"Creationism is not appropriate for children"

[Chizzang]

Were that in the Bible - we'd be a vastly different planet today - VASTLY DIFFERENT
And by the way that sentiment is what Galileo believed and he was under house arrest because of it

That may not be in the Bible, but that sentiment is in the Bible and it is actually what drove the mass implementation of the scientific theory. The scientific theory was fine tuned and mass produced in monasteries and church universities by those who believe God wants them to know the unknown.

Right.. okay
So that "sentiment" might be eluded to - but - it is indeed NOT stated and is indeed not supported by those who claim to own the rights of interpretation of "The Bible"

So the Church instead of reacting to that "sentiment" (in dark ages) house arrested and killed and tortured many thinkers and scientists who were indeed moving towards that goal...

So as much as YOU might support "That sentiment"
It is apparently so subtly suggested in the Bible that it is almost completely over looked even today

[CID1990]

As interpretive as the Bible has been over the ages, I see no reason why scientific curiosity cannot be a part of that.

[BlueHen86]

Intelligent design is just made up fantasy crap. If you don't like evolution come up with a better theory, don't make something up and then try and give it equal status to something based in science.

The inability to travel faster than the speed of light is also a theory. Should we also teach about warp drive because we don't like Einstein?

You just proved the point. Evolution is a made up theory that has yet to be proven. But yet it is taught. Intelligent design is also a theory that many believe has yet to be proven, but because evolutionist tend to disagree that a God created all things, they attack it calling it "fantasy crap," or they resort to name calling. I could just as easily say that evolution is "fantasy crap," after all it does take a lot of fantasy for one to take a single bone and create either a human or an animal and then try to pawn it off as the next great thing in evolution.

Evolution is taught because just about every scientist agrees that it exists. The only debate revolves around various mechanisms associated with it.

Intelligent design is not a theory because it can not be tested. How do you test for and observe the "intelligent agent"?
You can't. It comes down to a matter of faith.

This is an argument that doesn't need to happen. There is nothing wrong with having faith, but there is something wrong when your faith tells you to disregard things which can be observed in favor if things that can't.

[SeattleGriz]

You just proved the point. Evolution is a made up theory that has yet to be proven. But yet it is taught. Intelligent design is also a theory that many believe has yet to be proven, but because evolutionist tend to disagree that a God created all things, they attack it calling it "fantasy crap," or they resort to name calling. I could just as easily say that evolution is "fantasy crap," after all it does take a lot of fantasy for one to take a single bone and create either a human or an animal and then try to pawn it off as the next great thing in evolution.

Evolution is taught because just about every scientist agrees that it exists. The only debate revolves around various mechanisms associated with it.

Intelligent design is not a theory because it can not be tested. How do you test for and observe the "intelligent agent"?
You can't. It comes down to a matter of faith.

This is an argument that doesn't need to happen. There is nothing wrong with having faith, but there is something wrong when your faith tells you to disregard things which can be observed in favor if things that can't.

I don't think you could ever test for an "intelligent agent", for most likely, they would operate above what we are familiar with, hence, intelligent agent. That is why the ID crowd is trying to show such complexity in the information in our DNA, that it proves that evolution needs to be revised. It needs to show that the naturalistic viewpoint espoused by militant Darwinists is not the end all be all. There can be situations in which we just don't know the answer.

This debate is exactly the same as the global warming argument, Americans are just too scientifically illiterate to know better.

[BlueHen86]

Evolution is taught because just about every scientist agrees that it exists. The only debate revolves around various mechanisms associated with it.

Intelligent design is not a theory because it can not be tested. How do you test for and observe the "intelligent agent"?
You can't. It comes down to a matter of faith.

This is an argument that doesn't need to happen. There is nothing wrong with having faith, but there is something wrong when your faith tells you to disregard things which can be observed in favor if things that can't.

I don't think you could ever test for an "intelligent agent", for most likely, they would operate above what we are familiar with, hence, intelligent agent. That is why the ID crowd is trying to show such complexity in the information in our DNA, that it proves that evolution needs to be revised. It needs to show that the naturalistic viewpoint espoused by militant Darwinists is not the end all be all. There can be situations in which we just don't know the answer.

This debate is exactly the same as the global warming argument, Americans are just too scientifically illiterate to know better.

The ID crowd is trying to prove that God exists, which can't be done.

Evolution can happen with or without a God, ID requires a God.

[Chizzang]

As interpretive as the Bible has been over the ages, I see no reason why scientific curiosity cannot be a part of that.

agreed...
There is no reason - but for some reason it's largely ignored - shunned even
But yes, we agree

[SeattleGriz]

I don't think you could ever test for an "intelligent agent", for most likely, they would operate above what we are familiar with, hence, intelligent agent. That is why the ID crowd is trying to show such complexity in the information in our DNA, that it proves that evolution needs to be revised. It needs to show that the naturalistic viewpoint espoused by militant Darwinists is not the end all be all. There can be situations in which we just don't know the answer.

This debate is exactly the same as the global warming argument, Americans are just too scientifically illiterate to know better.

The ID crowd is trying to prove that God exists, which can't be done.

Evolution can happen with or without a God, ID requires a God.

No, it doesn't. All it requires is a group of scientists willing to find out the truth.

[BlueHen86]

The ID crowd is trying to prove that God exists, which can't be done.

Evolution can happen with or without a God, ID requires a God.

No, it doesn't. All it requires is a group of scientists willing to find out the truth.

So who is the intelligent designer then?

Scientists are working to find out the truth, it's the fiction writers who are obfuscating the issue.

[SeattleGriz]

No, it doesn't. All it requires is a group of scientists willing to find out the truth.

So who is the intelligent designer then?

Scientists are working to find out the truth, it's the fiction writers who are obfuscating the issue.

Oh really?

So how exactly do you explain the big bang?

[BlueHen86]

So who is the intelligent designer then?

Scientists are working to find out the truth, it's the fiction writers who are obfuscating the issue.

Oh really?

So how exactly do you explain the big bang?

You answer my question first. If intelligent design doesn't require a God, who is the intelligent designer?

[SeattleGriz]

Oh really?

So how exactly do you explain the big bang?

You answer my question first. If intelligent design doesn't require a God, who is the intelligent designer?

Yeah. Let's answer your question first. So, I understand that all life is here because of the big bang.

BlueHen86, you got something to add?

[Grizalltheway]

No Earth walker will ever know the truth about where we came from or where we're going.

[Chizzang]

No Earth walker will ever know the truth about where we came from or where we're going.

I believe any sane person would agree
but let's not let that get in the way of a good story...

(I got two words for you: Multi Verse)

[JohnStOnge]

Intelligent design is not a theory because it can not be tested. How do you test for and observe the "intelligent agent"?
You can't. It comes down to a matter of faith.

We all know that the desire to support their faith is what's really behind the intelligent design movement. However, my understanding it IS considered possible to test for intelligent design. My understanding is that there are techniques for determining whether or not objects are natural or man made. Here is on conversation I found on that issue:

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/ ... view/1630/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course from the "intelligent design" standpoint I guess there is no "natural." But that's the idea. I read once that they use approaches similar to and/or based on the concepts archeologists use to determine whether or not there was an intelligence involved in configurations they see.

Anyway, as far as I can tell, if you remove yourself from the "intelligent design" controversy and ask yourself if it's considered to be possible to test something to see if it's likely that it was the product of an intelligent designer or not the answer is that is is pretty much accepted as possible.

[JohnStOnge]

We have been able to create new, self-replicating life (synthetic bacteria) out of chemicals for years now.

Please provide a reference for that. I do not think that is true. If you show me a reference confirming it's true I will concede. But I do not think we have been able to take chemicals, put them together, and end up with living organisms where there were no living organisms before.

I was able to find this:

http://www.livescience.com/3214-life-created-lab.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But, to quote the article:

It's not life, they stress, but it certainly gives the science community a whole new data set to chew on.

I suspect that's what you are referring to. The article is getting close to 4 years old so it's possible something's been done since then. But if it is what you're referring to it's not life and I think you would agree that it's a long, long way from creating bacteria.

Besides, think about what happened here: An intelligence caused the phenomenon. Kind of puts one in a box when they're trying to argue that life happened without an intelligence to direct the process.

[JohnStOnge]

A belief that the universe is black and white and that their answers are fact will cause them to be shitty scientists, not to mention the greater propensity to be shitty people... which will further cause them to be shitty professionals. That's the point.

That's an example of the kind of outlook I was thinking about when I wrote that prejudice directed against such people would impair their progress and their ability to contribute more than their actual belief in creationism would.

I think that one can readily confirm that it's possible to be a good scientist and also be a creationist and/or "intelligent design" adherent by just looking at examples of people who made great scientific contributions before the current secular outlook was as widespread as it is now. I've seen things where people will say, for instance, that Issac Newton believed in alchemy in order to diminish him because he was a deeply religious man. But the guy was still a great scientist. One of the greatest in history. And I think we both know I can find plenty of others from previous times.

I could probably find examples of people from the current times as well who are creationists and who also do well in their chosen field. I know at least two engineers, for instance, who are like that. Of course you have to take my word for it. One of them tendered his resignation so he could go to a seminary and become a minister. His employer, a large petrochemical company, did not want to lose him so said it would accommodate him however he wished in order to keep him working for them while he also went to seminary. He got extremely flexible terms, working when he could and wanted to as an engineer. Also allowed to work from wherever he was instead of having to go to a duty station. He didn't go in with the intent of getting special terms from them either. He went in to say, "I'm resigning to become a minister."

Now, when an employer does something like that it tells me it views what somebody has to offer as valuable. I guess you can say that his beliefs impaired his ability to contribute because he was going to quit being an engineer in order to become a minister. But you certainly can't say his beliefs impaired his ability to be a good engineer.

[MSUDuo]

Actually, yes. We don't know so don't act like we know. Feel free to believe what you want

Really? You're not sure if the bible is correct?

No, we don't know for sure. I have faith that it is but that doesn't mean I'm right. Nor do I tend to act like it.

[BlueHen86]

You answer my question first. If intelligent design doesn't require a God, who is the intelligent designer?

Yeah. Let's answer your question first. So, I understand that all life is here because of the big bang.

BlueHen86, you got something to add?

Yes. You made a statement, which you haven't explained:

The ID crowd is trying to prove that God exists, which can't be done.

Evolution can happen with or without a God, ID requires a God.

No, it doesn't. All it requires is a group of scientists willing to find out the truth.

Instread of responding to my questions with more questions why don't you explain what you mean when you say that ID doesn't require the existence of a God? Who is the intelligent designer?

[kalm]

Really? You're not sure if the bible is correct?

No, we don't know for sure. I have faith that it is but that doesn't mean I'm right. Nor do I tend to act like it.

Yeah, it's a bit unfair to stereotype fundamentalist christians in this manner, so good on ya Duo. I know there are quite a few, perhaps even a silent majority who do not wear it on their sleeve and who are still open minded with their beliefs. It's loud mouthed douchebags like Dobson, Reed, etc that ruin it for them.

[Pwns]

This thread is veering off subject, which is that it's silly to say parents teaching kids intelligent design will somehow preclude them from any kind of career in engineering and science. There are parents out there teaching their kids that organic food has health benefits when there is no real empirical evidence for that, and that drug companies are covering up the link between vaccines and autism. And many of those are your more liberal and secular folks. But no one ever says those people are abusing their kids and ruining America's future. That's because, once again, Darwin is a sacred cow in this country.

[Chizzang]

This thread is veering off subject, which is that it's silly to say parents teaching kids intelligent design will somehow preclude them from any kind of career in engineering and science. There are parents out there teaching their kids that organic food has health benefits when there is no real empirical evidence for that, and that drug companies are covering up the link between vaccines and autism. And many of those are your more liberal and secular folks. But no one ever says those people are abusing their kids and ruining America's future. That's because, once again, Darwin is a sacred cow in this country.

Dude...
Let's make a thread about every time a Fundamentalist Christian says something completely stupid...
We'd have to rent another server to create bandwidth
The Scientific community is simply fighting back after years of ignoring the idiocy - they've drawn a line

Frankly I find it entertaining - since my childhood I've been watching people cautiously dance around offending fundamentalist ignorance and bully pulpit tactics - for my entire life - I've watched just that - everybody apologize for any offended Christian

I think that time has finally come to an end
So Christianity is now finally from the middle segment of society under attack from "common sense" and under attack from "Logic" and all I can do is say: You've been apologized for excused for and pampered long enough

[CID1990]

This thread is veering off subject, which is that it's silly to say parents teaching kids intelligent design will somehow preclude them from any kind of career in engineering and science. There are parents out there teaching their kids that organic food has health benefits when there is no real empirical evidence for that, and that drug companies are covering up the link between vaccines and autism. And many of those are your more liberal and secular folks. But no one ever says those people are abusing their kids and ruining America's future. That's because, once again, Darwin is a sacred cow in this country.

Dude...
Let's make a thread about every time a Fundamentalist Christian says something completely stupid...
We'd have to rent another server to create bandwidth
The Scientific community is simply fighting back after years of ignoring the idiocy - they've drawn a line

Frankly I find it entertaining - since my childhood I've been watching people cautiously dance around offending fundamentalist ignorance and bully pulpit tactics - for my entire life - I've watched just that - everybody apologize for any offended Christian

I think that time has finally come to an end
So Christianity is now finally from the middle segment of society under attack from "common sense" and under attack from "Logic" and all I can do is say: You've been apologized for excused for and pampered long enough

Now if we can just draw the same line with Islam and stop being pu$$ies worrying about how they will react to this or that....

I'd be all for confronting organized religion for what it is, but we have a habit in this country for selectively applying our disdain.

[D1B]

Dude...
Let's make a thread about every time a Fundamentalist Christian says something completely stupid...
We'd have to rent another server to create bandwidth
The Scientific community is simply fighting back after years of ignoring the idiocy - they've drawn a line

Frankly I find it entertaining - since my childhood I've been watching people cautiously dance around offending fundamentalist ignorance and bully pulpit tactics - for my entire life - I've watched just that - everybody apologize for any offended Christian

I think that time has finally come to an end
So Christianity is now finally from the middle segment of society under attack from "common sense" and under attack from "Logic" and all I can do is say: You've been apologized for excused for and pampered long enough

Now if we can just draw the same line with Islam and stop being pu$$ies worrying about how they will react to this or that....

I'd be all for confronting organized religion for what it is, but we have a habit in this country for selectively applying our disdain.

Red herring.

The dominant myth of our nation is Christianity.

[CID1990]

Now if we can just draw the same line with Islam and stop being pu$$ies worrying about how they will react to this or that....

I'd be all for confronting organized religion for what it is, but we have a habit in this country for selectively applying our disdain.

Red herring.

The dominant myth of our nation is Christianity.

True, but the failures of organized religion are not in the dogma, but the radicalization that comes from people who are absolutely convinced God is in their corner.

All I'm saying is that if we confront the Christian nuts but not the Muslim nuts, then we are just declaring war on Christianity, not fundamentalism.

[kalm]

Red herring.

The dominant myth of our nation is Christianity.

True, but the failures of organized religion are not in the dogma, but the radicalization that comes from people who are absolutely convinced God is in their corner.

All I'm saying is that if we confront the Christian nuts but not the Muslim nuts, then we are just declaring war on Christianity, not fundamentalism.

Don't forget the fundamentalist atheists too.