Intelligent Design struck down

[HSVTider]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179256,00.html

Here's what I think about it:

Link (http://devineviewpoint.blogspot.com)

[cocky4ever]

If they are gonna talk about Intelligent Design in a science classroom then they should only talk about scientific issues like gravity holding the gas giants further from the sun and planets more hospitable to life closer to promote the emergance of life. Talk about how gas giants intercept many asteroids and things like that. Talk about all the scientific evidence you want to talk about that suggests there is some kinda plan laid out. You would also then have to show all the evidence that there is no plan at all. That would be fine with me. However, dont go talking about a God making the universe in 7 days and all that stuff that isnt supported scientifically. Religion isnt science and has no place in a science class.

[Cianne]

In regards to Christian Design (which is what is being pushed, not Intelligent Design mind you), it fails the simplest test there is in science. It does not follow the scientific method. The basic belief behind that which is science is that it must go through that process at some point during it's lifetime. Of course the Blblical creation story does not go through any of it as it relies on faith and/or hearsay depending on your religious affiliation.

Therefore, Christian Design is not a science and thus should not be taught in a school's science curriculum. The simplest explanation is often the best.

[RW13]

How does Islam say the universe was created? Serious question, does anyone know?

[Cianne]

http://islam.about.com/od/creation/a/creation.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_creationism

And one of the better ones explaining a bit of multiple religions: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

[RW13]

So can we all agree (those for and against creationism in school) that the christian version of the creation of the universe differs from islam, and islam differs from others? I'm making no other point right now than this, can we all be rational and at least agree on this one thing first?? Post your answer, yes or no.....

[Cianne]

All religions differ in their views on creation, yes.

[rebeldude]

If they are gonna talk about Intelligent Design in a science classroom then they should only talk about scientific issues like gravity holding the gas giants further from the sun and planets more hospitable to life closer to promote the emergance of life. Talk about how gas giants intercept many asteroids and things like that. Talk about all the scientific evidence you want to talk about that suggests there is some kinda plan laid out. You would also then have to show all the evidence that there is no plan at all. That would be fine with me. However, dont go talking about a God making the universe in 7 days and all that stuff that isnt supported scientifically. Religion isnt science and has no place in a science class.

Don't teach it as science, teach it as literature and let the kids make up their own minds.

[Cianne]

Don't teach it as science, teach it as literature and let the kids make up their own minds.

If it's going to be taught as literature, it needs to be put into an elective class known as "Religious Literature" where the semester focuses on the major world religions: Christianity, Islam, Hindism, Judaism, Buddhism, along with a focus at the end on other sects such as Taoism and others. Things such as Scientology which are an abomination to common sense and decency shall again be left out in the cold or in the closet.

[HSVTider]

Being a scientist by trade, I have to conclude that a "theory" is just a "theory" until proven otherwise.

There is nothing "simple" about Darwin's theory. It requires the scientific mind to believe that unbelievable statistical odds were overcome for the Human race to develop.

Some biologists calculate the odds for us forming the way Darwin's theory suggest are less than 1 in a trillion.

So for someone to teach Darwin's theory requires that the student entertain the idea that it is possible to overcome such odds on a consistent basis (which would be a direct contradiction to Achem's Razor).

So what is wrong with asking them to "entertain" the idea of a greater intelligent being? No one is asking them to take to heart as fact..right?

The ideal scenario is to allow school to present all of the most common creation/evolution theories and let the students decide for themselves, or don't present one at all.

Unfortunately, there is an agenda in this country that is being carried out that delimits what our children are allowed to be exposed to at school.

My kids can be exposed to "atheistic" ideas all day long, but it is a violation of another child's civil rights to be exposed to a "christian" idea.

Our Judges are not interpreting our laws equally and fairly and haven't for quite sometime.

[HSVTider]

If it's going to be taught as literature, it needs to be put into an elective class known as "Religious Literature" where the semester focuses on the major world religions: Christianity, Islam, Hindism, Judaism, Buddhism, along with a focus at the end on other sects such as Taoism and others. Things such as Scientology which are an abomination to common sense and decency shall again be left out in the cold or in the closet.

Why? Is Secularism not a Religion? What about Atheism? What about Humanism?

Religion (n) - A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

The problem is, our kids are allowed to be exposed to ideas all day long as long as they don't support Christianity.

It's as if we believe our kids are capable of choosing to accept or reject teachings as long as they're not those of Jesus Christ. Once they hear the words out of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, they become hypnotized into Zombies that start throwing Bibles at people.

Puhleeze.

[rebeldude]

Being a scientist by trade, I have to conclude that a "theory" is just a "theory" until proven otherwise.

There is nothing "simple" about Darwin's theory. It requires the scientific mind to believe that unbelievable statistical odds were overcome for the Human race to develop.

Some biologists calculate the odds for us forming the way Darwin's theory suggest are less than 1 in a trillion.

So for someone to teach Darwin's theory requires that the student entertain the idea that it is possible to overcome such odds on a consistent basis (which would be a direct contradiction to Achem's Razor).

So what is wrong with asking them to "entertain" the idea of a greater intelligent being? No one is asking them to take to heart as fact..right?

The ideal scenario is to allow school to present all of the most common creation/evolution theories and let the students decide for themselves, or don't present one at all.

Unfortunately, there is an agenda in this country that is being carried out that delimits what our children are allowed to be exposed to at school.

My kids can be exposed to "atheistic" ideas all day long, but it is a violation of another child's civil rights to be exposed to a "christian" idea.

Our Judges are not interpreting our laws equally and fairly and haven't for quite sometime.

AMEN!! :D :D

[Cianne]

You're right in the fact that Darwinian theory is as close to statistically improbably as something can come, but again, there is an experimental basis for the origin of life on this planet which I'm sure you know is Stanley Miller's experiment.

Again, a scientific theory must fit into the scientific method which does involve experiments and research. Bone structure, muscle function, similarities between early Australopithecan man and primates, all of these are parts of the evidence presented within the scientific method model. Creationism does not fall within this. Creationism is an idea based off faith and text not science (which of course the class is named for,) not to mention that Creationism is really just *click* life which ultimately contradicts fossil evidence.

[Cianne]

The problem is, our kids are allowed to be exposed to ideas all day long as long as they don't support Christianity.

I didn't get exposed to Islamic, Judaic, Hindu, Buddhist, etc etc etc theories while I was in school. So what is your point if all religions are excluded from schools, which they are,

Oh and btw, I can battle you with dictionary definitions too.

re·li·gion

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

It's convenient when you can pick and choose definitions when you need to support your own position. However, you will find that most people will go with the more commonly used first definition as opposed to the lesser used fourth definition that you present.

[RW13]

come on, Cianne answered my question. Yes or No, from both sides, this should be an easy one for rational, HONEST, people....

[rebeldude]

You're right in the fact that Darwinian theory is as close to statistically improbably as something can come, but again, there is an experimental basis for the origin of life on this planet which I'm sure you know is Stanley Miller's experiment.

Again, a scientific theory must fit into the scientific method which does involve experiments and research. Bone structure, muscle function, similarities between early Australopithecan man and primates, all of these are parts of the evidence presented within the scientific method model. Creationism does not fall within this. Creationism is an idea based off faith and text not science (which of course the class is named for,) not to mention that Creationism is really just *click* life which ultimately contradicts fossil evidence.

Could this TEXT you speak of not be history?

[Cianne]

Could this TEXT you speak of not be history?

It could be history but is not every other religious text then also history? That's too much to include in a basic history curriculum, and you know it.

[rebeldude]

It could be history but is not every other religious text then also history? That's too much to include in a basic history curriculum, and you know it.

Could be history....OK.

[Cianne]

Could be history....OK.

Depends on whether you take it as fact or not doesn't it.

Example: The Egyptians used the Hebrew people to build the pyramids. Nobody has a problem with this as fact except for the leader of Iran and some Aryan wackos. However, did a guy come and wave a stick, turn a river to blood, summon some frogs, and part a sea in order to get these slaves free? Obviously debatable.

[HSVTider]

I didn't get exposed to Islamic, Judaic, Hindu, Buddhist, etc etc etc theories while I was in school. So what is your point if all religions are excluded from schools, which they are,

Oh and btw, I can battle you with dictionary definitions too.

re·li·gion

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

It's convenient when you can pick and choose definitions when you need to support your own position. However, you will find that most people will go with the more commonly used first definition as opposed to the lesser used fourth definition that you present.

Keyword that you seemed to ignore in my quote was "allowed".

I didn't say they were. Also, while I was in school I was exposed to Islamic, Hindu, et al teachings and I exercised my right of CHOICE and rejected them for what I "believed" to be correct. That is all I am asking. Creationism is not a purely Christian idea. Lots of religions believe in Creation, so to automatically smack down what the school district in Pennsylvania was teaching as "Christian Creationism" is abhorently one sided and prejudiced.

"Intelligent Design" does not always equal "Christian Design". If someone said "Well, some dumbass created the whole universe", he'd be laughed out of the classroom, auditorium, church, etc.

Also, about the definition, I tried to pick the one that seemed most scientific and the least influenced by the "Liberal Arts" (literature, etc, public discourse, etc).

[Cianne]

Keyword that you seemed to ignore in my quote was "allowed".

I didn't say they were. Also, while I was in school I was exposed to Islamic, Hindu, et al teachings and I exercised by right of CHOICE and rejected them for what I "believed" to be correct. That is all I am asking. Creationism is not a purely Christian idea. Lots of religions believe in Creation, so to automatically smack down what the school district in Pennsylvania were teaching as "Christian Creationism" is abhorently one sided and prejudiced.

"Intelligent Design" does not always equal "Christian Design". If someone said "Well, some dumbass created the whole universe", he'd be laughed out of the classroom, auditorium, church, etc.

Also, about the definition, I tried to pick the one that seemed most scientific and the least influenced by the "Liberal Arts" (literature, etc, public discourse, etc).

I didn't miss it because it isn't allowed. I can use your reasoning for the definition to apply to that on the basis that it is against the separation of church and state to allow it but the "Liberal Arts" have, in your place of residence, deemed it allowable.

Also, you may call it abhorrently one-sided, but that's turning a blind eye to the truth is it not? One only has to look at who is pushing the prospect of teaching Intelligent Design in school. Here we go,

Buckingham wanted the board to adopt an intelligent-design textbook, “Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins,” as a supplement to the traditional biology book, but no vote was ever taken. A few weeks before the new science curriculum was approved, 50 copies were anonymously donated to the high school.

The article goes on to say that Buckingham is a born again Christian and that he says he didn't want to push his own views blahbity blah, but his own argument is sabotaged by the anonymous gift of the textbook when the curriculum was not voted in.

Also,

"The school board has taken the measured step of making students aware that there are other viewpoints on the evolution of species," said Richard Thompson, of the Thomas More Law Center, which represents the board and describes its overall mission as defending "the religious freedom of Christians."

Oh and another from the Post

"If the Bible is right, God created us," said John Rowand, an Assemblies of God pastor and a newly appointed school board member. "If God did it, it's history and it's also science."

Again, why are you calling it abhorrently one-sided in this case. It is blatantly a pro-Christian Creation idea in the case. You need to go back and look at some of the facts before making such a statement.

[HSVTider]

The article goes on to say that Buckingham is a born again Christian and that he says he didn't want to push his own views blahbity blah, but his own argument is sabotaged by the anonymous gift of the textbook when the curriculum was not voted in (<-- you are implying it was voted on and defeated).



Buckingham wanted the board to adopt an intelligent-design textbook, “Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins,” as a supplement to the traditional biology book, but no vote was ever taken. A few weeks before the new science curriculum was approved, 50 copies were anonymously donated to the high school.



My my my..those who throw stones shouldn't live in glass houses.

Anyways, I am a Christian and I am sitting here supporting this being taught.

Who was it that sued to take prayer out of school? It sure wasn't a Christian that did it.

I see the point you're making but it isn't practical, it isn't possible, and it just isn't how the world works.

You are implying one of two solutions:

A - that people who work for the school system in a position of influence should have no religion (now their civil rights are being violated).

Or

B - that "religious" (for no better word) people that hold positions of influence shoud advocate the promotion of beliefs that are contrary to their own while trying to silence the spreading of their own beliefs.

Yeah right..like that's going to happen.

You may be one of these people that don't want "Jesus Christ", or "Merry Christmas", et al spoken in Public Schools. Instead, why can't your kids (or your hypothetical children) do what everyone else does and just make their own decisions instead of mandating that the state do it for them.

This Country = Hell + Hand Basket.

[usafbamafan]

Why is it so hard for the education system to just say "I don't know how this universe was created"? Because, In truth, no one knows how the universe was born. Why teach the Big Bang or intelligent design if neither can be proven beyond some reasonable amount of doubt? Why is it so hard for academics to just admit they have no freaking clue?

Evolution is a different story altogether. It is obvious that people and animals evolve. If you can't see the evolution of our species over the last 500 years, you are blind. If you can't see the natural evolution of animals to their environments , you are also blind. That does not prove or disprove the Creation, it merely sheds some light on the natural forces that have shaped our planet.

That's my rant. :D

[Cianne]

You are implying one of two solutions:

A - that people who work for the school system in a position of influence should have no religion (now their civil rights are being violated).

Or

B - that "religious" (for no better word) people that hold positions of influence shoud advocate the promotion of beliefs that are contrary to their own while trying to silence the spreading of their own beliefs.

Well, for A, I never implied that the people who work for the school system should have no religion. That's a misrepresentation of the quotes that I pulled for my own argument. I used the quotes I did, which were also the only quotes given, to prove that their was backing agenda to what the school board did, and that there was no basis of unbias creationism being taught. It was all about the Christian Design.

For B, again, I never said any of that or actually inferred any of that. Like I said two sentences ago, this was about Christian Design and not Intelligent Design, and the judge saw that. I will however agree that the school is not the place for missionary work. There are other places that can be done.

You may be one of these people that don't want "Jesus Christ", or "Merry Christmas", et al spoken in Public Schools. Instead, why can't your kids (or your hypothetical children) do what everyone else does and just make their own decisions instead of mandating that the state do it for them.

I'm not one of those people as you might believe. Frankly, I don't care one way or the other. My hypothetical children, provided I'm still on the same course now with my girlfriend that I plan to be on, will be able to make their own choice between my religion, Christianity (gasp, I know that's hard to believe) and my girlfriend's, Hinduism. However, I don't need a bunch of state employees doing my job as a parent and teaching them religious ideologies.

[ColonelKurtz]

The Edumacation establishment, supported by their minions of mishmouthed, arrogant professors & teacher's unions, is not unlike the FDA and the AMA or the Law & the ABA. Each exists for the sole purpose of protecting the vested interests of those over whom they administer. Cronyism at its finest, hypocrisy at its most ridiculous, and an absolute abomination to the citizenry.

Darwinism is at best a very poor effort to hazard any guess at all from so far as it pertains to the existence of homo sapiens or our origin. That our edumacators sidestep their own evidence disproving it to continue to hawk it is disgusting and an affront to those who DO utilize their grey matter for more than a repository for rap lyrics and obscure quotable lines from the movies.

ID is not the same as CD and y'all have discussed that already. The reason that the various religions continue to sue for inclusion in the debate is to somehow usurp any need on their part to provide a basis from which to debate from. Faith is belief without substance or evidence, that which is taken willingly and without the need to question. By asserting their various dogmatic principles as devine, they seek to spin this emptiness into something far more than it can ever be.

What none have yet mentioned is why our History is taught the way it is, from the first civilization meeting some arbitrarily defined standards. That first so-called civilization was in Sumer and lo and behold, they had it ALL! The wheel, plumbing, irrigation, astronomy, libraries, univeristies, law, good gracious, these folks just up and exploded from Og & Oknod swatting flies off of carrion and into an ancient McDonalds that served beer!

Something I find most interesting in the compilation and translation of Sumerian writings and how one can easily connect much of modern doctrine upon it, from the law, medicine, the sciences, and religion. My only questions have to do with who did these folks learn it all from?

[SeattleGamecocks]

I wish they'd start teaching that the world is flat and the earth is the center of the universe. The people who believe this are being oppressed, having common sense shoved down their throats and all.

[cocky4ever]

What none have yet mentioned is why our History is taught the way it is, from the first civilization meeting some arbitrarily defined standards. That first so-called civilization was in Sumer and lo and behold, they had it ALL! The wheel, plumbing, irrigation, astronomy, libraries, univeristies, law, good gracious, these folks just up and exploded from Og & Oknod swatting flies off of carrion and into an ancient McDonalds that served beer!

Something I find most interesting in the compilation and translation of Sumerian writings and how one can easily connect much of modern doctrine upon it, from the law, medicine, the sciences, and religion. My only questions have to do with who did these folks learn it all from?

If these things interest you I must again suggest that you read The Fingerprints of the Gods by Graham Hancock. The part of the book that these ideas made me think of are some of the chapters dealing with the great pyramids. The great pyramids are still standing and are a map of the sky from over 10,000 years ago. The date in which they were built is still being debated, with more evidence to suggest they are much older than previously thought. Anyway....the pyramids that were made AFTER them are little more than piles of rubble now. How could a race go from creating perfect angles on the most massive buildings on Earth with stones so huge that it is almost inconceivable how they set them up, to creating small replicas with horrible angles that crumble in a few hundred years. There is no other case of a race having such a large "de-evolution" if you will. That leaves us to answer: Who the hell created the Great Pyramids?

[cocky4ever]

Why do so many conservatives act as though their children must carve the number 666 in their forehead and swear against God before they attend classes in public schools?? It wasnt that long ago that I was in highschool and they had christian groups that students could join. They held prayers in front of the flag poles and all kinds of stuff like that. People wore crosses around their necks and no one said a thing to them. There is a seperation of church and state. Christian groups are the ones getting all bent out of shape...but its not like some group of scientists is breaking down the doors to your church trying to get in and teach evolution to your sunday school group. In fact, its the groups of christians who are trying to break down the doors of the schools and teach their own views. There is nothing scientific about religion. They are already teaching biology. Dont you think when the kids are learning about biology they will consider how complex the human body is. We spent over 20 classroom hours on the nervous system alone in Anatomy and Physiology II. Trust me, the kids see how complex our body is. That doesnt mean the teachers should get to the end of the course and say"See...its so complex there just HAS to be a God" I dont have a problem with there being christian youth groups at the schools the kids can join if they want to. I dont have a problem with having a class that teaches different theories on creationism and the kids can take the class if they want to. What I dont want to see is religion invading a science class. I said it before and I'll say it again:
THERE IS NOTHING SCIENTIFIC ABOUT RELIGION!!!

[SeattleGamecocks]

Why do so many conservatives act as though their children must carve the number 666 in their forehead and swear against God before they attend classes in public schools?? It wasnt that long ago that I was in highschool and they had christian groups that students could join. They held prayers in front of the flag poles and all kinds of stuff like that. People wore crosses around their necks and no one said a thing to them. There is a seperation of church and state. Christian groups are the ones getting all bent out of shape...but its not like some group of scientists is breaking down the doors to your church trying to get in and teach evolution to your sunday school group. In fact, its the groups of christians who are trying to break down the doors of the schools and teach their own views. There is nothing scientific about religion. They are already teaching biology. Dont you think when the kids are learning about biology they will consider how complex the human body is. We spent over 20 classroom hours on the nervous system alone in Anatomy and Physiology II. Trust me, the kids see how complex our body is. That doesnt mean the teachers should get to the end of the course and say"See...its so complex there just HAS to be a God" I dont have a problem with there being christian youth groups at the schools the kids can join if they want to. I dont have a problem with having a class that teaches different theories on creationism and the kids can take the class if they want to. What I dont want to see is religion invading a science class. I said it before and I'll say it again:
THERE IS NOTHING SCIENTIFIC ABOUT RELIGION!!!
Preach it C4E. When I was in public high school, class of 94, we had prayer in school and at football games. And it always ended w/ "in Christ Jesus we pray". Of course there were no Jews, Buddhists or Muslims in Turbeville, SC. Hell, Catholics, Lutherans, and Episcopalians (my family) had to drive 20+ miles to attend mass (don't tell anybody but we had real wine @ communion). so the only people they could really offend were us heathens. This idea of teaching creationism, oh wait the PC term is Intelligent Design, is absurd. Even the religious zealots that ran my school had enough common sense to not push that idea.

[GeauxTo]

Questions for Cocky and Cianne and other Board Scientists:

On Darwinism:
1. How, pray tell, does the biochemical engine responsible for blood clotting "evolve?"
2. How do the biochemical engines known as cilia in the alveoli of the lungs "evolve?"

They are, I believe, irreducibly complex, as biochemistry explains.

On Intelligent Design:
1. The Earth has three distinct movements / positons; a variance in any of them would make life as we know it non-existent. The Earth (1) Rotates on its imaginary axis at a certain velocity; the Earth (2) Revolves or Orbits about the Sun at a certain velocity and in a rather specific, not-too-elliptical orbit; the Earth is tilted on its imaginary axis 23.5 degrees from perpendicular (on a plane from the Sun). This just happened?

[Cianne]

Questions for Cocky and Cianne and other Board Scientists:

On Darwinism:
1. How, pray tell, does the biochemical engine responsible for blood clotting "evolve?"
2. How do the biochemical engines known as cilia in the alveoli of the lungs "evolve?"

They are, I believe, irreducibly complex, as biochemistry explains.

I can't give you an answer to fibrinogen and platelets right now because all my of biology books are located at the dorm still. However, the cilia currently located in the alveoli of the lungs can most likely be tracked farther back to a symbiotic relationship in developing oxygen breathing creatures between said creatures and some sort of protozoac ciliate perhaps as the lungs were being developed. It's a common biological theory that eukaryotic cells came from a symbiotic relationship of two prokaryotic organisms.


On Intelligent Design:
1. The Earth has three distinct movements / positons; a variance in any of them would make life as we know it non-existent. The Earth (1) Rotates on its imaginary axis at a certain velocity; the Earth (2) Revolves or Orbits about the Sun at a certain velocity and in a rather specific, not-too-elliptical orbit; the Earth is tilted on its imaginary axis 23.5 degrees from perpendicular (on a plane from the Sun). This just happened?

I'm going to quote perhaps the greatest scientist of all time to account for this statement, Ian Malcolm: "Life finds a way." If the Earth rotated, tilted, spun, or wobbled any differently, life would have adapted in its early stages. The angular velocity of the Earth along with much else of it's rotational qualities can be solved in a beginner's physics class with simple equations.

[rebeldude]

I can't give you an answer to fibrinogen and platelets right now because all my of biology books are located at the dorm still. However, the cilia currently located in the alveoli of the lungs can most likely be tracked farther back to a symbiotic relationship in developing oxygen breathing creatures between said creatures and some sort of protozoac ciliate perhaps as the lungs were being developed. It's a common biological theory that eukaryotic cells came from a symbiotic relationship of two prokaryotic organisms.



I'm going to quote perhaps the greatest scientist of all time to account for this statement, Ian Malcolm: "Life finds a way." If the Earth rotated, tilted, spun, or wobbled any differently, life would have adapted in its early stages. The angular velocity of the Earth along with much else of it's rotational qualities can be solved in a beginner's physics class with simple equations.

Wow is this modern science ?(Most likely, perhaps and Theory) Doesn't convince me.

The angular velocity of Earth and its rotational qualities is simple physics? :confused: What is the simple equation? I think you watch too much jurasic park :)

[rebeldude]

Depends on whether you take it as fact or not doesn't it.

Example: The Egyptians used the Hebrew people to build the pyramids. Nobody has a problem with this as fact except for the leader of Iran and some Aryan wackos. However, did a guy come and wave a stick, turn a river to blood, summon some frogs, and part a sea in order to get these slaves free? Obviously debatable.

No need to explain, I was just agreeing with you. You are the one that said it could be history.

BTW, it wasn't a guy with a stick that did these things you speak of, It was GOD!

[Cianne]

The angular velocity of Earth and its rotational qualities is simple physics? :confused: What is the simple equation? I think you watch too much jurasic park :)

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/rotq.html\

Basic rotational motion and angular velocity. Not hard.

[Cianne]

BTW, it wasn't a guy with a stick that did these things you speak of, It was GOD!

I know that, but history doesn't lend itself to supernatural forces.

[HSVTider]

I'm not one of those people as you might believe. Frankly, I don't care one way or the other. My hypothetical children, provided I'm still on the same course now with my girlfriend that I plan to be on, will be able to make their own choice between my religion, Christianity (gasp, I know that's hard to believe) and my girlfriend's, Hinduism. However, I don't need a bunch of state employees doing my job as a parent and teaching them religious ideologies.

Exactly!!!, so why back the ruling of a judge that is just another step toward the 'state' making those decisions for your children?

[rebeldude]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/rotq.html\

Basic rotational motion and angular velocity. Not hard.





Does this apply to the earth or to shooting of a basketball. :D

[Cianne]

Exactly!!!, so why back the ruling of a judge that is just another step toward the 'state' making those decisions for your children?

As far as I'm concerned, the ruling of the judge is not making those decisions. Like I said, I don't consider secularism a religion like you apparently do.

[Cianne]

Does this apply to the earth or to shooting of a basketball. :D

Physics does not care for what the object is. Both the Earth and a basketball are spherical and thus the same laws apply.

[ColonelKurtz]

Cianne, the seminal book on the subject was Van Daniken's 'Chariots of the Gods', which came along just as I was finishing up HS. Much of the subsequent work has sought to expand upon his theories and served to inspire parallel theoretical speculation as it concerns the planting of Man upon the Earth by an advanced people. I'll get that book, I find a lot of enjoyment in the debate and one can never have too many angles with which to argue.

One of the more interesting angles I referred to was the writings of the Sumerians and how one can very easily make connections with today's mainstream thinking. Zecharia Sitchen has published works and advanced theories using them to offer one such possibility as to our origins but it is his expounding upon the Astrological charting of our Solar System by the Sumerians which struck me as very significant. How could such an ancient people have the perspective of looking IN at the Sun? Moreover, HOW would they even conceive of such a thing as our Solar System if not by virtue of either the transmission of prior knowledge by even earlier peoples or via the communication of it by knowledgeable somebodies???? You can sorta see that I don't buy into the A Priori thingy...

Those wishing to argue all this from the 'Christian God' perspective have sacrificed their ability to question for the comfort of an assumed stance which cannot be supported. Until you Christians come to grips with the true origins of your faith, positing that because the Bible sez so will only lead to contrairians citing the fact that its only because Emperor Constantine's scribe Eusebius so wrote it like he was told to (the Bible of the Eastern Orthodoxy) or because Jerome wrote down (The Vulgate) what Augustine demanded. Antiquity has many excluded bodies of thought about Jesus and the whole Creationist arguments (from both the Hebrew & Christian perspectives) which
you definitely need to avail yourself of so that you can not appear ignorant about your chosen religion, not to mention the even earlier faiths from which all of your tenents originate from....

Not being an anti religious sort myself and recognizing that one of Man's greatest questions revolves around this subject of where he came from, I don't mind at all the theory that an entity of a magnitude which defies our abilities to grasp might be the origin any more than any other theory. I simply find it difficult to cavalierly associate all which some assert from the religious viewpoint when its very basis is so obviously grounded in the usurption of earlier thinking and transforming it into their own.

Since there is no means of grounding any theory with our current knowledge base, I see no harm or foul in exploring the competing theories. What I think confounds many is this need to adhere to the "begat" philosophy which holds that whichever theory you wish to hold must necessarily account for everything else. This associative requirement is something I find binding as it hinders the ability to consider new or conflicting thought without biasing it.

In simpler terms, why should our existing concepts of Science which seem to be working towards advancing our state of living and understanding of things be totally dependent upon being right about that which we do not nor appear able to conceive or explain within it? Why can there not be room for the "unexplainable-awaiting the knowledge to understand it" stuff instead of this need to shush it or make fun of it as crazy talk? It is this constraint which today's pointy heads demand which slows down the entire process, that and their dishonesty in accepting the entirety of their own knowledge.

Arrogance of ideology is today's most heinous affliction and it is that which hurts the whole process of advancement. Our Medical Establishment steadfastly refuses and even fights Homeopathic & Alternative practices which are no less offering demonstrative progress in addressing many afflictions simply because they refuse to step outside their little bitty walls.

While we live in a wonderous time with many fantastic things happening for the good of all, I often wonder just how much better it could be if we could capture the ability to take it all in without the snobbery of bias. You'd think that with over 6 Billion of us walking around that somebody somewhere would have an angle on an issue which could break new ground, yet the Establishment Intelligensia cannot stand for someone outside their ranks to succeed where they have not.

[Cianne]

I enjoy reading your posts Kurtz. My problem, outside of almost sadistically playing devil's advocate on any issue, this being one of them, is not that a differing viewpoint on creation exists. That's fine by me. I, in fact, like to think of the sciences as a foundation for the explanation of God's work. The Bible never states the laws of gravity but sure as night and day, things do fall "down" towards the center of the great mass we live on.

However, my problem with the Intelligent Design aspect or rather as stated earlier Christian Design is that it tends not to take into account other religious accounts of said stories. Outside of the obvious legal issues with teaching such a subject in a public learning institution, it's flat out wrong to espouse the belief that children are not being taught everything and then turn around and make the "everything" a single ideological belief. As I said earlier, I do not believe Creationism is a science. It doesn't adhere to the rules the scientific community has set up over the centuries and thus should not be taught in that curriculum.

However, I also said that I would not be opposed to more of an elective class taught on maybe the late middle school level or early high school level (beyond the age of indoctrination) that focuses solely on differing religious creation stories focusing a week or a week and a half on each particular segment. This is a better way at getting a child to make a decision than trying to cram it into an already packed science core curriculum. If the child believes that the theory of evolution has a firm setting, and that is what they want to believe, there's no reason for them to take the elective course. If they want to broaden their horizons and experience other avenues of the rise of man and beast throughout time, then there exists a course for them to take.

The Sumerian creation story is one of the more interesting tales involving Marduk and Tiamat. I looked at Sitchin's website, and honestly, my first impression from what is there is that he's a Raelianesque crackpot with the Mars pictures and whatnot. I do think that I would enjoy reading some of his articles taking them as fiction with the possibility of them having a truthful backing.

[HSVTider]

Why do so many conservatives act as though their children must carve the number 666 in their forehead and swear against God before they attend classes in public schools?? It wasnt that long ago that I was in highschool and they had christian groups that students could join. They held prayers in front of the flag poles and all kinds of stuff like that. People wore crosses around their necks and no one said a thing to them. There is a seperation of church and state. Christian groups are the ones getting all bent out of shape...but its not like some group of scientists is breaking down the doors to your church trying to get in and teach evolution to your sunday school group. In fact, its the groups of christians who are trying to break down the doors of the schools and teach their own views. There is nothing scientific about religion. They are already teaching biology. Dont you think when the kids are learning about biology they will consider how complex the human body is. We spent over 20 classroom hours on the nervous system alone in Anatomy and Physiology II. Trust me, the kids see how complex our body is. That doesnt mean the teachers should get to the end of the course and say"See...its so complex there just HAS to be a God" I dont have a problem with there being christian youth groups at the schools the kids can join if they want to. I dont have a problem with having a class that teaches different theories on creationism and the kids can take the class if they want to. What I dont want to see is religion invading a science class. I said it before and I'll say it again:
THERE IS NOTHING SCIENTIFIC ABOUT RELIGION!!!

No one said there was anything scientific about religion.

I brought in the scientific view point to piont out the fallacy in teaching Darwin's theories (which demand an enormous amount of FAITH from the pupil to even believe that such enormous odds could be overcome to be where we are today) as opposed to not even entertaining the idea that maybe the Universe was designed by an "intelligent being, force, entity, spirit, et al whatever.

There is NO hard scientific evidence that proves Darwin's theory. Darwin's theory seems to contradict many scientific and mathematical principles that govern the "nature of life".

So to make a case that Darwin's theory is any more correct than the "Creationist" theory is done so only because someone (in this case the Hon. Judge Jones III) "BELIEVES" that Darwin was the correct theory over the creationist.

A judge is not supposed to rule on such a matter based upon his personal beliefs or his "dogma". he is supposed to rule on this matter in a manner that will allow all "possible" solutions to be presented.

And to say that Darwin's theory is more probable to be correct than the intelligent design theory is a slap in the face of all the mathematicians and biologists who have not only developed such scientific advances as our modern medicines and research into quantum physics but who have also shown that Darwin's theory is a relatively impossible maze of chance to navigate to conclude at the result that is modern man.

[HSVTider]

However, my problem with the Intelligent Design aspect or rather as stated earlier Christian Design is that it tends not to take into account other religious accounts of said stories. Outside of the obvious legal issues with teaching such a subject in a public learning institution, it's flat out wrong to espouse the belief that children are not being taught everything and then turn around and make the "everything" a single ideological belief. As I said earlier, I do not believe Creationism is a science. It doesn't adhere to the rules the scientific community has set up over the centuries and thus should not be taught in that curriculum.



This is part of the reason that I used the definition for "religion" that I did.

It was the only definition that fit every religion on earth.

Also, purely intelligent design should not lean to the Christian scope.

Unfortunately, people will continue to say that it does because in the Christian religion, while being extremely prominent throughout the world, has an "intelligent creator and son" at its center, while other Far East religions do not.

Just because someone is teaching "Intelligent Design" does not mean they are teaching "Christian Design". The two are not mutually inclusive.

[Cianne]

Just because someone is teaching "Intelligent Design" does not mean they are teaching "Christian Design". The two are not mutually inclusive.

I know that. You know that. People with Ph.D's that prefer Intelligent Design know that. But the common people who are most strongly pushing it don't know that. The pastors, Sunday school moms, etc make it mutually inclusive.

[uscrebel]

I was not going to get tangled in this thread because it seemed difficult to do it without being insulting and demeaning. I do apologize in advance if that happens in this post. I will try to keep this as a personal reflection.

I believe myself to be a person of faith. I seldom go through a week without attending some sort of organized worship and I read Christian canonical and theological writings as well as Buddhist, Muslim, and Judaic on a very regular basis. (I am actually re-reading Bultmann's "Jesus Christ and Mythology" right now as part of my Advent Discipline.) I constantly struggle with my spiritual life as I do not think it is a separate entity from my secular life, but rather an integrated component of my self.

I am reasonably comfortable with what I consider to be the fundamental tenets of Christianity, but I acknowledge and notice what I consider to be fundamental to Christianity are likewise foundational in most other major religions as well. I cannot say that other religions are wrong or right, but I have found that for me to follow another path would be hollow. As John Claypoole says, I am following in the "tracks of fellow strugglers."

My relationship with the holy has changed somewhat over time. It has become less obsequious and more personal, less fearful and more respectful, less obligatory and more gracious. Perhaps, it is this last thing that has most changed me. My connection to that which is sacred is founded in grace...that is, I can't make it happen, I have to accept it.

So, I believe in that sort of God that Otto and Spinoza refer to as the "wholly other than." This, by the way, is the most common tenet of mainstream Christianity, that God is wholly other than the profane. If you are Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc., whether you know it or not, this is what you belief. At least it what your denominations say you believe.

What part does all of this play in the Intelligent Design Argument? Primarily it serves as a roadmarker. As person of faith, I do not find any problems with accepting the basic premises of natural selection. Nor, do I need to believe that God started or designed everything. If for no other reason that the fact that it invokes the "first cause" arguments and relies on a generally unreasonable, solipsistic positions in order to press the idea forward.

Ironically, my solution to this dilemma is the introduction of both philosophy and religions classes in high school. It does not occur to me that teaching ABOUT religion is the same thing as proselytizing. I do understand that teachers would overstep their boundaries from time to time, but the calibration of classroom learning by involved parents is a common phenomenon. I agree with the court in large measure that intelligent design is a religious position cloaked in pseudo-scientific garb. Having said that, it seems important that students get the opportunity to discuss causal arguments in a relatively objective environment. A philosophy or religions class would be the most appropriate venue for this...not a biology or chemistry class.

I am always amused that folks who believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing God, somehow feel that this deity would be incapable of working through the mechanisms of natural selection or the Big Bang.

Merry Christmas.

[Cianne]

uscrebel is my hero.

[GeauxTo]

uscrebel is my hero.Ha-Ha-Ha
And, like yours, I'm sure his physics sputters in explanatory attempts pursuant to the Earth's THREE unique characteristics; rotation, revolution, and tilt. You, for example, confuse rotation and revoluton (one is spin, one is orbit; quite different), and you absolutely flunk on the tilting aspect.

And, on the subject of Darwinism, you are submerged in old biology when, for the last 40-50 years, biochemistry has dispelled many of the heretofore staunch theorems in that regard. Irreducibly complex means reduced to the lowest complexity, as are the examples I gave about the two biochemical engines that produce blood clotting and the cilia which sweep the alveoli clean. Biochemistry shows us that these biochemical engines were like that from the get go; they did not evolve; they are found to be irreducibly complex.

[Cianne]

Ha-Ha-Ha
And, like yours, I'm sure his physics sputters in explanatory attempts pursuant to the Earth's THREE unique characteristics; rotation, revolution, and tilt. You, for example, confuse rotation and revoluton (one is spin, one is orbit; quite different), and you absolutely flunk on the tilting aspect. I know the difference between the three. I just gave a simple explanation to rotational motion. Your presumptious victory is tainted.


And, on the subject of Darwinism, you are submerged in old biology when, for the last 40-50 years, biochemistry has dispelled many of the heretofore staunch theorems in that regard. Irreducibly complex means reduced to the lowest complexity, as are the examples I gave about the two biochemical engines that produce blood clotting and the cilia which sweep the alveoli clean. Biochemistry shows us that these biochemical engines were like that from the get go; they did not evolve; they are found to be irreducibly complex.

If a theorem is dispelled, it is no longer taught. Why then is the endosymbiotic theory of the rise of eukaryotes still taught? I used that as an example pertaining to why cilia may exist in the lungs as it is seen in lesser organisms.

And for the record, pulmonary surfactant secreted by Type II alveolar cells are much cooler and much more important than your cilia so nyah.

[GeauxTo]

I know the difference between the three. I just gave a simple explanation to rotational motion. Your presumptious victory is tainted.



If a theorem is dispelled, it is no longer taught. Why then is the endosymbiotic theory of the rise of eukaryotes still taught? I used that as an example pertaining to why cilia may exist in the lungs as it is seen in lesser organisms.

And for the record, pulmonary surfactant secreted by Type II alveolar cells are much cooler and much more important than your cilia so nyah.

Okay, follow closely now...
One Mississippi, Two Mississippi, Three Mississippi, Four Mississippi...
Have a Merry CHRISTmas!
:p

[HSVTider]

I was not going to get tangled in this thread because it seemed difficult to do it without being insulting and demeaning. I do apologize in advance if that happens in this post. I will try to keep this as a personal reflection.

I believe myself to be a person of faith. I seldom go through a week without attending some sort of organized worship and I read Christian canonical and theological writings as well as Buddhist, Muslim, and Judaic on a very regular basis. (I am actually re-reading Bultmann's "Jesus Christ and Mythology" right now as part of my Advent Discipline.) I constantly struggle with my spiritual life as I do not think it is a separate entity from my secular life, but rather an integrated component of my self.

I am reasonably comfortable with what I consider to be the fundamental tenets of Christianity, but I acknowledge and notice what I consider to be fundamental to Christianity are likewise foundational in most other major religions as well. I cannot say that other religions are wrong or right, but I have found that for me to follow another path would be hollow. As John Claypoole says, I am following in the "tracks of fellow strugglers."

My relationship with the holy has changed somewhat over time. It has become less obsequious and more personal, less fearful and more respectful, less obligatory and more gracious. Perhaps, it is this last thing that has most changed me. My connection to that which is sacred is founded in grace...that is, I can't make it happen, I have to accept it.

So, I believe in that sort of God that Otto and Spinoza refer to as the "wholly other than." This, by the way, is the most common tenet of mainstream Christianity, that God is wholly other than the profane. If you are Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc., whether you know it or not, this is what you belief. At least it what your denominations say you believe.

What part does all of this play in the Intelligent Design Argument? Primarily it serves as a roadmarker. As person of faith, I do not find any problems with accepting the basic premises of natural selection. Nor, do I need to believe that God started or designed everything. If for no other reason that the fact that it invokes the "first cause" arguments and relies on a generally unreasonable, solipsistic positions in order to press the idea forward.

Ironically, my solution to this dilemma is the introduction of both philosophy and religions classes in high school. It does not occur to me that teaching ABOUT religion is the same thing as proselytizing. I do understand that teachers would overstep their boundaries from time to time, but the calibration of classroom learning by involved parents is a common phenomenon. I agree with the court in large measure that intelligent design is a religious position cloaked in pseudo-scientific garb. Having said that, it seems important that students get the opportunity to discuss causal arguments in a relatively objective environment. A philosophy or religions class would be the most appropriate venue for this...not a biology or chemistry class.

I am always amused that folks who believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing God, somehow feel that this deity would be incapable of working through the mechanisms of natural selection or the Big Bang.

Merry Christmas.

I agree with pretty much everything you said.

I just hate it that any exposure to Christianity is being stamped out piece by piece of our public school systems while people continue to let other "religions" propogate through our public learning environment at the Elementary, Middle, and High School level.

It just isn't even handed, it hasn't been even handed for a long time, and it seems that the Christian religion comes out on the short end of the stick 99% of the time.

This is what is foretold will happen in Revelation and other books of the Bible with regards to the "end".

But on a less symbolic and non-eternal note, it is just the inequity of life playing out.

[Cianne]

Okay, follow closely now...
One Mississippi, Two Mississippi, Three Mississippi, Four Mississippi...
Have a Merry CHRISTmas!
:p

Merry Christmas to you too.

I am now going to get ready to go offend some good Southern Baptists by taking a birthday trip to the casinos. Fare thee well debaters.

[HSVTider]

Merry Christmas to you too.

I am now going to get ready to go offend some good Southern Baptists by taking a birthday trip to the casinos. Fare thee well debaters.

Aaaahh..just don't "cast lots" in the Sanctuary of a church and don't be a glutton.

[ColonelKurtz]

I enjoy reading your posts Kurtz. My problem, outside of almost sadistically playing devil's advocate on any issue, this being one of them, is not that a differing viewpoint on creation exists. That's fine by me. I, in fact, like to think of the sciences as a foundation for the explanation of God's work. The Bible never states the laws of gravity but sure as night and day, things do fall "down" towards the center of the great mass we live on.

However, my problem with the Intelligent Design aspect or rather as stated earlier Christian Design is that it tends not to take into account other religious accounts of said stories. Outside of the obvious legal issues with teaching such a subject in a public learning institution, it's flat out wrong to espouse the belief that children are not being taught everything and then turn around and make the "everything" a single ideological belief. As I said earlier, I do not believe Creationism is a science. It doesn't adhere to the rules the scientific community has set up over the centuries and thus should not be taught in that curriculum.

However, I also said that I would not be opposed to more of an elective class taught on maybe the late middle school level or early high school level (beyond the age of indoctrination) that focuses solely on differing religious creation stories focusing a week or a week and a half on each particular segment. This is a better way at getting a child to make a decision than trying to cram it into an already packed science core curriculum. If the child believes that the theory of evolution has a firm setting, and that is what they want to believe, there's no reason for them to take the elective course. If they want to broaden their horizons and experience other avenues of the rise of man and beast throughout time, then there exists a course for them to take.

The Sumerian creation story is one of the more interesting tales involving Marduk and Tiamat. I looked at Sitchin's website, and honestly, my first impression from what is there is that he's a Raelianesque crackpot with the Mars pictures and whatnot. I do think that I would enjoy reading some of his articles taking them as fiction with the possibility of them having a truthful backing.

Ah to be 22 again....Cianne, one day when your still firming grey matter releases its shackles of programming, you'll think back to these discussions and laugh out loud. Eventually you will awaken to the reality that the very foundations of all that we think we know are held within a subset of assumptions which only serve our purposes in the present. Though it serves that purpose adequately so far as we know it, History teaches us that the greatest advancements of our species have resulted from the removal of constrictions imposed by dogma and eliteism. Science today has a whole lotta both holding it back.

That the Edumacational establishment today subjects our young skulls full of mush to hold only that which they deem fit smacks of a modern version of the Dark Ages where the Church decided what the chosen few could know. The intellectual arrogance today is no different, it is still heinous. Teaching only Evolution cheats our kids by limiting their perspectives and what possible harm can come from the study of competing theories? If you wish to get right down to it, there is no more weight supporting Darwinism that there is ID.

It is this battle between arrogant interests who are concerned only with having their ideology reign supreme which so cheats our children's education. Those who cannot see that all sides involved have a one-way mentality about it need to take off their blinders. What is needed is for another great visionary to spring forth and shake the whole shooting match up and get us back on the track to expanding beyond the boundries of what we think we know.

[RW13]

But what if you're 22 and rarely make class??

[azamugg]

funny how no one has thought of this as a suggestion:
Do not teach on the supposed "beginning of the universe"...period. There is enough science to teach that has application, how the universe came about does not help in any scientific application......and if Christians want their version taught in a school then evolution should be offered in church during Sunday School....tit for tat..........these have always been my thoughts, sounds too much like a f___king compromise is why I don't think it would be palatable to those in charge of each faction.

[HSVTider]

funny how no one has thought of this as a suggestion:
Do not teach on the supposed "beginning of the universe"...period. There is enough science to teach that has application, how the universe came about does not help in any scientific application......and if Christians want their version taught in a school then evolution should be offered in church during Sunday School....tit for tat..........these have always been my thoughts, sounds too much like a f___king compromise is why I don't think it would be palatable to those in charge of each faction.

Sunday School is a private organization that is optional.

School is not.

I know there are alternatives (such as Home School or Private School), but the cost of these things often inhibit lower income families from seeing them as options, thus their only choice is Public School.

Comparing Sunday School to Public School is apples and oranges.

[Cianne]

funny how no one has thought of this as a suggestion:
Do not teach on the supposed "beginning of the universe"...period. There is enough science to teach that has application, how the universe came about does not help in any scientific application......and if Christians want their version taught in a school then evolution should be offered in church during Sunday School....tit for tat..........these have always been my thoughts, sounds too much like a f___king compromise is why I don't think it would be palatable to those in charge of each faction.

The beginning of the universe via the Big Bang Theory does have a good bit to due with astronomical forces such as Red Shift-Blue Shift, etc.

[ugamic]

Ah to be 22 again....Cianne, one day when your still firming grey matter releases its shackles of programming, you'll think back to these discussions and laugh out loud. Eventually you will awaken to the reality that the very foundations of all that we think we know are held within a subset of assumptions which only serve our purposes in the present. Though it serves that purpose adequately so far as we know it, History teaches us that the greatest advancements of our species have resulted from the removal of constrictions imposed by dogma and eliteism. Science today has a whole lotta both holding it back.

That the Edumacational establishment today subjects our young skulls full of mush to hold only that which they deem fit smacks of a modern version of the Dark Ages where the Church decided what the chosen few could know. The intellectual arrogance today is no different, it is still heinous. Teaching only Evolution cheats our kids by limiting their perspectives and what possible harm can come from the study of competing theories? If you wish to get right down to it, there is no more weight supporting Darwinism that there is ID.

It is this battle between arrogant interests who are concerned only with having their ideology reign supreme which so cheats our children's education. Those who cannot see that all sides involved have a one-way mentality about it need to take off their blinders. What is needed is for another great visionary to spring forth and shake the whole shooting match up and get us back on the track to expanding beyond the boundries of what we think we know.

With the "wisdom of age" should also come the realization that conspiracy theories are silly. The "scientific community" is not out to pull a massive con over on the public. The goal of a scientist is to look at the facts objectively while the goal of a Christian is to promote their religion. When it comes to something like evolution v/s creationism who is more likely to be correct on this issue? The scientist (who's very goal is to be objective) or the Christian (who's anything but)? Scientists are also people which means that some will have agendas and be persuaded by public opinion but the beauty of it is that it's all based on the facts. Each and every theory is constantly under scrutiny. Darwin's theories have withstood all attacks since their release which shows their strength... especially considering how controversial the theory is.

I will grant Christians one thing and that is that they are the masters of deception... but that's a petty game. You can tell this by their tactic of always trying to defame science. One of their favorite strategies is pulling out some random fact and twisting it. Such as "the earth can't be billions of years old because of blah blah blah carbon dating blah blah blah". These are cleverly worded lies because they always incorporate commonly known scientific facts and twist them, just slightly, so as to confuse the listener. The average person does not know enough to disprove these lies but they are always disproven when discussed by a knowledgeable scientist. Of course I'm not talking about all Christians here. Only the ones that start these lies. The rest have just been "programmed".

[GeauxTo]

You imply that it is only Christians who have an argument with science on how things were created. I don't think that is accurate.

Christians are often bashed because ours is a religion based on faith. But faith, while some snicker and malign it, is also the strength of Christianity.

Many of the assumptions of science, particularly where Darwinism is concerned, require a large amount of faith.

It is much more realistic in my own personal belief system that the Earth's tilt, revolution, and rotation were intelligently designed so that life could flourish rather than to believe that it just happened that way. In the same way, my study of biochemistry leads me to discount Darwinism because biochemistry shows there are many irreducibly complex biochemical engines existing which simply could not and did not evolve; they were created (somehow, to non-Christians) just the way they are. You should read Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box. Behe is a world-renowned biochemist from Lehigh University. He is a non-Christian by the way.

Remember, we are still making new discoveries and unlocking secret doors, often with shocking revelations about what we thought before. It ain't over until the Fat Lady sings, and she's just warming up.
;)

[Cianne]

Behe is a world-renowned biochemist from Lehigh University. He is a non-Christian by the way.

Oooh, uscrebel's most hated team!

[uscrebel]

Let's do keep a couple of facts straight here.

Behe IS a Christian. He is and always has been a very active Roman Catholic Layman. He is also a very active consultant for the the Roman Church on scientific matters. Being the good Catholic that he is, he and his wive are raising 8 children...since birth control is a no-no.

Behe Interview (http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/view.php?id=8661)

Most of his current research funding comes from The Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute, which includes the ultra-conservative Center for Science and Culture, has been very frank and up-front about their agenda that they refer to as "the Wedge." They hope to replace the teaching of evolution, initially with Intelligent Design and eventually with Creationism. They have advocated school board candidates run without discussing their beliefs and act to mandate intelligent design as soon as they are sworn in.

One of the primary benefactors of the Discovery Institute is Howard Ahmanson, Jr. He is arguably the scariest man in Orange County. He has spent millions of dollars of his personal fortune to promote the Chalceon Report which advocates, among other things, the stoning of homosexuals. He has the distinction of being so conservative that the Republican Party no longer accepts donations from him. His most well-known position is that of funding candidates for office who advocate a Christian Theocracy in the United States. There is, floating around the internet a great piece that Amanson paid for by Charlton Heston in which he praises the acheivements of the God-Fearing Causcasian middle class and guess who is one of those men of acheivement. Yup....you guessed it...Dr. Behe.

I am more than willing to argue the validity of intelligent design, but let's keep the facts about it's author as accurate as possible.

I DID buy Behe's book after you mentioned it last summer. I did not find it very convincing, but I recognize that one has to actually buy the premise of irreducible complexity.

While I think that we disagree on insignificant matter of physics and biochemistry, I believe we agree that there is a reason for faith and that those whose lives are devoid of faith are missing the best part of creation...no matter who or what started it.

Merry Christmas, my good friend.

[jneesy]

rebel your input is urgently requested here (http://www.sectalk.com/boards/showthread.php?t=8739)

[uscrebel]

rebel your input is urgently requested here (http://www.sectalk.com/boards/showthread.php?t=8739)

Already on it, Neesie Man.

[GeauxTo]

While I think that we disagree on insignificant matter of physics and biochemistry, I believe we agree that there is a reason for faith and that those whose lives are devoid of faith are missing the best part of creation...no matter who or what started it.

Merry Christmas, my good friend.Very nicely said; I didn't know Michael J. Behe was a Christian, but that is of little consequence. Read his defense of irreducibility of the blood clotting casdade; you'll find, I think, that he is an extraordinary scientist.
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_indefenseofbloodclottingcascade.htm

This is fun, isn't it!

Take care, and have a wonderful, happy, and merry Christmas with your family!

[GeauxTo]

The cartoonists get in on the act...

http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/051221/wright.gif (http://www.cagle.com/caglecards/main.asp?image=http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/051221/wright.gif)

[GeauxTo]

The cartoonists get on both sides...
http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/051222/asay.gif (http://www.cagle.com/caglecards/main.asp?image=http://www.cagle.com/working/051222/asay.gif)