"Intelligent Design" figurehead = nutcase

I don't know Mr. Demskey, but this does sound like it is about the level of political discourse in this country. How is this any different than what Comedy Central does? Sounds a bit "South Park-y" to me.

ID is not science, so they may as well make flash animations.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Dec 20 2006, 10:33 PM) [snapback]364973[/snapback]</div>

In the case of the Creationists and the Intelligent Design people, they are not even thinking of the issue in a scientific way. They view the issue as part of the "culture war", and focus on the anti-faith rants by people like Dawkins as representative of the view of science towards religion. In this respect, the Creationists are not really speaking about theological issues either; instead, they are staking out a political and social position based not on independent facts but a perceived threat from an opponent.

Of course, Dawkins has a lot of fans, mostly among the strident atheists, but in reality they only make up about 6% of the population. Most people are not hostile to faith, even if it is not their cup of tea. But Dawkins and his fans are not presenting science for science's sake; they are making philosophical arguments about the existence of God, and are operating in the philosophical realm rather than the scientific realm, in my opinion.

So on the one side you have strident Christians thinking that the strident atheists represent the mainstream, and mainstream science is merely using evolution as a club to destroy the faith of their children. And on the other you have strident atheists thinking that all faith communities are suffering from delusions, want to impose a theocracy and bring back the Inquisition.

I'm a conservative Christian that has struggled with these issues, and finally realized that its the world view we bring with us to the debate that really frames it, and not the facts before us. A little research, and getting beyond the "culture warriors" of the faithful and atheists, presented another way for me to view the issues in question. For a Christian, the question is not "creation or evolution", but merely "do the facts support evolution?" They do, as surely as the facts support any of the scientific laws. The second question for the Christian is "in light of the facts that exist, how do I view the Scriptures?"

And you come away with the historic view that dates from at least St. Augustine's time: Genesis is not to be taken literally, as it is allegory and intended to tell us about God and man, not cellular division.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Dec 21 2006, 03:10 AM) [snapback]364982[/snapback]</div>

Very well said indeed. What I find interesting is if you talk to just about any theological scholar (real ones, the ones that went to school to study), they nearly always point out that the the stories in the bible aren't necessarily to be taken as literal. In many cases they can't due to the facts that science has presented over the years.

I've always wondered why people couldn't accept evolution. God created man in a day and all that... who says God's days are 24 hours? Perhaps a day could represent millions of years and both ideas could easily coexist.

 

we have a department of theology and a divinity school here.

the divinity school has removed theology department classes from their curriculum because the ideas presented in those classes are out of line with the principles that they are trying to teach their divinity students. the department of theology is irritated that the divinity school is deviating from the scholarly study of these materials. the two entities aren't exactly on speaking terms.

says a bit, if you ask me.

 

Dembski was scheduled to be an expert witness in Kitzmiller vs. Dover. Dembski's web site had a photograph for a while of a Darwin doll with wild white hair in a large vise and he bragged he was going to "squeeze the truth out of the Darwinists." Funny thing, just prior to trial, Dembski removed himself from being an "expert" witness. Kitzmiller vs. Dover thoroughly discredited the ID folks. True to form, the ID folks are back at it trying to assert, confuse and claim their beliefs, despite being identified as lying on the Kitzmiller witness stand.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/59

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Dec 21 2006, 02:37 AM) [snapback]364980[/snapback]</div>

I understand what you are saying...but how do you account for original sin...after all wasn't that why Jesus had to die? No apple...no sin. And that seems like a pretty petty sin compared to lets say Hitler's activities.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Dec 21 2006, 12:47 PM) [snapback]365126[/snapback]</div>

Maybe re-read fshagan's post, re: "not to be taken literally."

*EDIT: unless your post was tongue in cheek. In which case I apologize.

And where is PC Hitler when we need him?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Dec 21 2006, 07:10 AM) [snapback]365067[/snapback]</div>

If the divinity school does not teach theology, then how does it differ from a secular school of philosophy? I thought that "divinity" had some linguistic root in terminology relating to god(s). And "theology" also. I also thought a divinity school trains people to be ministers. If they teach no theology they'd be suited to be Unitarian Universalist ministers, but what if they wanted to preach in a Lutheran church? Curious.

Of course, I think theology is all bunkum, and I'm all for people giving it a pass. But then I have no need for ministers either.

 

Ive got to get a picture of a cat !!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skruse @ Dec 21 2006, 11:38 AM) [snapback]365114[/snapback]</div>

He removed himself? Well, I'd say too smart to be his own idea. More like the lawyers told him "You nutjob, the other side will bring your webpages up in court and slaughter us. Step down, you nutcase. And no, you're not getting one red cent."

 

To anyone not familiar with me I believe in the Christian God and I am a creationist. Much has been said on both sides of this issue. Now without bringing religion into this is it possible to have a discussion about the science of evolution?


To begin with I would like to discuss

Dating methods.

The methods used to date fossils found in different layers of strata.

The fossil record itself

If someone familiar with these topics would care to reply I would enjoy it.

Thank You

Wildkow

p.s. Yes this will turn out to be a discussion in which some verbal lashing will take place. I'm a big boy I suspect you are either a big boy or girl also. I can take it can you? I will try to contain myself I ask and expect nothing in return. [attachmentid=5958]



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Dec 20 2006, 09:27 PM) [snapback]364954[/snapback]</div>

BTW this link led no where.

 

Oh, go have another eggnogg and watch the pretty lights, you evolutionist scrooge.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Dec 21 2006, 11:46 AM) [snapback]365259[/snapback]</div>

[attachmentid=5959] LOL! [attachmentid=5959]

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Dec 21 2006, 03:30 PM) [snapback]365245[/snapback]</div>

I'm actually in the mood for this, but I've been burned before - are you actually interested in these topics? Is there any part of your evolution/planetary history worldview that you would actually be willing to modify if presented with facts that, say, show two of your current beliefs to be completely contradictory?

Oooh, a decent test - and I'll even coat it in sugar to make it more palatable: Would you agree that Setterfield's methods were questionable and his conclusions unreliable?


(...a quick refresher (for those who weren't here for round 373427 of 263046219 - Setterfield took a large number of early speed of light estimates / calculations, and from the massively varying datapoints selected those which fit a curve that 'shows' that the speed of light has been decreasing from infinity about 6000 years ago to its current value - conveniently reaching that value and stopping just prior to our having the ability to monitor even tiny changes. For the record, using ALL the datapoints Setterfield started with results in a curve indicating an increasing speed of light. I was able to connect some of the dots and found the Flying Spaghetti Monster - it must be a miracle. RAmen.)

 

I added up the square of the angles of the sides of the pyramids, divided by GWB's IQ...and thought I'd come up with my home address.

But my calculator won't divide a number by zero.

I think that logic and faith are mutually exclusive; that's why I also believe that it's really important that each of us not impose our personal worldview on others...even though your Bible tells you that you may be in the "right" (whatever that is) to do so/Christianity is a missionary religion, etc.

 

For a theory to qualify as scientific, it must be:

• Consistent (internally and externally)
• Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
• Useful (describes, explains and predicts observable phenomena)
• Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
• Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
• Correctable and dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)
• Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
• Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

ID fails all of these criteria. This is not to discredit ID, but to point out that ID is not science, but is an act of faith. There is no credible debate to be had between science and ID, they are two different (not opposite) approaches. The need to debate lies within belief (religious) systems, not within science. Science rigorously strives to show its findings are false. We accept what we cannot otherwise disprove and we keep testing.