[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

I said "refuted" not "disproved". You do not have to disprove something to refute it. Especially something that has never been "proved" in the first place.

So I guess you're not going to answer the question? No surprise that you don't want to list off the creationist crackpots you admire. I'll just assume it's Dr Dino, then?

The "separation of church and state" is not some "far left" myth. It goes right back to Thomas Jefferson:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

and

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.

And it goes back to James Madison:

Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.

and

Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together;

So, you're opposed to evolution and opposed to the separation of church and state? People like you scare me. Go back to the dark ages, please, and stay there.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

How can an unproven theory, be taught as "truth"? THAT is intellectually dishonest

No, it's intellectually dishonest to keep claiming that evolution is an "unproven theory."

Electricity and atomic theory are about as "unproven" as evolution is.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

I've heard that a judge decided science fact in court, despite the fact that there are scientists with much better credentials who disagree with him. That doesn't impress me much. My aunt Sally disagrees with the Judge. See how easy it is for non-experts to chime in?

If you're going to try to argue that more biologists accept ID as science than don't... you will lose that argument.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

In order to do that, you would have to make the false assumption that all things can be answered by KNOWN science. Lot's of stuff like the origin of man simply can't be answered by known science. It may in the future, but at this time it's just as possible for the "noodely appendage" to have created man.

An equally intellectually dishonest request would be that "scientific faith needs to stay where it belongs, in the realm of science fiction". Theories are theories. They are "theories" because they have yet to be proven. I prefer to have ALL options laid out on the table and choose which has the best evidence. I prefer known science based explanations, but I'm not about to substitute either religious faith or scientific faith for something when we just don't know at this point. I give them both weight when considering the options, and then decide based on the evidence. Doing otherwise is again, intellectually dishonest. If you are studying or debating the origin of man, to be so closed minded as to reject a possible senario because of YOUR OWN religious bias isn't "science" at all. It's science as religion.

Nice answer but you totally missd the point of my post: Scientific thought and religious faith function in different intellectual frameworks. You can't have "ALL options laid out on the table and choose which has the best evidence" because religious answers to questions don't come from "evidence", they come from faith. The two realms of thought ARE separate in how they operate and wanting them to function the same way doesn't mean they can, or will, function the same way.

Or are you trying to suggest that there is religious "evidence" for how the sun works, why the sky is blue, or the fact gravity pulls downward? (If there is such "evidence", do you want it to be taught in science class as well? If so, what IS the religious "evidence" for why the sky is blue?)

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

I understand that cartoons are supposed to be funny. This one especially so, since our founding fathers (as a group) never erected any kind of "wall" of separation as they have illustrated above. The cartoon above refers to the "wall of separation" myth that the far left holds dear.

True, there were some who believed that way, but all that was agreed upon was that the "state" could not infringe on someone's right to believe how they choose.

BING! Such a thing wasn't adopted to WELL AFTER our founding fathers died. WELL AFTER.

Just the left re-writing history again.

The separation was just CONGRESS (state at the time)

It wasn't till recently did we adapt to a more BROADER term.

Certain Canadians in here really need to learn US history a bit better if they are gonna tell us how to "do it"

The Establishment Clause states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" However, the U.S. Supreme Court decided (100s of years later) that the Fourteenth Amendment (one of the Reconstruction Amendments) makes the Establishment Clause and other portions of the Bill of Rights binding on state and local governments as well

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, but rather is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, Jefferson uses the term "wall of separation between church and state" to show the Danbury Baptists that in both Connecticut and the entire United States, religious freedom is an inalienable right that government cannot take away. While Jefferson's letter is often cited by separationists to prove that the original intent of the First Amendment was complete separation of church and state, separationists either consider it irrelevant or might say that it supports the idea that the original intention of the First Amendment was to guarantee religion the freedom to exist without government influence, and say that it makes no mention of government being wholly separate from all religious activity. This is supported by Federal Government decisions on the matter, such as Supreme court Case 43 U.S. 127; 1844 U.S. LEXIS 323; 11 L. Ed. 205; 2 HOW 127, as well as Federal Government's past involvement in printing Bibles, and using the Bible as a textbook in public schools.

"seperation of church and state" as we know it today, had NOTHING to do with our founding fathers.

NOTHING.

It has been distorted and history has been re-written.

The original intentions was to protect Religion from the Gov. So the Gov couldn't tell you what to believe in.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

No, it's intellectually dishonest to keep claiming that evolution is an "unproven theory."

.

Evolution as a mean for origins of species is an unproven theory. You can stomp your feet...hold your breath....put your fingers in your ears, but that isn't going to change that.

[Kevin]

My belief is based on Science BTW

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

So I guess you're not going to answer the question? No surprise that you don't want to list off the creationist crackpots you admire. I'll just assume it's Dr Dino, then?

I'm not going to reply to your strawman, no.

The "separation of church and state" is not some "far left" myth. It goes right back to Thomas Jefferson...

Separation of church and state as a rule set up by our founding fathers IS a myth. It's no myth, as I've already conceded, that a few of our founding fathers wished for it to be this way. They couldn't get all those other guys who ratified the Constitution to agree, so they had to settle on what's there now.

So, you're opposed to evolution and

Actually, no. I think right now, it's probably one of the "best guesses" to explain how things have developed. What I"m opposed to is the intellectually dishonest attempts by those who don't believe in a higher power to censor the possibility that one does exist in order to support their forgone conclusions and falsely attempt to portray the debate as over and decided as fact.

opposed to the separation of church and state?

Yes, as that term is currently used, same as MOST of the other founding fathers. I have nothing against prohibitions against the federal government from declaring an official religion or in acting to give preferential treatment to one religion over another, and to keep them from meddling in religious affairs as our founding fathers intended. I do oppose the idea that the first amendment was ever intended to shield non-religious people from religious ideas or exposure via the free expression of said idea in areas controlled by the state. It's clear that wasn't something that a majority believed. In fact, more believed that government/religious interaction should simply be a matter for the states.

People like you scare me. Go back to the dark ages, please, and stay there.

Dark ages? Our Constitution was only written a couple of hundred years ago. Surely you don't think our founding fathers were that backward, do you?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Nice answer but you totally missd the point of my post: Scientific thought and religious faith function in different intellectual frameworks. You can't have "ALL options laid out on the table and choose which has the best evidence" because religious answers to questions don't come from "evidence", they come from faith."

...as does the idea that all these other loosely, possibly not interconnected pieces of "evidence" shows that man evolved from simpler life.

A creationist can put together a string of possibly circumstantial evidence to convince themselves that there is a higher power, same as evolutionists can do about the origin of man. Both rely on faith that their observations are more than just circumstantial in order for their beliefs to be true. While it may be harder to show that a creationist's "evidence" directly proves the existence of a higher power, it is an attempt to provide answers for why things we observe in the natural world occur. That's what science is all about.

The two realms of thought ARE separate in how they operate and wanting them to function the same way doesn't mean they can, or will, function the same way.

Your opinion is noted.

Or are you trying to suggest that there is religious "evidence" for how the sun works, why the sky is blue, or the fact gravity pulls downward? (If there is such "evidence", do you want it to be taught in science class as well? If so, what IS the religious "evidence" for why the sky is blue?)

Wether I believe it or not, I believe that religious people can provide evidence of a higher power. It might well be all circumstantial, just as all the observations regarding evolution as an answer to the "origin of man" question may be circumstantial. I'm simply not going to engage in the intellectually dishonest goal to put one form of faith over another.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

I've never heard of people teaching that the folds on one's index finger are gills. In fact, I've never heard of that at all. It's definitely not accurate for you to imply that all high-school teachers do this.

My implication is that many are taught that the flexionic folds we find in fetal development are recapitulated development from aquatic ancestory. The folds are not slits at all and have absolutely no respiratory function whatsoever, but the myth remains. The folds they discuss are no different than the folds of your index finger. My apologies if the implication were that all highschool teachers teach this antiquated nonsense. I'm not aware if they all do, I'm only aware that a few do.

And if they did, that still wouldn't be justification for teaching other non-science in a science classroom. It would just mean that the biology curriculum needed to be more accurate.

Which is all I'm trying to say. I'm not asking that Creationism or ID be taught in the public school system. (I believe this is the fourth or fifth time I've mentioned this now) Can you drop this piece of the argument when addressing me? It makes me believe you've forgotten who you're talking to.

Okay then, what were you trying to say by "antiquated nonsense" if not that?

We could start with his crude graphic example of a phylogenetic tree, or maybe his lack of knowledge on the complexity of a cell.

Yeah, but most quotes from Einstein would presumably be quoted from some other source that was written/said while he was alive. Right now we have nothing here but a book supposedly written after he was dead.

So far as I have nothing yet to refute you, I concede. I am however, still looking and it would be fair to give me some time.

In other words, if the book does happen to have this quote (which would surprise me), then I would like to know where they got it from. Check the bibliography.

I plan to do this, but from a balcony view. i.e. I've not blogged this, I've not provided this in a formal internet environment, but will let those who have affirm it. I've dug up two more sources that I'm going to flesh out.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Yes, as that term is currently used, same as MOST of the other founding fathers. I have nothing against prohibitions against the federal government from declaring an official religion or in acting to give preferential treatment to one religion over another, and to keep them from meddling in religious affairs as our founding fathers intended. I do oppose the idea that the first amendment was ever intended to shield non-religious people from religious ideas or exposure via the free expression of said idea in areas controlled by the state.

That's not what's under discussion here. This thread isn't about whether you should be able to talk about religious ideas in schools, it's about whether science classes should teach religion. I would definitely say the First Amendment doesn't allow the government to preach.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

That's not what's under discussion here. This thread isn't about whether you should be able to talk about religious ideas in schools, it's about whether science classes should teach religion. I would definitely say the First Amendment doesn't allow the government to preach.

What happens when 'religion' provides the most plausible answer to scientific questions?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

.

Evolution as a mean for origins of species is an unproven theory. You can stomp your feet...hold your breath....put your fingers in your ears, but that isn't going to change that.

No, it's not. Go look up what a scientific theory is. Actually, you don't have to, because I already posted a lengthy definition twice in this thread, so you can go read that. But if you don't want to take my word for it, then that's fine. Go read a science book. Read the opening chapter that explains what hypothesis and theory are. A hypothesis is unproven by definition. A theory is not, no matter how much you'd like it to be that way. If evolution needs to be ignored due to being a theory, then so do gravity, electricity, atoms, quantum mechanics, relativity, astronomy, the motions of the planets, the roundness of the Earth, and everything else in science, which is all theory, and then we have to go back to the Stone Age. Oog!

Scientists have even observed the creation of new species right before their eyes. How much more "proven" than that do you need to get?!

I think I'm going to leave this thread again - it had the potential for some relatively interesting discussion, and then a bunch of people left when the timestamps got all messed up and now it's just creation-bots again who have evidently not yet evolved the ability of reading comprehension.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

What happens when 'religion' provides the most plausible answer to scientific questions?

Religion will never provide a more plausible scientific explanation than, you know, science. It's impossible by definition.

[Kevin]

Again my belief is based on science.

Biogenesis is Science. And it's a proven tested theory.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

What happens when 'religion' provides the most plausible answer to scientific questions?

Religion used to provide answers to things that are beyond average persons' understanding. Unfortunately experts must decide which explanation is more plausible and religious leaders are rarely qualified to answer scientific questions. Creationism and its twin paradox ID just want to attribute anything they deem beyond our comprehension as a manifestation of God's plan for life on earth.

I'm not sure why faith is threatened by scientific progress, but then again I don't have to understand everything.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Religion will never provide a more plausible scientific explanation than, you know, science. It's impossible by definition.

I never said scientific explanation.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Kevin

My belief is based on Science BTW

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis

Okay, I really should just leave and let this run its own course, but you always post this, and I can't help it. I'll bite.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Biogenesis is the process of lifeforms producing other lifeforms, e.g. a spider lays eggs, which form into spiders.

Um... so does someone not believe that this occurs or something? Given that we see it happen every day, you'd have to have your head stuck pretty far up your nether regions to deny that. What's your point?

[Gossamer]

Would someone go so far to say that everything that can be known can be explained/proven by science?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

I never said scientific explanation.

Science is the only thing relevant to a science class — and we have no useful standard other than logic and reason by which to judge plausibility anyway, so it doesn't matter whether or not you specified it.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

Would someone go so far to say that everything that can be known can be explained/proven by science?

No, there has been extensive scientific work in this field
There are limits to what we can know. For example, if two theories predict the same result (which is verified by experiment), there is no way to decide which is the `right' theory.

Science can never provide us with a `reason', just help to explain and understand the mechanism. Science cannot answer who we are or give meaning to our lives. This is what faith is for. On the other hand, religion used to give answers scientific questions until better scientific models became available. The Ptolomeic world view of the solar system was in direct contradiction to the (Catholic) church's `official' explanation (epicycles). My point is not that it's part of Christianity's mission to explain science, but rather that Churches used to be an authority in what is scientifically correct and what is not.

Creationism and ID are an attempt to do just that: discredit scientific progress when it contradicts their world view. It's also not about creating a theory which is scientifically as sound as evolution, but rather to put their center of faith in the center of science. Eventually it's an attempt to approximate physics of large systems anyway

[Y3a]

all the Boi-sciences have large parts of them that rests with theory, and assumpion. This is true with psycology and psyciatric 'sciences' too.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

What happens when 'religion' provides the most plausible answer to scientific questions?

Saying "God did it" isn't a plausible answer to any unanswered scientific question. You can't prove that a god did anything, and of course, you can't prove that he didn't do anything, but the latter doesn't necessarily negate the former, so keep that in mind.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

That's not what's under discussion here. This thread isn't about whether you should be able to talk about religious ideas in schools, it's about whether science classes should teach religion. I would definitely say the First Amendment doesn't allow the government to preach.

AND Gossamer smartly asked....

Originally Posted by Gossamer

What happens when 'religion' provides the most plausible answer to scientific questions?

The flaw in the "religion in science" argument is the false assumption that believing that there may be an intelligent power, force or entity requires a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader, which is what "religion" typically is categorized as.

It's no more "religion" to believe in such a higher power than it was for early scientist to note that radiative metals seemed to give off some sort of invisible, powerful unexplained energy. Theorizing that there is some intelligent force at work, which might in no way be a "God" as it's been typically worshipped by churches and religion, is quite appropriate for science and does not require the teaching of "religion". Attempting to censor those who would like to research and learn about those possibilities is what is REALLY scary!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Creationism and ID are an attempt to do just that: discredit scientific progress when it contradicts their world view. It's also not about creating a theory which is scientifically as sound as evolution, but rather to put their center of faith in the center of science. Eventually it's an attempt to approximate physics of large systems anyway

ID attempts to explain how a higher power and ideas like evolution could both work as mechanisms for the design of our species as it is today. The false assumption that either of the theories you mentioned are designed specifically to discredit unproven scientific theories is simply off-base. Creationism was around well before scientists theorized that the origin of the species may have been caused by evolution. The funny thing is, the opposite is quite possibly true (at least as espoused by some) and these "scientific" ideas are attempts to discredit religious views by people who have personal religious bias.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Read the opening chapter that explains what hypothesis and theory are. A hypothesis is unproven by definition. A theory is not, no matter how much you'd like it to be that way.

Forgive me. Based on your definitions I apparently should be stating that teaching the hypothesis that the origin of the species was caused by evolution is unproven, same as the hypothesis that some higher intelligent power, enitity or energy source had influence in such a thing. Currently, schools teach one hypothesis and not the other.

[Chuckit]

Evolution is a proven theory, not an untested hypothesis.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

The flaw in the "religion in science" argument is the false assumption that believing that there may be an intelligent power, force or entity requires a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader, which is what "religion" typically is categorized as.

Right

It's no more "religion" to believe in such a higher power than it was for early scientist to note that radiative metals seemed to give off some sort of invisible, powerful unexplained energy.

Wrong. See the part where you said there was an "unexplained" energy? The origin of species is explained. Before Darwin, it wasn't explained, and at that time your comparison would have been perfectly valid.

Theorizing that there is some intelligent force at work, which might in no way be a "God" as it's been typically worshipped by churches and religion, is quite appropriate for science and does not require the teaching of "religion".

Wrong. Hypothesizing such would be appropriate, but theorizing requires empirical evidence, and there is none for intelligent designers (yet?).

Attempting to censor those who would like to research and learn about those possibilities is what is REALLY scary!

No one is censoring those who would like to research those possibilities. If you want to gather evidence for them, I fully support you. The only people who are being censored are those that try to claim that those possibilities are already scientific theories, supported by evidence (which is what scientific theories are). In other words, liars.

The false assumption that either of the theories you mentioned are designed specifically to discredit unproven scientific theories is simply off-base.

Wrong. In fact those assumptions are proven and documented in the Wedge Stragety.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

No, there has been extensive scientific work in this field
There are limits to what we can know. For example, if two theories predict the same result (which is verified by experiment), there is no way to decide which is the `right' theory.

Science can never provide us with a `reason', just help to explain and understand the mechanism. Science cannot answer who we are or give meaning to our lives. This is what faith is for. On the other hand, religion used to give answers scientific questions until better scientific models became available. The Ptolomeic world view of the solar system was in direct contradiction to the (Catholic) church's `official' explanation (epicycles). My point is not that it's part of Christianity's mission to explain science, but rather that Churches used to be an authority in what is scientifically correct and what is not.

Creationism and ID are an attempt to do just that: discredit scientific progress when it contradicts their world view. It's also not about creating a theory which is scientifically as sound as evolution, but rather to put their center of faith in the center of science. Eventually it's an attempt to approximate physics of large systems anyway

Somebody's done their research!

I think it would follow that a purely materialistic world view is one devoid of purpose. I've heard some say that an Atheist's biggest question should be whether or not to kill him/herself, (this was not said to be rude, demeaning, or for shock value, but an honest conclusion from a lack of purpose in life.)

[lpkmckenna]

Time to demonstrate how deceitful IDiotic tactics have been on this board:

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Non-intelligently designed evolution as a means for the origin of the species HAS been refuted (whether you or a judge are persuaded or not) and yet is still taught. Again, you're confusing proven fact with unproven theory.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Refuted? By whom: Dr Dino? Really, I'd love to hear about the genius who disproved the theory of evolution. Really, I wanna know.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

I said "refuted" not "disproved". You do not have to disprove something to refute it. Especially something that has never been "proved" in the first place.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

So I guess you're not going to answer the question? No surprise that you don't want to list off the creationist crackpots you admire. I'll just assume it's Dr Dino, then?

Originally Posted by stupendousman

I'm not going to reply to your strawman, no.

There's no "strawman" here. Stupendousman is a coward. He claims someone has definitively "refuted" the theory of evolution, but won't say who. He won't say who, because he doesn't want to reveal the names of the crackpots he admires.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

What I"m opposed to is the intellectually dishonest attempts by those who don't believe in a higher power to censor the possibility that one does exist in order to support their forgone conclusions and falsely attempt to portray the debate as over and decided as fact.

That's twice you've falsely claimed that ID is being "censored." No one is censoring the IDiots. They are free to publish anything they want. What they are not free to do is bypass the scientific process in order to stuff their ideas into schools.

This is how new scientific theories find their way into school textbooks:



This is how IDiots want to stuff their "hypothesis" into school textbooks:



Scientific theories won't get anywhere near school textbooks without scientific consensus. Period. (Thanks to Ken Miller for the slides.)

Ken Miller has fundamentally refuted, disproved, and humiliated ID for the world to see: in this book, in this presentation , in court, and in the many, many essays at his website. I don't know what the is wrong with all the IDiots on this board.

Actually, I do know: fundamentalism.

This is how fundamentalists see evolution:

[lpkmckenna]

Look at this ridiculous picture:



Dinosaurs and giraffes co-existing?

[lpkmckenna]

How can you debate with someone who believes this?


or this:

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

I think it would follow that a purely materialistic world view is one devoid of purpose. I've heard some say that an Atheist's biggest question should be whether or not to kill him/herself, (this was not said to be rude, demeaning, or for shock value, but an honest conclusion from a lack of purpose in life.)

Well as long as we're grossly off topic, I can just as easily ask why wouldn't a Christian kill him/herself? After all, the crux of Christian dogma seems to be that life sucks, but it'll be better in heaven after you die. And then you're got all of these strict rules you have to follow that make life suck even more...

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

I think it would follow that a purely materialistic world view is one devoid of purpose.

Of course you think that. I don't see why deriving your purpose from an old book makes your life more full of purpose than anything else.

Originally Posted by Gossamer

I've heard some say that an Atheist's biggest question should be whether or not to kill him/herself, (this was not said to be rude, demeaning, or for shock value, but an honest conclusion from a lack of purpose in life.)

You're close to right, but your assumption takes you to the wrong conclusion. The question isn't whether I should kill myself, but why I should or should not kill myself. And the answer to this question is a purpose to your life.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

This is how fundamentalists see evolution:

Are they seriously claiming that racism is a result of humanism? Do these people have giant, gaping holes in their heads?

[lpkmckenna]

Excellent op-ed by Ken Miller in The Philadephia Inquirer.

An idea that provoked, but didn't deliver
Kenneth R. Miller

Posted on Sun, Dec. 25, 2005
(Kenneth R. Miller is a professor of biology at Brown University and was the first witness in the Dover intelligent-design trial)

If there is such a thing as home-field advantage in a courtroom, intelligent design should have carried the day in the Dover evolution trial.

Advocates of ID had the support of the local school board, a case presented by experienced lawyers from the Thomas More Legal Foundation, expert witnesses with scientific credentials, and a conservative judge appointed by President George W. Bush. That judge gave them all the time they wanted to lay out the scientific case for ID. And lay it out they did.

But that was exactly the problem.

In the harsh light of the courtroom, ID shriveled and died. As Judge John E. Jones 3d noted in his opinion, he was forced to come to "the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science." After six weeks of watching from the bench as ID's pseudoscientific arguments fell apart, as it advocates admitted they had no positive evidence for "design," and as school board members "testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath," it was clear that the judge had seen enough.

He slammed the Dover school board's "breathtaking inanity," and he enjoined the board from making ID a part of its curriculum at any time in the future. Jones' devastating opinion is written in clear and accessible language and should be required reading for every administrator, school board member, and science educator in the United States.

So, exposed, discredited and defeated, ID is finished as an anti-evolution movement, right? I wouldn't count on it.

As the Dover trial showed, ID is nothing more than old-fashioned creationism, distinguished only by its advocates' willingness to be disingenuous about its origins, motivations and goals. But that does little to detract from its appeal. Advocates of ID, such as Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.), oppose evolution not because of its scientific flaws, but because they see it as a cultural and moral threat.

In an Aug. 4 interview on National Public Radio, Santorum stated that "if we are the result of chance, if we're simply a mistake of nature, then that puts a different moral demand on us. In fact, it doesn't put a moral demand on us - than if in fact we are a creation of a being that has moral demands." In other words, the problem with evolution, in his view, is that it invalidates morality because it does away with God.

Santorum, of course, has recently retracted his support of those involved in the Dover case. But his principled opposition to evolution remains.

That kind of visceral opposition isn't going to respond to scientific evidence, and it certainly isn't going to be affected by a judge's ruling - even from a judge whom the senator himself supported for the bench.

Nationwide, ID is on the march, and Dover notwithstanding, it's winning. The ID movement has rewritten science-education standards in Kansas, gained the support of legislators in more than a dozen states, and regularly pressures teachers, administrators and textbook publishers to weaken the coverage of evolution. Dover represents a substantial victory for science, but the greater war goes on. And, like many wars, this one results from a profound misunderstanding.

The great fiction that powers the ID movement is that evolution is inherently antireligious. By emphasizing the material nature of evolutionary science, ID advocates are convinced that they can force their antiscience ideas into the classroom in the name of balance and fairness. Once there, they are convinced, students in a society as religious as the United States will surely turn their backs on mainstream science, embracing ID and strengthening their faith in God. Any harm in that?

Why, none at all, if we are prepared to abdicate world leadership by raising a generation of young people so mistrustful of science that they turn their backs on the scientific community and abandon science as a way of knowing about the world and improving the human condition.

A deeper understanding of Western religion in general, and the Christian message in particular, would end this war and blunt the attempts of the anti-evolution movement to divide Americans along cultural lines. As conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote last month, "How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein?" What indeed? For just as Darwin said, there is "grandeur in this view of life," and a deeper understanding of the ways in which "endless forms most wonderful and most beautiful have been and are being evolved" can only deepen our faith and enhance our respect for the unity of scientific and spiritual knowledge.

On this Christmas season, I thank the Lord for the wonderful people of Dover who fought for this decision, and I hope the good news of its wisdom will spread throughout the land.

Kenneth R. Miller (Kenneth_Miller@ Brown.edu) is co-author with Joseph S. Levine of "Biology," the biology textbook now used in Dover High School. He has also written "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution."

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Well as long as we're grossly off topic, I can just as easily ask why wouldn't a Christian kill him/herself? After all, the crux of Christian dogma seems to be that life sucks, but it'll be better in heaven after you die. And then you're got all of these strict rules you have to follow that make life suck even more...

God has us on the earth to bring glory to him. Suicide is a very selfish act and in no way brings glory to him.
And anyone that sees Christianity as a set of rules has a wrong view of it. A true understanding of scripture shows how freeing it really is not to live for the world. Life does not suck for me.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Of course you think that. I don't see why deriving your purpose from an old book makes your life more full of purpose than anything else.
You're close to right, but your assumption takes you to the wrong conclusion. The question isn't whether I should kill myself, but why I should or should not kill myself. And the answer to this question is a purpose to your life.

But how can you have purpose from a completely materialistic worldview?

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

But how can you have purpose from a completely materialistic worldview?

I'd say living to enjoy life, materialistic or not, is a purpose to living, and not limited to being a spiritual purpose. I'm an athiest, and I guess by your logic I'm also materialistic, but I live to enjoy life and the people around me. Is that supposed to be impossible as an atheist or something?

Personally, I think that this earth exists from such chance random events, and subsequently everything that exists on this earth, god or no god, gives me far more purpose than some all powerful being that decided to flip a switch which subsequently caused the earth to pop into existence. Having faith in something with a questionable existence isn't a prerequisite to feeling that you have a purpose in life.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear

I'd say living to enjoy life, materialistic or not, is a purpose to living, and not limited to being a spiritual purpose. I'm an athiest, and I guess by your logic I'm also materialistic, but I live to enjoy life and the people around me. Is that supposed to be impossible as an atheist or something?

Personally, I think that this earth exists from such chance random events, and subsequently everything that exists on this earth, god or no god, gives me far more purpose than some all powerful being that decided to flip a switch which subsequently caused the earth to pop into existence. Having faith in something with a questionable existence isn't a prerequisite to feeling that you have a purpose in life.

What exactly is 'enjoying life?'

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

What happens when 'religion' provides the most plausible answer to scientific questions?

Please explain your religious answer for why the sky is blue or why the sun burns? Thanks!

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

What exactly is 'enjoying life?'

...

Do you actually expect me to define that?

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

God has us on the earth to bring glory to him. Suicide is a very selfish act and in no way brings glory to him.
And anyone that sees Christianity as a set of rules has a wrong view of it. A true understanding of scripture shows how freeing it really is not to live for the world. Life does not suck for me.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

What exactly is 'enjoying life?'

What's next: ask what the meaning of "is" is?

Originally Posted by Gossamer

God has us on the earth to bring glory to him.

I love this "non-statement." If God is omnipotent, he doesn't need us to obtain "glory," or anything else.

Originally Posted by Gossamer

Suicide is a very selfish act and in no way brings glory to him.

I love how "Christianity" sweeps aside all current psychological knowledge and holds to such discredited ideas surrounding suicide.

Of course, in a thread filled with people who sweep aside the work of geology, biology, astronomy, and physics, why should psychology and psychiatry escape unscathed?

Suicide is the result of 1) mental illness, or 2) a reaction to physical suffering. It is not a moral failing so much as a medical problem. People feeling suicidal need a doctor, not a lecture.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

But how can you have purpose from a completely materialistic worldview?

How can you have purpose from any other worldview?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

What exactly is 'enjoying life?'

Here are a few ways I enjoy my atheistic life.

• Getting up in the morning on a nice Spring day to watch the sun rise.
• The smell of the woods on a late Autumn day.
• Doing absolutely anything with my two-year-old niece and enjoying her pleasure in discovering the world around her.
• Watching a great film like Casablanca or seeing a well-acted theatrical performance of a Shakespearean play (or almost any play for that matter).
• Sitting on the couch with my cat curled up next to me [What I am doing right now].

As I think of more I will add them to the list. Any other un-godly types on the board, feel free to amend my list with your own additions.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Here are a few ways I enjoy my atheistic life.

• Getting up in the morning on a nice Spring day to watch the sun rise.
• The smell of the woods on a late Autumn day.
• Doing absolutely anything with my two-year-old niece and enjoying her pleasure in discovering the world around her.
• Watching a great film like Casablanca or seeing a well-acted theatrical performance of a Shakespearean play (or almost any play for that matter).
• Sitting on the couch with my cat curled up next to me [What I am doing right now].

As I think of more I will add them to the list. Any other un-godly types on the board, feel free to amend my list with your own additions.

I had no intention of answering his question, but this is good. I'll add two for you.

Spending time with one's family.
Playing a game of catch with the dog.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

I love how "Christianity" sweeps aside all current psychological knowledge and holds to such discredited ideas surrounding suicide.

In suicide, one puts one's own feelings as most important and deems that the only possible solution for the current situation is to end it, regardless of how it will affect family members, neighbors, friends, etc.
Please explain how 'all current psychological knowledge' disagrees with this.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

In suicide, one puts one's own feelings as most important and deems that the only possible solution for the current situation is to end it, regardless of how it will affect family members, neighbors, friends, etc.
Please explain how 'all current psychological knowledge' disagrees with this.

You are completely misinformed. Suicidal people aren't "putting their own feelings first." You make it sound like they are choosing to feel suicidal. They aren't.

People who are trained in suicide prevention all say the same thing: don't preach to suicidal people. Being judgmental is the opposite of being supportive.

People who are suicidal are not thinking rationally. Their emotions and thought processes are already distorted. They already feel immense guilt, and piling more guilt onto them will have a detrimental effect.

from http://www.save.org/

Why do people kill themselves?

The simple answer is: because they’re very sick. Healthy people do not commit suicide. More than 90% of people who commit suicide suffered from a significant psychiatric illness at their time of death. It may seem simplistic, but it's the most honest and basic answer to a complex question. Education and frank discussion are simple ways to help reduce the stigma that prevents a depressed person from seeking the help he needs.

from American Association of Suicidology:

Here are some ways to be helpful to someone who is threatening suicide:

Be direct. Talk openly and matter-of-factly about suicide.
Be willing to listen. Allow expressions of feelings. Accept the feelings.
Be non-judgmental. Don’t debate whether suicide is right or wrong, or whether feelings are good or bad. Don’t lecture on the value of life.
Get involved. Become available. Show interest and support.
Don’t dare him or her to do it.
Don’t act shocked. This will put distance between you.
Don’t be sworn to secrecy. Seek support.
Offer hope that alternatives are available but do not offer glib reassurance.
Take action. Remove means, such as guns or stockpiled pills.
Get help from persons or agencies specializing in crisis intervention and suicide prevention.

from National Institute of Mental Health

What should you do if someone tells you they are thinking about suicide?

If someone tells you they are thinking about suicide, you should take their distress seriously, listen nonjudgmentally, and help them get to a professional for evaluation and treatment. People consider suicide when they are hopeless and unable to see alternative solutions to problems. Suicidal behavior is most often related to a mental disorder (depression) or to alcohol or other substance abuse. Suicidal behavior is also more likely to occur when people experience stressful events (major losses, incarceration). If someone is in imminent danger of harming himself or herself, do not leave the person alone. You may need to take emergency steps to get help, such as calling 911. When someone is in a suicidal crisis, it is important to limit access to firearms or other lethal means of committing suicide.

from http://www.metanoia.org/suicide/whattodo.htm :

Suicide prevention is not a last minute activity. All textbooks on depression say it should be reached as soon as possible. Unfortunately, suicidal people are afraid that trying to get help may bring them more pain: being told they are stupid, foolish, sinful, or manipulative; rejection; punishment; suspension from school or job; written records of their condition; or involuntary commitment. You need to do everything you can to reduce pain, rather than increase or prolong it. Constructively involving yourself on the side of life as early as possible will reduce the risk of suicide.

EDIT: forgot this:

from Canadian Mental Health Association:

Admit your own concern and fear if the person tells you that he/she is thinking about suicide but do not react by saying, 'You shouldn't be having these thoughts; things can't be that bad." Remember, you are being trusted with someone's deepest feelings. Although it may upset you, talking about those feeling will bring the person relief.

[UNTeMac]

To get back on topic. I second the notion that certain parts of this thread be made sticky so we don't keep going over and over them. Since I've been up reading it...I'll summarize the prongs of why Intelligent Design is not science according to the Dover decision:

I. Intelligent design requires an expansion of the centuries-old definition of science to include "non-natural" explanations for its main tenant; a designer. No ID proponent has ever proposed that the designer is a natural phenomenon but rather that, by definition, the designer is supernatural.

This expansion of the definition of science would require scientists to consider astrology, magic, and other supernatural concepts legitimate ways of explaining the natural world.

II. No major scientific world organization considers ID true science because proponents of ID have provided no testable method for validating their claims. This prevents the scientific method from taking place, from introduction to research to peer-review to acceptance. ID proponents would rather skip this process and simply be accepted through the political process.

III. Intelligent Design is presented in a "false-dichotomy" in that it postulates evolutionary theory as untrue so ID is confirmed. No evidence is provided as to ID's actual validity.

This is best framed by ID's argument of "irreducible complexity" whereby the current forms we observe in organisms cannot be reduced to their componet parts and still function is a negative argument against evolution and not a positive one for ID. Furthermore, this concept has been repeatedely disproven by careful observation of available evidence.

IV. The core analogy that makes up the positive argument for intelligent design is that the parts of a given organism represent a purposeful placement and therefore must have been designed much like we as human beings design various devices to serve our purposes. However, the only commonality between these two ideas is the complexity of the object in question.
In human artifacts, we recognize both the nature and intent behind the designer whereas in living organisms, we can only speculate given that the designer is supernatural. Just because something is complex does not mean you may, without evidence, infer a designer.


I hope those who still support ID will read my summary carefully or perhaps even read the entire Dover decision as I have. Only then, come back with discussion becuase that court so completeley covered the current issues in this debate that to go over them again and again is fruitless.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Um... so does someone not believe that this occurs or something? Given that we see it happen every day, you'd have to have your head stuck pretty far up your nether regions to deny that. What's your point?

It takes a living being to create another living being according to Biogenesis.

In order for that to be true, there has to be a living being from the start right? Well what created that being?

You say anyone but an idiot would deny biogenesis. But in order for it to be true, there has to be a life that always was.

Science is simply a study of God's work IMHO. I don't believe evolution disproves creationism. It doesn't go against it.

They aren't with odds with each other.

That is usually why one doesn't see me arguing in Creationism vs Evolution threads.

I think both sides have the same idea basically.

I just came in here to clear up the whole "Separation of Church and State" history revisions being done in the thread. AKA lpk trying to project recent liberal ideals onto our founding fathers.