Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Witness: intelligent design has identified God as designer
York Daily Record ^ | 9/28/05

Posted on 09/28/2005 8:56:34 AM PDT by Crackingham

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-212 next last
To: Crackingham
As much as I feel comfortable with religion in moderation in most all public aspects, gummint included, I don't with ID in school. It is about teaching God and the bible in a school classroom. It is! And that belongs in a church.

And my question never has been answered. If ID were to be and this world were created by a higher being (which I could care less if true) are we suppose to bow down and offer allegiance to this creator?

I ask because again, if this world was created by a certain individual then it is most certainly true that that creator was created by another and much higher authority. And maybe we had better pay homage, tithes and kow tow to biggest man on the block, not to the one that created this ole measly universe.

But the Bible does say the creator of THIS world. Its so confusing, where do I put all my marbles?

So I ask, which one?
21 posted on 09/28/2005 9:47:19 AM PDT by Allen In Texas Hill Country
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JasonSC
It's nothing but a pathetic subterfuge to insert religion into science classes.

If that's the case, evolution will easily withstand this trivial challenge. If it is not, no matter how unlikely it seems to you, humanity will move one step closer to understanding. I just wonder why so many people who don't believe in God as a creative being react the way they do. It should be a whole lot easier to falsify ID than to falsify evolution.

The funny thing is that throughout human history, man has believed in a created world. Only recently has the movement away from creationism sought to explain life in purely naturalistic terms, without the influence of God. IF their theory is correct, they should be thankful to every challenge against it--as it will only make their argument stronger by defeating the challenge. The fact that folks like you respond with disdain to ID challenges shows, in my humble opinion, that you are more attached to the ramifications of evolution than you are to the science supporting it.

22 posted on 09/28/2005 9:51:22 AM PDT by DC Bound (American greatness is the result of great individuals seeking to be anything but equal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Allen In So Cal

s much as I feel comfortable with religion in moderation in most all public aspects, gummint included, I don't with ID in school. It is about teaching God and the bible in a school classroom. It is! And that belongs in a church.



You obviously don't understand ID!


23 posted on 09/28/2005 9:53:08 AM PDT by NVD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

In short, yes I do. God is the proverbial "elephant in the room" when ID is discussed.

It is entirely fair to ask questions about the nature of the designer when the designs live and operate in the material world. Any discussion of ID without a discussion about the designer is incomplete, IMHO.


24 posted on 09/28/2005 9:57:44 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dmz

My church discusses all sorts of stuff - we have nothing to be afraid of.


25 posted on 09/28/2005 9:59:57 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Allen In So Cal
It is about teaching God and the bible in a school classroom. It is! And that belongs in a church.

If you saw a science text that listed scientific reasons the universe appears to be designed, without mention to God, would you oppose it? I ask because there are a lot of scientific reasons to support ID at least as a theory. None of these reasons resort to any religious text, or seek to support any religious view. Really, all ID is about is pointing out that scientific evidence coupled with human intellect can come to a rational understanding of the universe that includes a creator. Read "Mere Creation" and tell me ID is not about science.

26 posted on 09/28/2005 10:01:00 AM PDT by DC Bound (American greatness is the result of great individuals seeking to be anything but equal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: dmz
In short, yes I do. God is the proverbial "elephant in the room" when ID is discussed.
Then the problem might be with you, not the concept. I have no need for things to be always done "my way" or to have the final word. Alternatives are simply that.

It is entirely fair to ask questions about the nature of the designer when the designs live and operate in the material world. Any discussion of ID without a discussion about the designer is incomplete, IMHO.
No it is not. Its usefulness is simply to keep the dead horse present to keep beating on.
Science routinely accepts the certainty of uncertainty and is perfectly capable of working around it. As the classic example I remind you of Schroedinger's cat.

Insistence on identifying the creator is simply the need to have a straw man.

27 posted on 09/28/2005 10:07:58 AM PDT by Publius6961 (Liberal level playing field: If the Islamics win we are their slaves..if we win they are our equals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: dmz
God is the proverbial "elephant in the room" when ID is discussed.

Atheism is the proverbial "elephant in the room" when evolution is discussed. Yet they manage to teach it without talking about atheism. ID is about science, just like evolution is about science. The theological ramifications are left for the individual to decide.

28 posted on 09/28/2005 10:10:45 AM PDT by DC Bound (American greatness is the result of great individuals seeking to be anything but equal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Nice. But I'm only bothering the ping list for one such thread per day during the trial. Maybe you can handle six active threads at once, all on the same subject, but I can't. Still, it might be good to post some of this new info into the thread that (for better or worse) I pinged to: Ex-Teacher Testifies in Evolution Case [Day 3 of trial in Dover, PA]. Or stick with this one. Life is full of these little decisions.
29 posted on 09/28/2005 10:22:06 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DC Bound
It should be a whole lot easier to falsify ID than to falsify evolution.

It should be, but that would require the ID proponents to actually develop a scientific theory with falsification criteria. The day that happens, entertainment in abundance will ensue.

30 posted on 09/28/2005 10:32:05 AM PDT by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DC Bound

If you saw a science text that listed scientific reasons the universe appears to be designed, without mention to God, would you oppose it? I ask because there are a lot of scientific reasons to support ID at least as a theory. None of these reasons resort to any religious text, or seek to support any religious view. Really, all ID is about is pointing out that scientific evidence coupled with human intellect can come to a rational understanding of the universe that includes a creator. Read "Mere Creation" and tell me ID is not about science.
_____________________________________________________________
If one wants to rationalize that this blue marble was created then I say why stop there? We might as well/better hypothisize/postulate that there was a creator of the one that created this marble. And then there is his creator too.

Whats the point or where is this leading? Who is the real God? I can't help but bring G into the discussion because the "I" in ID is referring to God.


31 posted on 09/28/2005 10:32:24 AM PDT by Allen In Texas Hill Country
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
We can't have children hearing "God" in school!

If you want a philosophy or religion class, fine by me, although I think you won't like the results of public schools getting into the religion business. But in science class?

32 posted on 09/28/2005 10:35:25 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Whatever tears one may shed, in the end one always blows one’s nose.-Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
Supporters of intelligent design argue the concept is not religious because the designer is never identified. But this morning, in the third day of testimony in a federal court case challenging the Dover school district’s inclusion of intelligent design in biology class, an expert for the plaintiffs pointed to examples where its supporters have identified the dDesigner, and the dDesigner is God.

That's better.

33 posted on 09/28/2005 10:36:43 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
Yes, in science class. The students can consider the weaknesses of the TOE and learn (I suspect most already know) that maybe the universe and all it encompasses was not just a chance, random happening. What is the harm?
34 posted on 09/28/2005 10:41:31 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland
It should be, but that would require the ID proponents to actually develop a scientific theory with falsification criteria. The day that happens, entertainment in abundance will ensue.

To falsify ID, all an evolutionist has to do is show a realistic probability that the prebiotic soup could by chance form life. This hasn't happened yet. Or they could show that irreducible complexity can be reduced. They haven't. Or that the universe isn't fine tuned for life. They haven't--unless you believe in multiple universes. Oh, that's really verifiable. There are arguments against each of the points I raise, but until there is consensus, the debate needs to go on. If neither side can point to irrefutable evidence, then neither is more than a theory, and the only thing to do is consider the preponderance of the evidence, seek more evidence, and hone the argument. Unfortunately, opponents of ID most often would prefer name calling. If you have evidence to refer me to, I'd be happy to explore it. Until then, neither evolution or ID are above debate.

35 posted on 09/28/2005 10:47:02 AM PDT by DC Bound (American greatness is the result of great individuals seeking to be anything but equal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: dmz
references to supernatural forces are not the province of science class.

Then why do we accept "dark matter" as a matter of faith? Because it's required to make the equations work?

I had a psychology prof once who announced to the class that he'd examined all the world's religions and found them lacking. I told him, "Don't worry, the shoe will be on the other foot one day..."

Science can attack religion all day long, and religion isn't allowed to defend itself?

Uh,BTW, just what is "the problem with faith" ?

36 posted on 09/28/2005 10:48:40 AM PDT by talleyman (Moose lips sink ships.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
The problem with using subterfuges to advance a political or religious viewpoint is the possibility of getting caught.

Intelligent people hate to be deceived, even if the deception is called 'intelligent' whatever.

Instead of being candid about their real motives, many of the ID proponents seemed to have fallen for cheap propaganda tricks.

I hope that's not the case, since I don't want all believers in creation to be painted with a broad brush.

37 posted on 09/28/2005 10:53:34 AM PDT by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Allen In So Cal
We might as well/better hypothisize/postulate that there was a creator of the one that created this marble. And then there is his creator too.

If there is scientific evidence for it, then it is worthy of inquiry. But I think you are deliberately avoiding the "design" part of the theory because you have a problem with the "Intelligent" part. One way or another, there is a design to living beings. It was either intelligence or chance that produced it. When science points to one or the other, it is doing so as science. There is evidence for both, and neither side's evidence is going to go away until science deals with it.

38 posted on 09/28/2005 10:54:17 AM PDT by DC Bound (American greatness is the result of great individuals seeking to be anything but equal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DC Bound
If there is scientific evidence for it, then it is worthy of inquiry. But I think you are deliberately avoiding the "design" part of the theory because you have a problem with the "Intelligent" part. One way or another, there is a design to living beings. It was either intelligence or chance that produced it. When science points to one or the other, it is doing so as science. There is evidence for both, and neither side's evidence is going to go away until science deals with it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I really, REALLY do not have a problem with the 'intelligent' part. I think it is perfectly possible that someone came along, created this marble and rudimentary life and then let Darwinism took over. Among the millions of possible scenarios that is as possible as no ID.

But on the total scale of things, the big picture, what really counts is that whether there is or is not ID is pointless. So what! Its absolutely and totally meaningless given a rational perspective of things.

Unless this discussion is for sport and each side is keeping points and the winner gets a bowl of butterscotch pudding.

It has not a feather whisper of bearing on life.

And I want chocolate pudding when we win.
39 posted on 09/28/2005 11:15:33 AM PDT by Allen In Texas Hill Country
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

When was the last time your pastor/minister/priest discussed the value of atheism? Or secular humanism? In a positive and affirming way?

I'm sure your church discusses many things, but some not in a positive way.

But you want folks devoted to science education to teach non-scientific alternatives in a positive and affirming way.


40 posted on 09/28/2005 1:00:27 PM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-212 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson