Bush wants schools to teach intelligent design.

Parent Cafe
261

<p>Two people approach a natural formation of a massive boulder balancing on top of a thin rock spire. Neither is sure how it happenned, one begins to investigate geology, including erosion and teutonic plates, ect.; the other falls down and prays, thanking God for making such a beautiful sight, clearly evidence of his existance. Many people expecially scientists see the concept of ID more aligned with the second person and not at all relevant to science class.</p>

<p>People who think ID is compatable with the concept of evolution appear to miss the point of how it is incompatable with the way evolution came about as a theory. Evidence was found, hypothesis were suggested and more evidence was found, and continues to be found that supports the hypothesis. </p>

<p>Many of us want our religious/ethic views to be supported by science and sometimes we jump the gun because we want to belive there is evidence to our faith. Of course, faith by definition, requires no evidence. Another how curious.</p>

262

<p>CGM:</p>

<p>“And your discussion about Homosexuality as a flaw shows your true colors. You write well, I will give you that, but your bigotry is shining through bright and clear.”</p>

<p>I never said any such thing and you should be ashamed to falsely say I did…true colors? Please.</p>

<p>Quote me, or stop being so hateful!</p>

263

<p>dmd77,</p>

<p>You’ll have to excuse me if I ask: where did I imply that YOU as “an atheist…don’t believe in or demonstrate faith, hope, or love”?</p>

<p>Or, do ALL atheists “believe in or demonstrate faith, hope, or love” in contradiction of their belief that there can be no ‘god’ (atheism is not agnostic on this point; it is not neutral on the subject of ‘immaterial being’ or ‘immaterial cause’ i.e., love, faith & hope ) because the nature of God is materially improvable?</p>

<p>Moreover, to “demonstrate” faith hope or love, as you say, is not the same as believing they exist, in fact; people can clearly demonstrate qualities and emotions they can’t define or account for.</p>

<p>I was addressing the consistency of such distinctions: whether or not things can be real or true if they are immaterial, like God, love, faith and hope. </p>

<p>Perhaps faith, love and hope are metaphorical short-hand for genetically-electro-chemically caused reactions that do not involve ‘romance’ or ‘free-will,’ to those that believe that every ‘possibility’ must have a ‘material cause’ to have a ‘material effect,’ and thus no more than some kind of cute ‘love-speak’ of some sort, but then, love (an immaterial force by definition) would not be real.</p>

<p>Should things like ‘faith,’ ‘hope’ or ‘love’ be taught only “along with all the other…myths out there” like ‘god,’ as has been suggested by numerous posters in this thread? </p>

<p>I can refer you to specific posts where these exact things were either said or implied by self-described atheists about affection (i.e., love) specifically having a material cause and no other: if this is materially (scientifically) true, shouldn’t we deem love a myth rather than a reality, along with all other ‘so-called’ immaterial causes and just be done with the whole rotten pack of superstitions?</p>

<p>If not, why not?</p>

<p>Let’s clean up the whole mess rather than the part we are simply intolerant of, for the sake of sincerity (of which, as the song says, there is no ‘sin’).</p>

<p>To deny ID, or to suggest ID must necessarily be a ‘myth’ because it ‘potentially’ relies on an ‘immaterial cause,’ seems to additionally suggest that other ‘immaterial things’ must also be ‘myths’ by definition (they are immaterial, you see).</p>

<p>[atheists around here—I’m finding—are very sensitive, I better be more careful and cautious]</p>

264

<p>EK4,</p>

<p>You know that I did not say anything like you are trying to imply. I would have thought you would be somewhat sensitive to the point based on your previous posts. </p>

<p>Myself, I would not believe that anyone loves anyone else because of their genetic code, therefore, to me, there could be no defect when it comes to ‘love.’ </p>

<p>Others, obviously, feel differently. Hitler thought that there was much to be said for ‘genetic cause’ and was thus monstrous to the disabled and to those he assumed were habitually disabled in their human behavior or culture (not the least of which was homosexuals), as he imagined, because of their genes. </p>

<p>I would take a contrary view of behavioral ‘cause’ and ‘genetics’—certainly as it applies to faith, hope, love and god.</p>

265

<p>

What an absurd and insulting parable. And one, which yet again, misses the point. Erosion, like evolution, like the formation of the planets, are all mechanical/biological processes. What put these processes into motion is the question here (and no one has the answer). ID is not creationism. Your caricature, MrB, was patronizing and offensive. And, as you are a teacher, indicative of the underlying dissatisfaction many of us have with what is presented as dogma in the classroom.</p>

266

<p>"There is also much discussion that homosexuality is genetically encoded. Suppose it turns out to be true, and that along with this gene there is a problem, something derogatory, something that may well make a segment of our population factually/genetically (the only ‘real’ human fact?) inferior to other segments "…so what did you mean? you said that along with the gene that causes homosexuality, something derogtory to make some of our population inferior…that is what I see</p>

<p>And Hitler is relevant how? </p>

<p>Do you love people of the opposite sex? Why? Is it romantic love? Why? When did you learn that you liked people of the opposite sex “that way”? Did you grow into it? Or was it just there? Is your attraction to someone else in that sexual romantic way- where does that come from? Just so you know, ask most people, attraction, in many cases, initially is physical, when it comes to romance. It can be a smile, a walk, a laugh, but it is a physical reaction. I for one love women, but am not physically attracted to them. Some women love women in a physical way and a romantic way, and have since they were wee ones. But as most people, the actions don’t come into play until they are young adults or teens, but the attractions were there.</p>

<p>Do you think ID is science or not…just answer that one question. </p>

<p>And I will not chill out, the lions at the gate. </p>

<p>I have faith in my H, I have love for my Ds, I have dreams. </p>

<p>You need to define what you meen by faith. Faith in a IDesigners is very different that having Faith in my H. </p>

<p>You make the assumption, and from you difficult to grasp analogies, I am getting that you associate love, faith, trust, etc with being God given. Some can have faith in each other, lover for each other, etc, and not believe in God. Imagine that.</p>

<p>I can believe in chaos, I see chaos everyday. I can believe in love. I can have faith. I can believe in science. I can believe in chance. I can have trust. I can those from experience.</p>

<p>I can separate science and religion. To mix actually diminishes both.</p>

<p>And I am not hateful. I just called it as I saw it.</p>

267

<p>Science has a material source/cause. ID has an immaterial source/cause. I made that point clear in post 254. Are the two mutually exclusive of one another?</p>

<p>Of course not, as Driver has pointed out several times throughout her posts. </p>

<p>But ID is not science, in the same way that science is not religion—though many people readily treat science as such while bashing those who treat ID as religion. Neither is correct, but consistency is lacking. </p>

<p>Scientism is noxious. </p>

<p>CGM,</p>

<p>“Do I not understand the english language?”</p>

<p>No comment.</p>

<p>However, you seem oblivious to the fact that I DO NOT believe that love is genetic: not the love of woman for man, or woman for woman.</p>

<p>LOVE IS NOT GENETIC…GET IT?</p>

<p>I am arguing the exact opposite of the slur you work so hard to attribute to me. The materialist argument leads to the consequences you attribute to me and I AM NOT a materialist…is that clear enough?</p>

268

<p>Driver, I find my parable right to the point. One person is looking for the rules and the other is thinking of a rule maker. Maybe the rules make the rules and their is no concious or intelligent thought behind it all. The rules of geology as they are discovered and proven should be taught in a science class, the concept of a supernatural someone or thing deliberately stacking the rocks may be saved for another class.</p>

<p>In your opinion, is the originator of the intelligent design still around?</p>

269

<p>fountain I just responded to your words-
If that wasn’t what you meant you might want to restate</p>

270

<p>“the other falls down and prays, thanking God for making such a beautiful sight, clearly evidence of his existance. Many people expecially scientists see the concept of ID more aligned with the second person and not at all relevant to science class.”</p>

<p>MrB, </p>

<p>I do not think you are bigoted, I find you rather thoughtful, but this example, were it about, say, Amer-Indians, would be offensive and bigoted. </p>

<p>It may be that people who have a creative and spiritual disposition would see beauty in such a vision and through that beauty their eye would direct their mind to the Beautiful-as-such, either in a Platonic sense or some other metaphysical sense, even, gasp, a religious one. </p>

<p>But to imagine that they, like Neanderthals (actually, I doubt Neanderthals should be so slighted as this), would fall to the ground worshiping rather than investigating the phenomenon is bigoted, insulting and false.</p>

<p>It is not either-or. No one of your view seems to get this.</p>

<p>Some see more in this life than objects; some see beauty and have beatific visions of the divine, like Bach, Michelangelo, Einstein, Newton, Greco, Aristotle and, humbly, me, none of which do I believe were likely to fall down praying before a boulder.</p>

<p>Some, like me, go on to study science.</p>

271

<p><a href=“http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html[/url]”>http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>some very good essays</p>

272

<p>According to Dembski, intelligent design “is just the Logos of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.”</p>

<p>And Dembski, is a head proponent of ID…</p>

273

<p>"According to Dembski, intelligent design “is just the Logos of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.”</p>

<p>And Dembski, is a head proponent of ID…"</p>

<p>…oh.(?)</p>

<p>Einstein said “God doesn’t play dice”</p>

<p>does that disprove his theory of relativity according to your discerning opinion?</p>

274

<p><a href=“http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html[/url]”>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-09/design.html[/url]”>http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-09/design.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“http://www.origins.org/mc/[/url]”>http://www.origins.org/mc/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>To claim there is no connection between Creationists and ID proponents is laughable.</p>

<p>The proponents of ID say God created everything, yet, somehow, it is not advertised as such. The people running the conference run Christian Ministries. The Conference, Mere Creation, which claims to be a scientific conference was run by a group whose main mission is Evangelicanism.</p>

<p>Since the founding of Christian Leadership Ministries in 1980, we as a ministry have been concerned with what Dr. Charles Malik called “the two tasks” of Christians. The first and primary task is the ministry of evangelism and discipleship; the second is changing the thinking and climate of the university and culture. Both tasks are included in Christ’s great commission to go and make disciples (Matthew 28:18-20), because in teaching people to observe everything Christ commanded, we must teach them to love God with all their mind as well as their heart. </p>

<p>“The Mere Creation Conference on Design and Origins last month was a part of the second task. Our goal was to conduct an academic conference on the origins issue for leading scientists and scholars who reject naturalism as an adequate framework for doing science. We wanted to challenge the paradigm which reigns in the university and culture today- the scientific naturalism which proclaims that nature is and has always been an absolutely closed system of material cause and effects-and explore the possibilities in the concept of intelligent design. Only time (and ultimately eternity) will tell whether we were successful in our efforts, but we were encouraged by the enthusiasm at the conference.” from the Origins Website and Its COnference on Mere Creation</p>

275

<p>I am talking about ID design, from the proponents. Was I wrong in that. I am back on topic.</p>

<p>As for Einstein, he separated God and science in his theories. That is the difference.
<a href=“http://www.skeptic.com/archives50.html[/url]”>http://www.skeptic.com/archives50.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>“From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist… I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being.” Einstein</p>

276

<p><a href=“Top Cash Earning Games in India 2023 | Best Online Games to earn real money”>Top Cash Earning Games in India 2023 | Best Online Games to earn real money;

<p><a href=“http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html[/url]”>http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

277

<p>You know, I think it’s wonderful that natural selection and evolution has resulted in the ability of humans to believe in a creator, to love, to hope, to cherish… and to disagree with each other.</p>

278

<p>From <a href=“http://www.talkdesign.org/[/url]”>http://www.talkdesign.org/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>"Lawyer and creationist Phillip Johnson is usually credited with having founded the Intelligent Design movement, with the avowed intention of overthrowing “materialist science”, and replacing it with “theistic science”. This agenda is now being actively pursued by a well-funded body, the Center for Science and Culture (CSC), part of the Discovery Institute, a right-wing think tank funded by conservative Christians. (Until recently, the CSC was known as the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture; the name change is most likely an attempt to render their ideological adgenda less overt.) The CSC now plays the leading role in the promotion of ID, and its fellows include most of the leading “intelligent design” advocates: William Dembski, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Stephen Meyer, etc. The goal of their Wedge Strategy is for “intelligent design” to become “the dominant perspective in science” and to “permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life”.</p>

<p>Realizing that their “scientific” arguments have little chance of acceptance within the mainstream scientific community, “intelligent design” advocates address their arguments primarily to the general public, politicians, philosophers, and other non-scientists. The allegedly scientific material which they produce is full of misleading rhetoric, equivocal terminology, and misrepresentations of the facts. They also produce much material which does not even aspire to be scientific, and which can frankly be best described as propaganda."'</p>

279

<p>dmd77,
“I think it’s wonderful that natural selection and evolution has resulted in the ability of humans to believe in a creator, to love, to hope, to cherish”</p>

<p>Wonderful indeed if true, but you don’t seem to be saying that. You call it an ability to believe, not a reality.</p>

<p>Is love an actual force, a reality? </p>

<p>If not, this is going to be very bad news for poets, artists, musicians and people who “swear their undying love to each other”; from parents to their children, from lover to beloved.</p>

<p>Is it a hoax we perpetrate on ourselves?</p>

<p>What a thought,
…“A World without Love”,
coming to a theatre near you, as soon as
…“A World without God”
has finally finished its run on the world stage.</p>

280

<p>For those that what to learn more about ID, from another side:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.talkdesign.org/[/url]”>http://www.talkdesign.org/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>This is a great sight, and it has links to ID supporters sights as well. So call me fair.</p>

<p>And I guess I will be ignored again. Ah well. I can take it. </p>

<p>And I know people that love are kind are caring and are atheists. Glory be.</p>

<p>And this has to do with scientific theory how? Never mind. I will just get called mean again.</p>