Posted by MutantMandias The problem is that Intelligent Design is a not an honest endeavour. It is solely a politically motivated attack on non-fundamentalist Christian values and ideas.

I mean, come on! The only reason for the political push of ID into classrooms and public debate is to try to force acceptance and some kind of pseudo-legitimacy for ideas that many people reject outright, and that have no place masquerading as science.

Which politicians are involved in this conspiracy and what would be their motive?

You offer generalizations but no facts to back them up.

Posted by Trixi Which politicians are involved in this conspiracy and what would be their motive?

President George W. Bush, for one. Does he count?

His motives? C'mon...you've got to be kidding.

Posted by KublaKhan President George W. Bush, for one. Does he count? His motives? C'mon...you've got to be kidding.

No, i'm not. MutantMandias says that ID is a "a politically motivated attack on non-fundamentalist Christian values and ideas" and I want to know the specifics of how he comes to that conclusion. If I were to make a volatile statement like that, I would expect to at least have one or two examples in mind with which to back up my argument.

Posted by Trixi No, i'm not. MutantMandias says that ID is a "a politically motivated attack on non-fundamentalist Christian values and ideas" and I want to know the specifics of how he comes to that conclusion. If I were to make a volatile statement like that, I would expect to at least have one or two examples in mind with which to back up my argument.

There is no evidence to back up ID but evidence of evolution scientifically (genetic studies f apes, neanderthal, the similarities between single celled organisms use of the Tricarboxylic acid cycle and humans use of same for ATP generation for energy, skeletal and muscular similarities between the ape and neanderthal and modern humans etc etc etc). ID is solely based on faith. Now, who's agenda is it to push ID...
1. GW Bush
2. Pat Robertson (the whole Dover Pa thing).
3. Jerry Falwell (check out his site)
4. Many right wing evangelical nut jobs

ID will set us back to the 18th century. Religion has done nothing to advance human kind but science has. Believe what you wish, Trixi. If medieval mumbo jumbo without ANY evidence to back it up that is entirely based on faith is your thing, then more power to you. I'll stick with the facts proven by science such as:
Einsteins theory of relativity
Human and animal physiology
mechanics, statics and kinetics
Calculus

ad nauseum

Bless you my misguided soul,

Father Moe

Posted by Father Maurice Lester Religion has done nothing to advance human kind but science has. Believe what you wish, Trixi. If medieval mumbo jumbo without ANY evidence to back it up that is entirely based on faith is your thing, then more power to you. I'll stick with the facts proven by science such as: Einsteins theory of relativity Human and animal physiology mechanics, statics and kinetics Calculus

Forgive me, Father...but I'm about to sin.

While I will agree that ID is nothing more than the politically motivated rantings of religious zealots who would wish us into the past, I will NOT say that religion has done nothing to advance humanity. That is simply not true.

Religion is an organizing medium. It has ordered us into groups. It divided, separated, co-joined societies, and continues to do so. It is, in a ironic sense, doing the work of scientific categorization.

Religion is a human endeavour, a divinely inspired classification system.

Or maybe it's just the insane politically motivated rantings of religious zealots.

Who knows...who cares? One thing is for certain: ID will never gain the traction necessary to achieve mainstream acceptance.

[EDIT: Speaking of Intelligent Design...isn't The State of the Union address scheduled for tonight?]

Posted by Father Maurice Lester Now, who's agenda is it to push ID...

Well of course if you believe in ID (or anything else for that matter) you would like to see others conform to your belief. My question however continues to be: What "politically motivated agenda" does the teaching of ID somehow perpetuate? How would teaching an unproven theory benefit those who are supposedly seeking to do so?

Posted by Father Maurice Lester ID will set us back to the 18th century.

Are you serious...

Posted by Father Maurice Lester Religion has done nothing to advance human kind but science has.

Ok, now I know you can't be serious.

Thanks for the blessing anyway, Padre

Posted by Trixi Well of course if you believe in ID (or anything else for that matter) you would like to see others conform to your belief.

I have to disagree with this statement. This need for conversion I think is best found in the Abrahamic religions, since they all say in their respective holy books that you need to convert people blah blah. I believe alot of crazy shit, like aliens and the like, but I have no burning desire to make others conform to these beliefs, I could care less. Now, if you* wanna talk about logic and fact, if I run across someone who does not know something, I'll gladly teach them facts. But to influence coerce someone to conform to your beliefs, well...I hope you* seek therapy for your* (God's) inferiority complex.

*Infinitive. Not directed at any particular person.

I have to agree with Noah. It's hard as a christian to feel that way, then be told I am supposed to convert as many people as possible. I think my goal in life is to help as many people as possible, and if I am able to present my ideas along the way, great. If not, so be it.

The way I see it is, though of course as a believing christian I want others to believe, I don't feel the need to convert everyone to all of my beliefs, and most people to any of my beliefs.

Posted by IrishLady The way I see it is, though of course as a believing christian I want others to believe...

Believe what...?

I don't feel the need to convert everyone to all of my beliefs, and most people to any of my beliefs.

Huh?

Believe, as a Christian, that Jesus died for my sins, believing in God, basically.

And to clarify,
I don't feel the need to convert everyone to all of my beliefs, OR to convert most people to any of my beliefs...

I don't feel the need to convert people.

Posted by IrishLady Believe, as a Christian, that Jesus died for my sins, believing in God, basically.

Realizing that believing in Jesus who died for your sins (not mine, per se...Jesus and I have an agreement re: Sin [singular]) and believing in God as distinct and generally mutually exclusive, do you feel it more significant to you personally as a Christian to speak of God (first and foremost) or Jesus?

Posted by Trixi W Are you serious... Ok, now I know you can't be serious. Thanks for the blessing anyway, Padre

Sure am serious. Aside from the 10 commandments which or judiciary is based on, name one way Religion has ADVANCED human kind. Has religion given us the technology of the day?? Nope.
Has religion prevented war??
Definitely not. Most wars are based on religion x hating religion y.
Has religion cured diseases that 50 years ago were 100% fatal??
Nope
Did religion give us the ability to warn people days in advance that a killer hurricane was approaching?
No way.

Has religion created divides in human kind??
Definitely!! Christians believe they are the sole inheritors of heaven; Muslims feel the same, so do the Jews, Hindus, Sihks (sp) YADA YADA. Believe what I believe or there's a fiery pit of sulphur and brimstone waiting to scorch and burn you for all eternity.

Thanks but I'll stick with science.

ID is, as stated here already, nothing more than a method to push Christianity in the schools.

Posted by Father Maurice Lester Has religion given us the technology of the day??

I guess it depends on the religion.

The Aztecs had a pretty advanced calendar based, if I'm not mistaken, on their religion.

Believe what I believe or there's a fiery pit of sulphur and brimstone waiting to scorch and burn you for all eternity.

Beats the shit out of being alive and paying taxes. Or at least the 'paying taxes' part. That part sucks.

Thanks but I'll stick with science.

Does that whacky Scientology count?

Posted by Father Maurice Lester Sure am serious. Aside from the 10 commandments which or judiciary is based on, name one way Religion has ADVANCED human kind.

OK. Georges Lemaître, a priest, motivated by the need to validate his own religious belief in a Creator, proposed the Big Bang theory which helped advance cosmology and subsequently fuels mans quest for knowledge of the observable universe.

Posted by Father Maurice Lester Has religion given us the technology of the day?? Nope.

Gutenberg...Moveable type. The Muslim invention of moveable copper type (disputed as pre-Gutenberg) was also religiously motivated.

Posted by Father Maurice Lester Has religion prevented war?? Definitely not. Most wars are based on religion x hating religion y.

That's a matter of opinion and not backed up by the numbers. The perception and the reality are vastly different. "Secular" wars have taken far more lives than all the "religious" wars combined...and then some. Religious belief actually prevents war more often than promotes it.

Posted by Father Maurice Lester Has religion cured diseases that 50 years ago were 100% fatal?? Nope. Did religion give us the ability to warn people days in advance that a killer hurricane was approaching? No way.

Religion in and of itself cannot cure diseases or predict hurricanes but people who are influenced by religious beliefs can and do.

Posted by Father Maurice Lester Has religion created divides in human kind?? Definitely!!

Perhaps, but it also creates unity and promotes community.

Posted by Father Maurice Lester Thanks but I'll stick with science.

"A bit of science distances one from God, but much science nears one to him." - Louis Pasteur

Posted by KublaKhan The Aztecs had a pretty advanced calendar based, if I'm not mistaken, on their religion.

Their calander was based around their meticulous observations of the heavens (pun intended). While they worshipped the moon and the stars and the sun, I think it would be inaccurate to say that these advances were based in religion. What is most likely is that they worshipped these celestial bodies because of their observations. Because they observed the infallible regularity of these objects, they deified them, put them on a pedestal far beyond the reach of humans. In this example, it's a case of science coming prior to religion, which would be absolutely absurd today, but back then, when religion was used to explain away the unknown (well, that's still what it's for even today, but that's irrelevant), it makes perfect sense. Wow....this is a really mind boggling concept for me right now...religion and science chasing tails...I hope it's cause I'm tired.

Strangely enough, they also worshipped a bearded diety. Amer-Indians don't have facial hair, but Europeans do. Something to think about...maybe another thread for it.

Posted by Noah Vale Their calander was based around their meticulous observations of the heavens (etc. etc. etc.)

Thanks for that.

Strangely enough, they also worshipped a bearded diety.

Strangely enough...so do I (hehe)...

Posted by KublaKhan Realizing that believing in Jesus who died for your sins (not mine, per se...Jesus and I have an agreement re: Sin [singular]) and believing in God as distinct and generally mutually exclusive, do you feel it more significant to you personally as a Christian to speak of God (first and foremost) or Jesus?

I say God, because without God, there is nothing (according, of course, to my personal belief).

I think that God is a terrible explanation for life as it is really just redirecting the problem. How can you attempt to understand the complex life forms that have arisen if you mean to describe them in the terms of a simple explanation. Simply put, God cannot fit into this simplification of a complex world if he is said to be responsible for life.

Now. Evolution. To those who like to say that "Evolution is just a theory: do you understand what you are saying? It is, but all means, correct to say that; however, gravity is just a theory. So is the notion that Earth revolves around the Sun. I hope you see the point that I am getting at, which is that these are theories with a lot of evidence. To quote Richard Dawkins: "You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in evolution. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has got to believe in evolution." Please note that this quote is from a very well educated Oxford Professor with his education in zoology. He knows his biology. ;)

At any rate, it is correct to say that it is a "theory" in the true semantic sense. To say that you don't "believe" in evolution makes you, no offense to anyone who has posted here, stupid. People who argue that there are these massive unexplainable "gaps" or "missing link" that somehow moot the theory, well, they're also stupid. Of course, what I mean to say is that these people are either unable to scientifically look at evidence, and process it, or they're intentionally being obtuse. A working hypothesis that explains the world as opposed to some archaic doctrine that doesn't explain anything? Right.

Of course, there are those who say they'll never believe it. I can't argue with the "know-nothings". Either you're willing to open your mind and take in the information or you're not. Either you'll have the capacity to understand that information, given that you have indeed opened your mind to it, or you won't. There is no way to debate with brick walls, so I won't even bother. The veil that religion uses as an excuse to not explain something is far too old and far too worn. I haven't time for that.

With regards to "I.D.". It is creationism, or perhaps a more dramatic and befitting title would be: Creationism: With a Vengeance. Yes it has had many supporters, so did the theory that the world was flat and the Sun did a little jig around it. You can't honestly expect someone to take seriously the notion that centuries past of "believers" actually proves anything. That's ludicrous. It is religion, not science.

Don't pit them against each other? That would be all well and good if religion decided to stick to morals and ethics, but it doesn't. Religion is what was used to explain the world before we had our current understanding. We mentally grew up and found that the tooth fairy, Santa, and the Easter Bunny don't exist--same idea. What do the smart people do when they realize that the evidence has been stacked too high against them? They accept the scientific basis and stop making asses out of themselves. Pope John Paul accepted it, as did the Vatican. Speaking of those guys, they trashed ID as being pushed by American Creationist, by fundamentalist.

An interesting note is that apes used both tool and language. Of course that doesn't mean that they understand language. What I mean by that is use of language does not imply any kind of understanding of what it represents. Seeing and apple and saying "apple" is different from saying "apple" and thinking of an apple. However, Koko (from the children's book Koko's Kitten; a non-fictional character for those who are not familiar with the book) once trashed her trailer. When her keeper came back she lied to them saying that one of the other keepers did it. That's some pretty concrete evidence for the ability of other primates to think. Yes, we're primates.

As far as God in science goes, well, I really can't say it better than Dawkins, so here you go:
"Modern physicists sometimes wax a bit mystical when they contemplate questions such as why the big bang happened when it did [...] and they may then say that perhaps this inner core of mystery is another name for God. Or in Stephen Hawkings's words, if we understand these things, we shall perhaps 'know the mind of God.'
The trouble is that God in this sophisticated, physicist's sense bears no resemblance to the God of the Bible or any other religion. [...] It has obviously not the smallest connection with a being capable of forgiving sins, [or] a being who might listen to prayers."

The world that we live in does not require some supernatural force to give it meaning. The beautiful complexity from which we all arise is not beyond human comprehension or explanation. Thank Mr. Darwin for a theory that allows us to understand where we came from, what we came from, and how we got from here to there. For all that those who fail to understand evolution argue that there are "missing links" (without fully understanding that term, I might add) and so on they turn and ignore that very logic and use "God" or the "Designer" as a catch all. A lack of an explanation is no contest for an attempt at one.

All quotes from: http://www.positiveatheism.org

Additionally, I suggest that every read The Blind Watch Maker and The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. That is assuming you've already read Darwin's works, which if you are commenting in this thread I sincerely hope that you have at least attempted.

Phew.

I think I'll stick the theory of macroevolution through a common ancestry by the mechanics of natural selection and Darwinian fitness. I did a seminar this year on the biochemical evidence to support the theory of evolution. The statistical implications of erroneous biochemical homologies alone provide all the proof needed to convince intelligent people.

Occam's Razor supports this, so long as you're alternative for the easiest possible solution isn't some unfounded omnipotent creator nonsense.

It doesn't hold up in court, sorry.