... (read any of Dr. Francis Schaeffers books)
Steven Ward says this
"because it is not testable -...
evolution is a scientific theory. it is able to be subjected to scientific method, having started as a hypothesis and grown into common acceptance through a history of testing and learning. because it is a tested theory, it is relevant to science classes. no credible scientists i've read have yet called it 'fact'."
a tested theory- but should it be a theory still? what test or experiments can you repeatedly perform that will give consistent results leading to a conclusion of how /where/ from what, biological life began?
I believe design or intelligent design can be tested scientifically and i challenge the assumption that evolution has been legitimately subjected to the scientific method.
the calling of evolution as fact is something that has evolved in the average persons mind- maybe "true" or "the only answer", would be a better word.
I believe evolution should be reevaluated as to whether in light of new information,it can remain a theory or should we put it back to the philosophy class.
Its philosophy in my opinion or at least hypothesis because you cannot perform reliable experiments to determine biological origin. Evolution does not have the first piece of the puzzle- ORIGIN- there is nothing to build on. We have scaps of information and we are trying to piece it together the best we can.
the scientific method involves experiments and whether variables can be isolated to determine cause. evolution has not undergone that process legitimately in my opinion- there are assertions in evolutionary theory that cannot be tested. we are refering to species that are extinct and theoretical missing links.
Its not really evolution thats the problem- but how we see evolution- we dont really know what it is or what significance it holds but we have elevated it to god like status. its weird- imagine if we did the same with quantum physics or gravity.
It is an inferior theory because it doesnot answer all the key questions. Maybe that is not the purpose of evolution but it has taken on a cult like status by the ACLU and other humanists to try to politically push their agenda.
Another irrelevant issue but since it was mentioned:by yep
"when your bible was rewritten fot the 8th time -"
lets set the record straight if you look at more modern translations like new internation version or nasb- you will realize that it is the most reliablly translated achient book or text ever - i believe Homer's Illiad is next in line. The number of original texts is unrivaled.
If you dont subscribe to the teachings of the Bible just say so- but it says what the original authors meant it to say as far as Greek Hebrew and Aramaic can be translated into other languages.
Christianity is a very logical and reasonable if you are objective and can see it as a philosophy outside of your personal experience. It has its presuppositions that are logically arrived at and it is reasonable and believable when compared to any other idea on the planet.
As far as stem cells are concerned scientists have no idea what they are playing with. stem cells are just scientists way of explaining something that was already there-
Christians dont need to know everything even though they act like they do - they have a God who does- That is a major problem with science is that man who suffers from pride is interpreting the data and they are not objective.
science is a way to explain things we dont understand
Can we scientifically test whether there is a Design to the biological world? forget the intellegent part for a moment. I believe we can - we just look for patterns- whether those patterns are consistent- is contrary data an exception-
science is a process idea- question- test- hypothesis- theory
some people want to cut out all of the other parts and just teach the accepted theories- accepted by who is a good question? do all those people have the same world view? isnt that what the church did when it controlled science? its dangerous- we are not teaching our kids real science-
for example we talk about exploring life on Mars but there is not evidence that is any- all they have is maybe there was water on the planet at one time- and since they already hold evolution as truth and in that theory life came from water then its logical to conclude the possibility of life on Mars. But if we did not come from water- and there is NO proof that we did then we will be wrong about Mars.
we teach that stuff in school- and the issue of Design or intelligent design is not discussed in science classes. its not good science.
[i]Plus the Bleep from creationism to intelligent design is discussed. It was basically a PR move to make it sound more scientific[/b]
renaming the same old trabant was a tactic to evade past court decisions that snubbed efforts to religiously brainwash public schoolkids with "cretinism" (misspelling intended).
i've seen only snips of this:
http://www.google.com/search?q=draft+%7C+manuscript+creationism+%22intelligent+design%22+1983
next rename may be "smart architecture" or "life architecture". beware!
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.