Religious Right, right?

[mindido]

Duke,

"you say religion is trying to take over, yet all i see is protests over religious scenes at christmas, prayer taken out of schools, commandments being taken out of courtrooms and offices and business places. I also see the mockery of religion and of god. Its no longer politically incorrect, as you mentioned South Park."

Do a Google search on "kansas school board" or "bill frist" or "religious right". You'll find all the info you need. As far as the mockery is concerned, I'm sure there is some but I don't know that it is all that prevalent. Religions, throughout history, have made some very preposterous claims that have been proven false. If someone continues to defend a claim after being proved false, they lose credibility. So if religions are sometimes mocked, they've largely brought it upon themselves.

"You obviously don't celebrate christmas, but do you use this day as an excuse to give as others do? Or to recieve."

No, I don't, as I'm not a christain. But most of the rest of my family is so I respect their beliefs and participate in a limited way.

"I personally will show my kids religion, but i would never force it to them as i believe there would be no need to in the 1st place."

This is exactly the way I was brought up. I went to church until the age of 16 and then left. For me I just had too many questions that religion could not explain. I got real tired of often getting the answer, "its gods will". If I ever have kids, which is unlikely, I would teach them the same way my parents did. If they want to get involved with religion, then that will be their choice. Just remember not to impose that religion on others.

"Will you or have you explained to your kids that evolution is scientifically correct and true and they must carry the torch?"

As mentioned above, I don't have children, but if I did I would teach them that "evolution is scientifically correct and true" because it is logical and the data supporting it is voluminous.

"I love my fellow man and would not judge their life, for who am i."

I agree with that statement 100%. If you will go back and study western history though, you will find that the vast majority of wars were, and are, religious in nature.

"so i don't understand where your going with all this, or why it matters."

Hype is pervasive in this society. You literally cannot go out your door and not see it all over the place. Television is, for the most part, hype. Someone trying to sell you something whether you need it or not. Whether you recognize it or not. If you don't recognize it, I would strongly suggest that you learn to, or your going to be separated from your wallet far too often.

Red Horse,

"If a globally respected scientist, say a Nobel Prize winner, came out with a statement saying "Dive into the deepest part of a lake, go down as far as you can, then take a deep breath" everyone in their right mind would think the guy is completely crazy...but there would be the few who would do it because they believe (read: faith) in what he's come up with before."

First, no scientist (at least a sane one) would ever do that as the results are obvious. But this would be something a religious "prophet" would do. And have (Jim Jones, David Koresh, Heavens Gate, etc, etc.).

 

[Red Horse]

Mindido,
You hit the nail on the head by saying "No scientist (at least a sane one)" etc, but then go on to cite Jim Jones, David Koresh, et al as possibly being the norm of religious leaders? A bit extreme, no? lol. (If I'm taking your comment out of context, forgive me).

 

[mindido]

Red Horse,

I didn't imply they are the "norm", far from it. I just used Jones, Koresh, etc. as clear examples of what "prophets" can, and will, do.

 

[cableguy]

mox, you must have missed the post where i acknowledged evolution as fact--to a certain extent... i also explained in a post why i believe creationism has some valid parts as well... since i do not subscribe to evolution as the "theory of everything," nor do i give creationism that title, i am no worse off than 80% of scientists... bottom line, i do not have a dog in this hunt, but i find it to be wonderful commentary fodder...

mindido, you have fallen into the habit of rejecting things that you dont agree with, not based on consideration or merit, but because of where it came from, or because you have elevated the validity of your sources and argument far above criticism from any quarter...

"it must be wrong, because i dont agree with it" was put forth as a mindset, not as any quote you made... read the entire post please...

regarding faith, definitions 4-6 seem to nicely fit the bill... somewhat hard to scientifically prove, or disprove, a belief...

if you are willing to reject what cant be explained as false, because it cannot be scientifically proven (or disproven), are you willing to make that your personal policy on other issues as well?? even in areas where you have set beliefs that must, by that definition, be rejected???

iceberg, science isnt a belief system, until it leaves the realm of science to pursue some other agenda, be it political or otherwise... thousands of scientists arguing the same point--a point that has no scientific proof behind it, does NOT make that point a point of science... that the people arguing it are scientists is completely irrelavent if they can bring no more science than a hypothesis to the argument. when those scientists, or their supporters, call this point scientific, then "science" becomes a belief system... not true science, but the perverted and politicized version, which is content with supposition and theory rather than actual proof..

red horse, good point... as i am content with my faith, and as my beliefs do not include certain tenets of jehovas witnesses, i would, and do, send them away... if i were shopping around for a new faith, i might well give them a listen... it is good to gather a variety of inputs before making a decision...

after 229 years, religious symbols on public property are considered a threat, even though there is no government sponsorship of religion, no government mandated religion, and no threat of a theocracy... religion, like it or not, was a guiding principle in the founding of this nation... the founders saw fit to prevent the government from establishing a religion, or preventing the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF of religion... this includes christianity...

 

[Iceberg]

after 229 years, religious symbols on public property are considered a threat, even though there is no government sponsorship of religion, no government mandated religion, and no threat of a theocracy... religion, like it or not, was a guiding principle in the founding of this nation... the founders saw fit to prevent the government from establishing a religion, or preventing the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF of religion... this includes christianity...

What the current "mainstream" interpretation of the edict is the "freedom of religion" and "freedom from religion." Should government have a religious statement on its property, it is a sign of governmental endorsement of a certain religion, which is unconstitutional.

I agree that Christianity "was a guiding principle of the founding of this nation." However, the rebels who fought England wanted to separate themselves from the Church of England. So, what the Founding Fathers wanted was a religion that was not dictated by the state. (The current batch of Religious-Right-Republicans want to do away with this and make America a Christian Fundamentalist state.)

iceberg, science isnt a belief system, until it leaves the realm of science to pursue some other agenda, be it political or otherwise... thousands of scientists arguing the same point--a point that has no scientific proof behind it, does NOT make that point a point of science... that the people arguing it are scientists is completely irrelavent if they can bring no more science than a hypothesis to the argument. when those scientists, or their supporters, call this point scientific, then "science" becomes a belief system... not true science, but the perverted and politicized version, which is content with supposition and theory rather than actual proof...

SCIENCE HAS NO AGENDA!!! SCIENCE IS A MATTER OF TRUTH OR FICTION!!! Why can't you understand this?

As for the rest of your comment, it's rubbish. SCIENCE IS NOT POLITICAL, BUT BASED ON LAWS OF PHYSICS, BIOLOGY, AND CHEMISTRY. SCIENCE CAN NEVER BE POLITICAL.

Proof comes with scientific analysis, which those climate skeptics have not attempted to find and which climate scientists are far closer to finding.

 

[moxdevil]

Of course the people who are denouncing science as being political and with an agenda are the one's who have a political agenda- the wish for a Christian state where science is made subservient to religious assumptions.

The fact that we have non-scientists posing as though they were scientists- as found in the Creationist and ID circles shows where the agenda is, why do you think that these people have to set up their own organisations and seek to make as much political advantage as they possibly can from such underhand techniques as ‘doctoring’ transcripts and interviews by leading evolutionary scientists, by making a circus out of school board rulings, etc.?

Creationists and ID’ers cannot and will not make their argument from science because they do not have one to be made, god in science is useless- this is why theists can be serious scientists whilst retaining a belief in a higher power; they separate the two, something Creationists and ID’ers don’t do because their object is to undermine something that doesn’t fit their assumptions. And that something is science.

I’m going to be frank; theists who feel threatened by science attack it. They did this by way of confrontation; theology versus science, this failed because science undermined theology. Now they are looking to undermine science from within- with their ‘scientific-theisms’, whereby they can manipulate the layperson by presenting caricatures of science- Evolution is just a theory, Evolution is a theory for everything, etc… they prey upon the expected ignorance that most people have of science.

Science is meritocratic, not democratic. This is why god has no place in the science classroom, as a theory it has no merits scientifically.

 

[moxdevil]

Anyone seen this film? or know of it? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455507/

(Would have posted in the film section, but don't think its mainstream viewing, nor would get it)

 

[endymion]

If it is strictly a question of should religion be taught in a science classroom, the obvious and correct answer is no. Because it is based on faith, you can never fairly be tested on this subject, due to bias either way of whomever is marking it. It may build your general knowledge of religion, (not a bad thing, it pays to know both sides of a story before making a decision), but will never help you get a job as an engineer, or an astronaut, or cure cancer.
I was born with Catholic parents, was raised until I was about 13 as a Catholic, then before my confirmation, my parents let me decide. I dropped any religious aspects from my life. This was not something I needed help from my school with. Like you, Duke, you'll raise your kids to have faith and believe. Cool, I dig that, but why do schools need to get involved at all?
And who gets to decide which religion is studied? That's the other major issue. Maybe you could lightly cover a bunch of religions in a social studies class, but invite only ONE religion into the science classroom and you're just building another Bob Jones "University". And that's just fucked-up, and highly disrespectful to other religious groups.

 

[mindido]

endymion,

Have to agree completely. Very true statement, "Because it is based on faith, you can never fairly be tested on this subject, due to bias either way of whomever is marking it."

Its too bad the religious right doesn't understand that.

 

[cableguy]

iceberg, i know that science has no agenda, and is apolitical... what i said is that scientists who have adopted an agenda, or who have moved into the political arena, are no longer practicing science... it is that simple...

regarding religion and government, no one has yet told me what religion is being sponsored by the federal government... until such time, any argument to that point is nonsense... IF you can find something that fits that shoe, you are still left with the pesky beginning of the first amendment, which states "congress shall make no law..." no law made by congress, no case... period...

regarding religion in the classroom, i dont believe anyone here is promoting the teaching of any religion in a science classroom... there are arguments and hypotheses that support creationism/id, and there are more that support evolution... if energy and matter cannot be created, what is the explaination for our existance?? is it not possible that, with help from evolution, there was some guiding hand in the process as well?? evolution is a fact, but not a fact that explains EVERYTHING...

to clarify things, because i believe some people here are once again being presumptively mislabeled, i personally am neither a christian, nor a member of the "religious right"... i have not attended any church service outside of weddings/funerals/baptisms of friends and family for over 10 years... it is possible to look at things from a point of view not necessarily shared by yourself... sometimes, part of it even makes some sense...

 

[Iceberg]

what i said is that scientists who have adopted an agenda, or who have moved into the political arena, are no longer practicing science... it is that simple...

And the scientists "who have adopted an agenda" and "who have moved into the political arena" are: Patrick Michaels, Sherwood Idso, Fred Singer, Robert Balling, Tim Ball, Roy Spencer, etc.

People like Mann, Bradley, and Hughes, Kevin Trenberth, the IPCC, etc. are not politicising science. They are maintaining the true methodology of scientific procedure.

The fossil fuel-funded skeptics are those who have politicised science and who have the agenda.

 

[moxdevil]

regarding religion in the classroom, i dont believe anyone here is promoting the teaching of any religion in a science classroom... there are arguments and hypotheses that support creationism/id, and there are more that support evolution... if energy and matter cannot be created, what is the explaination for our existance?? is it not possible that, with help from evolution, there was some guiding hand in the process as well?? evolution is a fact, but not a fact that explains EVERYTHING...

cable, creationism and ID is religion, plain and simple. The religion that we are talking about is the Christian one, as there are other theistic creationisms that differ greatly to the Christian one that is being put forward. It's the book with a dose of wide-interpretation of the text along with the use of superficial scientific jargon- it is not a scientific theory. There are no 'facts' to support the theory of Creationism/ID. What is more the theory of Evolution is not nor has ever claimed to be a theory to explain everything, it is simply one accepted scientific theory and fact that explains some aspects of the natural world. ie natural selection. It is not the big-bang theory or other cosmological theories. Creationism and ID do claim to be theories of everything- god the creator created everything-end of story-yet explains nothing.

There are some fringe creationist groups who will accomadate evolution in the belief that this will make creationism explanatary. Yet accommodation is very different from explanation. In science an explanation tells why something is one way and not another. A theory that accommodates anything as the creationist/ID, explains nothing. This is because it does'nt rule out any possibilities. Accommodating all possibilities also makes a theory exactly useless. Since creationism accommodates all possibilities, it is not explanatory.

to clarify things, because i believe some people here are once again being presumptively mislabeled, i personally am neither a christian, nor a member of the "religious right"... i have not attended any church service outside of weddings/funerals/baptisms of friends and family for over 10 years... it is possible to look at things from a point of view not necessarily shared by yourself... sometimes, part of it even makes some sense...

Indeed, examining others views can be very constructive- unless of course they are putting forward something that is completely ridiculous and completely useless in a science classroom. Cable what are you a theistic evolutionist? a Raelian? Either way god is useless to the scientist because as a theoretical concept it doesn't explain away anything it simply says something and leaves it at that. The school classroom is, i hope, still holding the ideal of sweeping away some ignorance and not creating it.

 

[cableguy]

mox, i sincerely hope there are some unanswered questions in your life... what am i, religion wise?? i have no idea... a deist, i would guess, though i havent spent too much time looking for a label... one god, many names--many gods, one name... i am not the one to say... i know i believe in something, though... i also believe in free will... and that scientific theories should NOT be pushed on others as fact... (global warming) the difference here is what we view as "completely rediculous." i do NOT view evolution that way, nor do i view creationism that way... the very nature of what evolution is would seem to exclude the present biosphere from this theory in totality... there are simply too many diverse species... when something evolves, the older version can, and should, be counted on to die out... dramatic seperation explains some diversity, but not, in my mind, all of it... thats the short version of what i believe...

iceberg, so far as i can tell, global warming is an unproven theory that is likely unprovable... that makes anyone making any definite claim about its existance as a man-made threat--including your highly thought of scientists--nothing more than activists who have adopted an agenda... perhaps we should do the same thing about global warming that we did in the 60s and 70s to avert the imminent ice age... perhaps we over-corrected then, and are now suffering the consequences... oddly enough, the exact same things were being blamed then as are being blamed now... funny, isnt it??

 

[moxdevil]

mox, i sincerely hope there are some unanswered questions in your life...

cable, science answers questions and raises questions, assumptions such as those of a creator deity merely put off the answering of questions and thus don't wish to raise others.

the very nature of what evolution is would seem to exclude the present biosphere from this theory in totality... there are simply too many diverse species... when something evolves, the older version can, and should, be counted on to die out... dramatic seperation explains some diversity, but not, in my mind, all of it... thats the short version of what i believe...

Why is there too many diverse species? Along with Natural selection there is genetic drift, plus there is mutation that adds to the variation in species populations, whereas the former two remove variation from such populations. These 3 processes are just three aspects of biological evolution, you've also got sexual selection, speciation, etc... but essentially variation through mutation leads to diversity of species.

You need to stop reading the Creationist literature if you don't want to be typecast as one. Understand that Creationists and ID proponents don't give a toss about science, their own 'scientists' have to gather under specialised churches, er i mean institutions like the Discovery Institute because they practice metaphysics as opposed to science. It is easy to criticise a position, far more difficult to offer an alternative that survives the rigours of scrutiny, and Evolution has survived the rigours of scrutiny, whereas creationism and ID avoid it.

A good article in the new york times- http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/science/05essa.html?

Also worryingly- http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/PA/929_intelligent_design_bill_propos_4_1_2005.asp

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/NY/517_equal_time_for_intelligent_de_5_10_2005.asp Republican puts forward such ideas, like many other Republicans, only semantically can somebody say this is not political sponsorship of religion- and not any religion, but one-CHRISTIANITY! You'll find the last one hundred years of US history littered with such sponsorship.

 

[cableguy]

mox, aside from the bible that was (and still is) available to me, which i have not picked up for any reason other than to move it in more than 10 years, i have read absolutely no creationist literature... i take the bible with a grain of salt, or, if you prefer, a pillar... i do not view the old testament as literal... there are folks in there that were hundreds of years old... in any case, it is not the source of my beliefs, either... i find it fascinating that when someone forms an opinion based on reason and what is known, some other people cant comprehend the process, and assume it came from somewhere and is not an original thought... i dont know of anyone that believes in things exactly the way i do, nor have i read much about it... my beliefs are my own, tempered through experience, but copied from nowhere...

typecast me if you must, but know that you will be wrong in doing so.... also know that similar castings of others may well be wrong as well... independant thinkers may arrive at a decision that parallels others, but by taking a completely different route...

oddly, darwinism was the main reason for my having some belief in creationism... functionally, the very science you proomote has led me to a somewhat different conclusion... as i stated earlier, i look at the tremendous variety of species on this planet, and i just have a hard time believing they all came from the same thing... genetic drift, mutation, and any other form of evolution will leave two varieties of the same critter... one will be better suited to survive than the other, and as such, the other will likely perish, as it is ill equipped to survive against tougher competition... that leaves geographical seperation as the only remaining "works every time its tried" concept to explain the diversity of species.. if a creature has a range of hundreds of miles, opposite sides of that range MIGHT evolve differently... they also might not... similar climate zones should, by the evolutionary theory, have very similar, if not identical, life forms... we see this to some extent, but we also see a great variety of other things as well..

if we start with a variety of things, spread out across the land masses and oceans, then let them evolve, i believe you stand a much greater chance of winding up with something like what earth is now... where is a leech on the evolutionary ladder of lions?? where is a lichen on the human evolutionary ladder??? where is a bear on the evolutionary ladder of a shark??? these are some of the problems i have with evolution as THE theory... those questions (and any number of other, similar ones) have not yet been answered in any setting in which i have been present... sell me on the concept, and i will gladly reject id... until then, i see it as a start point for evolution (again, i do not doubt evolution, but i dont believe it explains everything, either)... good point about science raising questions... what happens when it raises questions it cant answer??

 

[moxdevil]

If you haven't read creationist material how do you know that your position is in accordance to theirs? Or is this down to simply sticking by your fellow Christian in times of trouble?

i look at the tremendous variety of species on this planet, and i just have a hard time believing they all came from the same thing... genetic drift, mutation, and any other form of evolution will leave two varieties of the same critter... one will be better suited to survive than the other, and as such, the other will likely perish, as it is ill equipped to survive against tougher competition... that leaves geographical seperation as the only remaining "works every time its tried" concept to explain the diversity of species.. if a creature has a range of hundreds of miles, opposite sides of that range MIGHT evolve differently... they also might not... similar climate zones should, by the evolutionary theory, have very similar, if not identical, life forms... we see this to some extent, but we also see a great variety of other things as well..

Why only two varieties? there is no limit to the process, plus there is more than merely geographical isolation and mutation that can produce a new species; there are a number of theories of speciation- allopatric (geographical), hybridisation, sympatric, parapatric, etc...many of which have been observed and documented beyond yet refutation by the scientific community. What does the Creationist and ID community do, they forget to mention it in their books- convenient. Of course this all depends on how one classifies 'species', this is something disputed amongst the scientific community, though yet again conveniently disregarded by the Creationist and ID communities.

cable, "having a hard time believing" is not an excuse to believe something even harder to prove.

if we start with a variety of things, spread out across the land masses and oceans, then let them evolve, i believe you stand a much greater chance of winding up with something like what earth is now... where is a leech on the evolutionary ladder of lions?? where is a lichen on the human evolutionary ladder??? where is a bear on the evolutionary ladder of a shark??? these are some of the problems i have with evolution as THE theory... those questions (and any number of other, similar ones) have not yet been answered in any setting in which i have been present...

They won't be answered because the starting position is flawed. Underlying the sentences "where is a leech on the evolutionary ladder of lions??" etc is the notion of progress, evolution doesn't work by progress, it is not a teleological process, though ignorance often views it as such, like the social Darwinists, and lately the Creationists and ID'ers. It is like asking 'where is the single cell organism on the T-rex evolutionary ladder?' well, though T-rex's appear to be far more advanced teleologically, tell me which one still survives?

sell me on the concept, and i will gladly reject id... until then, i see it as a start point for evolution (again, i do not doubt evolution, but i dont believe it explains everything, either)... good point about science raising questions... what happens when it raises questions it cant answer??

cable, i'm not going to sell evolution to you because my position is that it doesn't need selling. You are obviously correct that evolution doesn't explain everything, but then its ambitions are far more modest, plus it is a work in progress, aspects of it are proven fact- natural selection, genetic drift etc... whilst details are to be ironed out by further work. What is more it isn't a mono-theory like what religion offers, instead it is a number of different specialist fields each adding to each other, (or in the case of contradicting each other and thus more work is done or the theory (not the umbrella theory of evolution) is dropped). The point of evolution, like all scientific theories are that they are not set in stone never to be revised when new information becomes available that contradicts them, science is falsifiable, whereas religion vehemently claims not to be.

What happens when it raises questions it can't answer? depends whether you think that some questions can never be answered or not. I personally don't see why anything could be beyond answering. Obviously there are an unknown number of things we haven’t yet explained or understood today, but then many of the things that 'couldn't' be explained a hundred years ago are taken as given today. Knowledge builds upon knowledge.

I have been chatting with one of my buddies, who has just collected a masters in biology and is an outspoken opponent to creationism and ID, subsequently i have changed my position on these pseudo-theories being included in the syllabus of school classrooms. I still continue to argue that they are not given equal time to scientific theories, but instead be taught either as History of Science- where they will be placed with theories such as those of Descartes, Aristotle, and phrenology to show how otherwise intelligent people can reach absurd positions due to their assumptions. Alternatively Creationism and ID should be pressed to prove the validity of its theories according to strict scientific criteria- the same criteria that the theories that go to make up the umbrella theory of evolution have been subjected to.

You see my previous position was that creationism and ID be given no time at all, thus creationists and ID'ers have been allowed to attack the theories of science quite merely whilst adopting the role of persecuted intellectuals. Instead it is time that Creationism and ID be forced to put forward its own theories and these be tested. Then and only then will these people be seen by the ignorant masses for what they are, they are people without a scientific theory, they simply have weak analogies, biblical scripture, and rely on making overtures to the popular masses.

This quote from William Dembski, one of the self-acknowledged geniuses of intelligent design creationism, sums up their position:

“All sides now realize that Johnson was, from the start, deadly earnest, not content merely to tweak Darwin’s nose but intent, rather, on knocking him down for the ten-count. Johnson is, after all, a lawyer, and lawyers think contests are not simply to be enjoyed but also to be won.”

Johnson, by the way is a leading ID'er, and a lawyer by trade. Mmmmm not a scientist then.

“In line with our there-might-be-something-to-it-after-all policy, it’s usually enough to indicate that there’s more to the story than the other side lets on. John Angus Campbell puts it this way: A draw is a win! The other side wants to obliterate intelligent design. Yet to persuade the undecided middle, we just have to show that intelligent design has something going for it.” (William A. Dembski 2004 “DEALING WITH THE BACKLASH AGAINST INTELLIGENT DESIGN” version 1.1, April 14, )

How bloody cynical, yet everybody in the genuine scientific and professional fields knows that they intentionally pander to the sentiments of the average joe- why they play the 'we're looking out for you against those people locked up in their ivory towers' ploy all the bloody time. These cranks are simply following the usual traits of a conspiracy theorist- persecuted minority with the truth, nobody is allowing a fair presentation of their ideas, and naturally against the big bad institution that is seeking to hide all evidence that it is wrong and misleading the general public. Problem with this is- that big bad institution can prove, has proved, and will continue to prove its theories, whereas the self-perceived 'persecuted minority who are in the right'- Creationists/ID'ers have yet to prove anything, and the reason for this is because they intentionally deflect the onus of proof on to the opposition- tell me one of their theories, show to me scientifically how it is so, and then it can be judged to be allowed along side other theories in the scientific classroom- until the time that Creationism and ID can and is willing to present its arguments, though as yet it continues to be happy with being merely a community spewing vitriol onto genuine work, only then can it be taken seriously.

Cable, if your neutral position is that of Intelligent Design, just remember that another person's neutral position could be that '20 foot pink fairies created the world with magical stardust in the space of an hour.' Should we allow this person's views to be given equal time in classroom also- or does this depend on whether millions of people happen to 'believe' it also? For example do we say 'right, put it to democratic vote, who believes the Holocaust really happened?' because last year a poll found that 45% of Britons didn't know of Auschwitz. If theories were put forward simply on popular support criteria, you can forget about teaching most facts, and then where would we be? Probably back in the intellectual domains of the period affectionately known as the 'Dark Ages'.

(edit: cable you can keep your personal position, it doesn't bother me what you believe, my problem is when theists try to force their beliefs onto others. Is it not enough to these people that they have churches (usually protected and tax free), that religion, any religion is already given the status of being untouchable, that to challenge it publicly is frowned upon and those who do are immediately attacked.)

 

[moxdevil]

I couldn't help myself- :mrgreen:

Still, the surest proof that evolution is a fact of life-

http://www.bushorchimp.com/

And yet this guy can look in a mirror and then tell people its just a theory

 

[Red Horse]

Yikes! mox is going after his Masters Degree

 

[mindido]

Mox,

Very funny, good find.

 

[cableguy]

mox, i have no fellow christians, as i am not one myself... some of my thoughts and beliefs line up with published arguments for id, which isnt too surprising, since there are only about three ways a person can have any opinion at all on the topic... the fact remains that i arrived where i am not because of propaganda, but from independant thought... also, it should be noted that i am not actually pushing anything on anyone, just providing an alternate viewpoint... i am not one of the rabid crazies you like to quote...

once again, as people seem to either not read or not retain, id isnt something that can be proven, absent whatever the creator is showing up and demonstrating it for us... your pink alien stardust or whatever is id, like it or not... not being able to prove something is neither a resaon to believe it OR to disbelieve it... absent scientific FACT, and not THEORY, it is rather difficult to make a convincing case for much of anything... conventional wisdom isnt scientific fact... people tend to get rather muddled in all things "scientific" and believe what they want to and reject what they dont, usually tossing in a few choice adjectives to describe the originators of the unpleasant alternatives...

is it provable, observable, repeatable?? all three of those must be answered in the affirmative if one is to accurately apply the term "scientific fact" to anything... i accept evolution, just not the whole theory... some of it is undeniably scientifically proven, some is speculation... we differ on the beginning point... this difference will likely always be there, and neither of us will likely ever know for sure if we are correct... bottom line--the beginning is a big question mark... i am not asking for a democratic vote on this, nor should anyone... what is correct isnt always popular... what is popular isnt always correct... some things are beyond present science, and will remain so... as far as i know, scientifically speaking, a bumblebee still cannot fly...