Intelligent Design Legit or No

[Kmack]

A lot of attention is being paid recently to the idea of intelligent design (concept where some sort of higher being must have been involved in the course of life on Earth), do you think that it is a legitimate theory whose supporters genuinly feel is a valid teaching tool to give our children before they head into a global marketplace? or do you think that it is simply a last ditch effort to shove God into our public schools, a last desperate gasp from the christians to poison the minds of our youth because they see that they are losing the overall battle?

as you can tell I think it is the latter.

[The Mullinator]

Considering you need "scientists" to make something into a "science" and scientists almost unanamously say that Intelligent design isn't a "science" then I have to say that you can't force it into becomming a legitimate theory.

A lot of people will often say that evolution is only a theory and therefor can't be accepted. However there is something I read in a national geographic article on this very subject that I have to say really got to me.

This isn't an exact quote since I don't have the magazine with me but it goes something like this:
"Evolution may only be a theory, however the idea that the earth revolves around the sun is also only a theory."

[MuToiD_MaN]

It's more of a cop-out than anything else. Though I have to say -- at least IDers are more sane than young-world creationists, claiming that man existed at the same time as dinosaurs, denying the evidence of light from stars billions of light-years away, and throwing fossil carbon dating (and dating with other isotopes) out the window.

I mean, come on people. Anything involving the use of the term "half-life" deserves more credit than that, am I right?

[Ikerous]

claiming that man existed at the same time as dinosaurs, denying the evidence of light from stars billions of light-years away, and throwing fossil carbon dating (and dating with other isotopes) out the window.
I fail to see where they're wrong ^_^

[clarky003]

its odd to speculate about what created our universe.. thats where ID theories have their roots, evolution is an observation of a process which can be acredited to, but what drives evolution... It's clear to see that there is some kind of adaptive base program in the universe.

Saying god created it isnt really helpful, its not objective to understanding a process so it's irrelevant to science, and irrelevant to physical application, so for that reason ID shouldnt be in science.

However science is venturing to the boundaries of the quantum realm, understanding that there are virtual element's at the heart of the processes that keep matter 'working' if you will. They cant be seen, but can be detected through observation of the effects they produce... therefore logically there is somthing there, totally invisible.. interfacing with our physical universe.

The only time Science will be able to truely address the source at a deeper understanding is when we discover a working unified field theory, and as can be seen there is too much contradiction between present theories to allow that. Our science is not sufficient enough to either deny or accept ID theories, because in mainstream it hasnt reached that level of understanding, when it does thats when it will truely matter, because then we have some solid evidence on roughly what is creating our universe.

[Angry Lawyer]

No to ID and Creationism. Yes to God.

-Angry Lawyer

[kirovman]

Damn i read that as natural selection for some reason (I'm crazy!) and voted yes. Change that to a no.

I however think it should be taught (in Religious Education, NOT science class). But people should be aware the theory exists.

There was something in New Scientist discreditting Intelligent Design recently.

[Angry Lawyer]

There was something in New Scientist discreditting Intelligent Design recently.

They do it in most issues, its a good read. And then you've got the awesome pages at the back when they discredit pseudoscience in humorous ways.

-Angry Lawyer

[kirovman]

They do it in most issues, its a good read. And then you've got the awesome pages at the back when they discredit pseudoscience in humorous ways.

-Angry Lawyer

Sounds like what I like best. I should probably join the patent office.

[Raziaar]

Its really parents who should teach their kids about religion, not schools. Unless I guess they are religious instituted schools(which I would never like to go to). I never learned about religion in schools, and instead learned it from my parents, and I think thats the way it should be. Religion should be taught in schools, but only about the history of the religions and how they pertain to history, not their actual beliefs. I mean, you can talk about the history of christianity or buddhism or islam, etc etc, and go into the facts of how they believe in god, and perhaps how he created the universe, but don't tout it as fact. Let the kids decide for themselves.

Religion has a place in school only as far as the fact that its a very interesting and vital subject about history over time, as religion has played a huge role in history.

[gh0st]

no, its religion masked as science. religion doesnt belong in public schools. that said, i think students should be taught all applicable theories of evolution/creation etc.

[Ennui]

Intelligent design is utter and complete bullshit. It's not even a disguised way to talk about creationism. It's got absolutely no grounds and shouldn't be treated as a scientific theory any more than flying spaghetti monsterism. I shit more believable things out of my ass than intelligent design and they're easier to offer evidence for as well.

[Absinthe]

I shit more believable things out of my ass than intelligent design and they're easier to offer evidence for as well.

Well, the brown floating log is visible. You can smell it, you can see it interacting with the water, and you could taste it if you wanted to.

If you shat out some kind of metaphysical dookie, then there's a problem...

BTW I voted no.

[jonbob]

At the end of a day, a scientific theory must be falsifiable: one must be able to prove it wrong given good evidence. Evolution is science because concievably I could prove it wrong if I somehow discovered an extraterrestrial race that have been tinkering for the past few billion years.

ID cannot be proven or discredited; every piece of evidence found which contradicts it can be put down as being put there by The Designer to confound or test the observer. It's the theoretical equivalent of a parent no, 'because I say so.'

[Raeven0]

...In the minority again...

[Absinthe]

...In the minority again...

Make a switch to the winning team. ;)

[MuToiD_MaN]

...In the minority again...
Eh, what can you expect from the members of a gaming community.

[Mechagodzilla]

This wikipedia article sums up scientific opinion on everything wrong with ID.

It's like my new favorite site. :D

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

[Angry Lawyer]

Subscribe to New Scientist. They regularly pwn ID.

-Angry Lawyer

[qckbeam]

Subscribe to New Scientist. They regularly pwn ID.

-Angry Lawyer

Oh yesh....oh yesh!

[Solaris]

New Scientist = Nerd Pr0n

[Angry Lawyer]

New Scientist = Nerd Pr0n

Lies. I read it, and I get plenty of sechs.

-Angry Lawyer

[kirovman]

Lies. I read it, and I get plenty of sechs.


Seconded. :D

[Mechagodzilla]

Wait, there is trouble with the poll.

IDers already have the right to 'teach' it in public.
The question is whether it's valid enough to end up in secular schools.

[diluted]

"Intelligent design" has every right to be taught... in a theology class. It's not science and never will be, thus has no right to be taught in a science class.

[Solaris]

Lies. I read it, and I get plenty of sechs.

-Angry Lawyer
OHHH STRING THEORY, HARDER!!! HARDER!!! uhhhhhhhhhhh.

[Angry Lawyer]

OHH! POLITICS FORUM! HOW I LOVE IGNORING EVERYONE ELSE'S IDEAS AND JUST PUMPING OUT BULLSHIT ABOUT ALL PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN GOD BEING RETARDED! SO WET!


-Angry Lawyer

[kirovman]

OHH! POLITICS FORUM! HOW I LOVE IGNORING EVERYONE ELSE'S IDEAS AND JUST PUMPING OUT BULLSHIT ABOUT ALL PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN GOD BEING RETARDED! SO WET!
-Angry Lawyer

Seconded.

Because I can.

[SidewinderX]

I saw something on PBS a few monthes ago that made sense to me.

Right now, intelligent design has no room to be taught in a science class. It's a theory. If people want to spend time reasearching it and developing the theory, they have the right to.

But they shouldn't teach it as science until it's proven to be science.

They likened it to general relativity... That theory has been around for a century. But you didn't see it in schools a few years after Einstein wrote about it.

(Don't get me wrong... I'm not comparing the two in a factual basis, I'm sure that ID is total bullshit... just the school thing)

[Raeven0]

God doesn't have to put a disclaimer in the front of his textbook(s) saying that his perception of the universe is constantly changing as he discovers new things.

Really, now. When I read crap like that in scientific texts it makes me want to throw the book away.

Might perhaps be why I prefer mathematics to science. ;)

[Apos]

that said, i think students should be taught all applicable theories of evolution/creation etc.

Which are? Can you list them please? Do you even know what you are talking about or are you simply parroting some conservative talking point you heard somewhere?

I repeat my standing challenge to any creationist: I'll debate you anywhere, anywhen on the overwhelming scientific evidence for common descent as history and evolution as the process that explains it.

[kirovman]

Heh, I know you'll like this, Angry Lawyer. I just got my Institute of Physics subscription magazine.

Front page:

Intelligent Design: The Moose that could fly.

It compares intelligent design arguements with that of a man who chased a moose to the peak of a mountain, which then vanished. He argued the Moose must have flown, because what else could have caused it to disappear?


It also states: Gaps in the human understanding do not tell us anything about God.

The concluding statement of the article is this: "Argumentatively speaking, therefore, an intelligent designer is a flying moose."

Seems not only New Scientist are arguing against Intelligent Design, it's every science publication.

[Absinthe]

Seems not only New Scientist are arguing against Intelligent Design, it's every science publication.

There just might be something to that. ID'ers should get a clue.

[Tr0n]

If say I believe god started the big bang...which I do...is that ID? Or what?

I'm confused to this whole ID thing.

[Raziaar]

Which are? Can you list them please? Do you even know what you are talking about or are you simply parroting some conservative talking point you heard somewhere?

I repeat my standing challenge to any creationist: I'll debate you anywhere, anywhen on the overwhelming scientific evidence for common descent as history and evolution as the process that explains it.

What are you talking about dude? Lots of religions have theories of how the world was created.

So why are you insulting his post? I don't get it. He was saying that the theories should be taught, likely not as fact, but as just that... theories. I don't think religion should fall back and not be taught at all in schools. It should be taught, but more on an understanding level rather than a spiritual level. Religions have impacted this world greatly, and none of their beliefs should be forgotten.

That being said, I agree with him on the fact that students should study on the history of all religious beliefs regarding how the world was formed and created. You can't just rewrite education to include only the last hundred or two hundred years worth of information.

[Absinthe]

Raziaar, the problem is that when you start saying that you need to teach all theories (and ID certainly is not, at least not in any scientific sense), then where is the line drawn? Need I point out the flying spaghetti monster?

I could come up with a billion ideas explaining life and the inception of the human species - all of them nonsense and unsubstantiated. If ID were to be taught as theory in education, would you give equal time to all of mine?

Relegate such subjects to classes regarding religious history. Don't tout it as some alternative theory to evolution or as anything comparable to it.

[Raziaar]

EDIT: Double Post. Damnit. I thought I was editing and it seems I wasnt.

[Raziaar]

Raziaar, the problem is that when you start saying that you need to teach all theories (and ID certainly is not, at least not in any scientific sense), then where is the line drawn? Need I point out the flying spaghetti monster?

I could come up with a billion ideas explaining life and the inception of the human species - all of them nonsense and unsubstantiated. If ID were to be taught as theory in education, would you give equal time to all of mine?

Relegate such subjects to classes regarding religious history. Don't tout it as some alternative theory to evolution or as anything comparable to it.

Bah. I'm talking about the major, established religions. The world is full of leaf, tree and mushroom worshippers, but they're such a huge minority. I'm talking about most of the major and minor religions. You know, things like hinduism, buddhism, islam, christianity, catholocism, chinese folk religion, Judaism, Sikhism, Confucianism, Jainism, Shinto, Taoism, etc.

Obviously you cannot teach all religion's histories, but you can teach a majority of the histories and beliefs of various religions so that young people don't go out into the world uneducated about the faiths that comprise the majority of the world's population.

Many people want religions to be entirely phased out from the educational institution. This would be a bad mistake, as religion has shaped this world, for the better and for the worse. Don't bundle it together into some small class like you suggested, religious history. It needs to be bundled with history, as it is one of the most defining features of history.

I'm against teaching religious beliefs as fact, but you can teach them without doing that.

[CptStern]

all religion should be done away with in education ..except in later high school and university when it is introduced in a social sciences class where the history of religion is taught, not the faith behind it. Religion should not be taught in any other class especially history and science. Creationism should be taught in church/sunday school but should never even be mentioned in school as school is about teaching facts

[Solaris]

Stern I think I disagree.

I live in a highly multicuteral society, and without RE lessons, everyone would be ignorant about other people. This breeds racism.

The problem with our RE lessons (this is the ciriculum btw) is that its 90% christianity, and the other religions only get 10% of the lesson time.

Combine this with hymns and prayers in assembelies, and your forcing religion onto young children.

It should be taught from a neutral stand point, so the aim is to eductate, and not to convert.

[Absinthe]

Religion and "race" have nothing to do with each other.

[Solaris]

Not everyone knows that.

Another reason to teach RE.

I would define not hireing muslims as racist,

[Mechagodzilla]

Churches are there for a reason.
There's no need to shoehorn religion into school when there's already tax-exempt organizations preaching the same stuff as we speak - to people who actually want to hear it.

[T.H.C.138]

Churches are there for a reason.
There's no need to shoehorn religion into school when there's already tax-exempt organizations preaching the same stuff as we speak - to people who actually want to hear it.

thank you for posting the truth!!

kids have a hard enough time with normal reading and writing these days..

no need to add more confusion to the already confused school systems

[Solaris]

You don't understand.

Are there minoritys where you live.

Here, there are lots of mosques, and we often see people of different religions doing things that seem strange enough. If people are not educated into why sieghs carry knives, or why some Muslim women cover them selves in public, they draw the wrong conclusions. This ignorance is jumped upoun by right wing Nazi partys such as the BNP, they tell people seighs carry knives becuase there dangerous, and looking to kill all white people, they then say Muslims are terrorists who want to take over britian.

Thanks to RE I know both of these statements couldn't be more wrong, I wouldnt have held thoose veiws anyway, but alot of people would. That is why it is imperitive to teach and educate about races culter and religion.

[Raziaar]

all religion should be done away with in education ..except in later high school and university when it is introduced in a social sciences class where the history of religion is taught, not the faith behind it. Religion should not be taught in any other class especially history and science. Creationism should be taught in church/sunday school but should never even be mentioned in school as school is about teaching facts

WHy should religion not be taught in history? I don't think it should be taught in science... but history? HELL YES.

Dude, please... just tell me why you don't think various religion's history, culture, beliefs and customs should be taught in history? Are you ignorant of the fact that much of history has been shaped by religions?

If you had your way, you'd end up with a bunch of the usually intelligent kids coming out of school, with absolutely NO knowledge and understanding about the diversity of the world's populations. This in turn would very likely lead to some VERY stupid policies for those who managed to make it into public offices, as they'd be less sensitive to those around them.

Religion just kept to the institutions that teach them is wrong... because those groups teach religions as a faith, and not as an education. It should be left to schools to teach the facts about various religions and their histories, even the facts that these various religions have certain beliefs in how the world was created. Teaching religion in schools should not be about trying to sway kids to join certain beliefs, but rather expanding their education and sensitivity about this very diverse world.


Your idea would breed ignorance for the young people when they try to interact with their fellow human beings, whom nearlya ll of them practice one religion or another.

[diluted]

I agree, religion should certainly be taught in school. There's a difference between teaching about all religions and endorsing a specific one.

[TheSomeone]

Religion, epsecially buuhdism, hinduism and Islam (which aren't common in the states) should be taught in American school, otherwise kids will be growing up with a worldview limited by the religion they practice.

[gh0st]

i dont know about you stern but i was taught all the basics of zorastrianism, taoism, christianity, confucianism, islam, hellenic religion and so on and so forth. hell they even bothered to tell me about mormanism. religion absolutely belongs in history class, not as indoctrination but simple things people need to know to coexist with people in the world. so you're wrong, it shouldnt be completely taken out of school but i see where you're coming from.

apos.. haha youre embarassing. ILL FIGHT YOU ANY TIME ANYWHERE ON CREATIONISM! AND WIN! anti religion e-thug! DURRRR.

[Reaktor4]

religious beliefs are not theories.

[Glirk Dient]

i dont know about you stern but i was taught all the basics of zorastrianism, taoism, christianity, confucianism, islam, hellenic religion and so on and so forth. hell they even bothered to tell me about mormanism. religion absolutely belongs in history class, not as indoctrination but simple things people need to know to coexist with people in the world. so you're wrong, it shouldnt be completely taken out of school but i see where you're coming from.

apos.. haha youre embarassing. ILL FIGHT YOU ANY TIME ANYWHERE ON CREATIONISM! AND WIN! anti religion e-thug! DURRRR.

If they did that it could fill up an entire year. People can learn creationism at their church if that is what they believe, school has no place to preach. They can however inform people of the facts of life instead of preaching mythical beliefs.

[Raziaar]

If they did that it could fill up an entire year. People can learn creationism at their church if that is what they believe, school has no place to preach. They can however inform people of the facts of life instead of preaching mythical beliefs.

It wouldn't take long to teach the basic beliefs and customs of many various religions.

Again, not teaching to indoctrinate, but teaching so people are aware of the history.

[CptStern]

WHy should religion not be taught in history? I don't think it should be taught in science... but history? HELL YES.

Dude, please... just tell me why you don't think various religion's history, culture, beliefs and customs should be taught in history? Are you ignorant of the fact that much of history has been shaped by religions?

If you had your way, you'd end up with a bunch of the usually intelligent kids coming out of school, with absolutely NO knowledge and understanding about the diversity of the world's populations. This in turn would very likely lead to some VERY stupid policies for those who managed to make it into public offices, as they'd be less sensitive to those around them.

Religion just kept to the institutions that teach them is wrong... because those groups teach religions as a faith, and not as an education. It should be left to schools to teach the facts about various religions and their histories, even the facts that these various religions have certain beliefs in how the world was created. Teaching religion in schools should not be about trying to sway kids to join certain beliefs, but rather expanding their education and sensitivity about this very diverse world.


Your idea would breed ignorance for the young people when they try to interact with their fellow human beings, whom nearlya ll of them practice one religion or another.

i dont know about you stern but i was taught all the basics of zorastrianism, taoism, christianity, confucianism, islam, hellenic religion and so on and so forth. hell they even bothered to tell me about mormanism. religion absolutely belongs in history class, not as indoctrination but simple things people need to know to coexist with people in the world. so you're wrong, it shouldnt be completely taken out of school but i see where you're coming from.

apos.. haha youre embarassing. ILL FIGHT YOU ANY TIME ANYWHERE ON CREATIONISM! AND WIN! anti religion e-thug! DURRRR.


ahh knee-jerk reactions from the peanut gallery


tell me if religion is to be taught in history:

what year did Noah sail on the USS:Holdsashitloadofanimals?

what year did Samson slaughter a thousand men with the jawbone of an ass?

what year did Eve bite into that juicy, ultimately evil, apple?

what year did god create the heavens and the earth?


you cant study history without touching on religion, but that doesnt mean that the bible/other religious documents should be used as the sole source of the history of the time. That's contrary to the rules of historical research. You teach events not theology. Again I have no problem with the history of religion being taught in a social science class.

[Mechagodzilla]

Exactly.

There is a very obvious difference between learning about what a religion is and being taught that the religion is factual.

Also, apos is not being an ANTI RELIGION E-THUG.
He's protesting the practice of faith being taught as fact.
He asks for creationism facts that would be taught in FACT CLASS, and guess what?
No-one has any.
That's not anti-religion. That is pro-science. It's not his fault faith can't cope.

That you chose to dismiss him so frivolously shows something.
I'll leave it up to you to figure out what that something is.

[Solaris]

Stern go back a page, and read what I wrote.

Religion should be a class of its own, as it is here in the UK.

[CptStern]

I did and my response still applies. Religion can be taught in a social science class which is what you're refering to, not history.

[Solaris]

I see.

I still see no problem with it getting an hour a week on its own.

[ComradeBadger]

I did and my response still applies. Religion can be taught in a social science class which is what you're refering to, not history.
Religion should be taught in History, not the faith itself, but it's impact, how it's belief system affects causation etc.

[Solaris]

To a large extent it is.

[CptStern]

Religion should be taught in History, not the faith itself, but it's impact, how it's belief system affects causation etc.

yes that was my point ..cant talk about the renaissance without bringing religion into it ..events and facts not theology. In other words you shouldnt teach anything that isnt fact

[Raziaar]

yes that was my point ..cant talk about the renaissance without bringing religion into it ..events and facts not theology. In other words you shouldnt teach anything that isnt fact

Havent you read anything I posted? I've been saying the same thing.

However, you can also explain to people that these various religions all differ wildly in their perception of how the world was born, without touting it as fact.

[CptStern]

Havent you read anything I posted? I've been saying the same thing.

However, you can also explain to people that these various religions all differ wildly in their perception of how the world was born, without touting it as fact.

look I dont see why you're having a problem understanding my point. You cant teach historical facts about religion if there's no evidence to support it. In order for say the story of noah to be a historical fact it would have to have physical evidence supporting it, something, anything ..or else it just gets regulated to the atlantis and unicorn type myths: not scientifically or historically accurate but entertaining nonetheless

[gh0st]

im not pro creationism at ALL - i personally believe in the big bang and in evolution as darwin and his modern contemporaries believe.

should students not know all theories? in biology class my teacher focused the curriculum on evolution as he rightfully should have. did he not mention creationism? of course he did, not having as many world views in mind as possible is deterimental to a religious society. like it or hate it america is stronger than you and is predominantly christian... we had better know what our neighbors place value in.

religion in terms of specifics and dogma should be left to theology class or seminary, not to public schools. religion in terms of impacts should be left in social studies. religion in terms of science should be SPARINGLY exposed and shown, not as fact, but as theory, in science classes.

[Raziaar]

look I dont see why you're having a problem understanding my point. You cant teach historical facts about religion if there's no evidence to support it. In order for say the story of noah to be a historical fact it would have to have physical evidence supporting it, something, anything ..or else it just gets regulated to the atlantis and unicorn type myths: not scientifically or historically accurate but entertaining nonetheless


Don't be an idiot stern. I already understand all that.


And the Unicorn did exist! It died digging out from god's sanctuary after Adam told him too, so he could see eve.

Don't you watch the simpsons?

[CptStern]

Don't be an idiot stern. I already understand all that.


And the Unicorn did exist! It died digging out from god's sanctuary after Adam told him too, so he could see eve.

Don't you watch the simpsons?


if you understood that you'd see why you cant use religion as a basis for historical fact

[Mechagodzilla]

religion in terms of science should be SPARINGLY exposed and shown, not as fact, but as theory, in science classes.

"Religion in terms of science" does NOT compute.

Religion is inherently the anti-science.
'Theoretically' anything is possible, including unicorns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc.
There is a difference between scientific theories (such as gravity)and just semi-randomly guessing at things, which is all creationism does.
It basically goes against most fundamental aspects of science in general (falsifiability, removal of bias, and much more).

I know you're trying to be inclusive but, just as we don't let kids drive squadcars, this is one case where egalitarian inclusiveness does not belong.

So, the sensible option is eqalitarian exclusiveness. Any baseless atheist guesses I make are just as ignored as baseless christian guesses in a logical system.

[gh0st]

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cssr/

enough said. columbia university seems to have devoted quite a bit of resources to the study of "religion and science". i'd say it does compute and deserves at the very least a mention in any science curriculum. which it will - im not sure what you're trying to change.

[Mechagodzilla]

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cssr/

enough said. columbia university seems to have devoted quite a bit of resources to the study of "religion and science". i'd say it does compute and deserves at the very least a mention in any science curriculum. which it will - im not sure what you're trying to change.

Um, that's a university-level religion studies class.
At a privately-run institution, I assume.

Not exactly the same as a public highschool science class being taught that creationism has scientific merit.

[gh0st]

im saying religion and science does compute. you made a pretty general statement.

"Religion in terms of science" does NOT compute.
why ignore it? its intristically part of american culture and the mainstream should not be educated ON it but ABOUT it.

[Mechagodzilla]

im saying religion and science does compute. you made a pretty general statement.

why ignore it? its intristically part of american culture and the mainstream should not be educated ON it but ABOUT it.
Because, if you teach religion from a scientific standpoint, that intrinsic part of American culture is called directly into question by science.
When that happens, people will complain just as much, or even more, about the treatment of their beliefs.

Fundamentals of how religious people's views affect the world are always taught in any history class. It's inherent to everything historical, practically. Well up into communism and the war on terror.
So why go through all the trouble to have science teachers say "some religious people believe god is responsible for everything, but this view has nothing to do with science and is actually scientifically disproven in some interpretations?"

You can go through a very large list of things that have no scientific basis, as repeatedly pointed out.

Honestly, I think it's naive to believe that christians, by and large, only want to be remind people that they simply exist.

Basically, christianity is already plenty taught in schools, from a sociological standpoint.
there is no need to put it in a science class, and would actually harm the faiths presented more than anything - unless the kids were essentially lied to.

[>>FrEnZy<<]

no, its religion masked as science. religion doesnt belong in public schools. that said, i think students should be taught all applicable theories of evolution/creation etc.

Science is a religion in which man assumes the role of god.

[Lemonking]

scary.....

[Mechagodzilla]

Science is a religion in which man assumes the role of god.
As deep as that sounds, it doesn't make any sense.

God is allegedly an absolute creator.
Scientists, by contrast, are inventors - in the sense that they only combine pre-existing materials.

God is allegedly omniscient/omnipotent.
Scientists are obviously not so.

God doesn't really do anything, apparently.
Scientists do stuff all the time.

Etc.

Ah well, at least you wowed lemonking. No small feat, that. :P

[>>FrEnZy<<]

God is allegedly an absolute creator.
Scientists, by contrast, are inventors - in the sense that they only combine pre-existing materials.

The doctrine of science, like all other doctrines, is simply a way of seeing things. It is a way in seeing things that allows man to observe reality as effectively as possible and invent according to these observations.


God is allegedly omniscient/omnipotent.
Scientists are obviously not so.

Scientists are not omipotent, but they have the ability to make creations that gives humanity powers that approach omniscientcy. The doctrine of science has lead to the creation of nukes for example. What is this if it is not mans attempt to harness the ability to be all powerful?

Due to science's objective and nihilistic approach to percieving the world, in which there is no higher truths other than the ones that exist within nature, the pursuit of it's knowledge lacks a teleological basis, resulting in the mindless creation of things that cause suffering for everyone. Also, teaching such a doctrine that lacks a teleological basis to children forms individuals who have been brought up with nihilistic beliefs, which has dire implications for the fabric of society.

In other words, Man in the attempt to assume power for himself so that he may take on the role of god, has killed god.

[Pi Mu Rho]

Man in the attempt to assume power for himself so that he may take on the role of god, has killed god.

Some may consider this to not be a bad thing.

[>>FrEnZy<<]

Yeh, because when we have men like George bush sitting in god's throne, its the best thing that can happen isnt it?

[Pi Mu Rho]

That's not what I said.
"killing God" may not necessarily be a bad thing.

[Raziaar]

That's not what I said.
"killing God" may not necessarily be a bad thing.

God could pwn your ass. He has the life ban button. :E

[Pi Mu Rho]

If God turned up on my doorstep, I'd punch the **** in the face and slam the door.

[>>FrEnZy<<]

killing god is bad, because god is a being of perfection, a being that we idolise and strive to abide by. However, man cannot assume this position, as man is not and never will be perfect.

[>>FrEnZy<<]

If God turned up on my doorstep, I'd punch the **** in the face and slam the door.

Why do you say this? is it because you believe god is responsible for the misfortunes that have been wraught upon the people? People are the only ones that can be held responsible for the cruetly and misfortune that happen to other people. For example, people live in poverty not because of god, but because of greedy people. God is a means of unifying people under a system of values that works to create harmony between all people, no matter who they are.

[Pi Mu Rho]

killing god is bad, because god is a being of perfection, a being that we idolise and strive to abide by.
You speak for yourself.

Why do you say this? is it because you believe god is responsible for the misfortunes that have been wraught upon the people?
No, I say it because I believe that if God exists, he/she is a ****. Simple, really.

People are the only ones that can be held responsible for the cruetly and misfortune that happen to other people. For example, people live in poverty not because of god, but because of greedy people.
Here's a tip - don't decide what you think someone means, and then argue against it. It just ends up with you looking like you're talking to yourself.

God is a means of unifying people under a system of values that works to create harmony between all people, no matter who they are.

So I guess we just imagined all those religious wars then?
Anyway, Organised Religion is a means of controlling people under a system of values that works to prevent free thought.

[kirovman]

I also like how they also say God is perfect, yet they say he has emotions like anger and jealousy.


Also systems like the Church and Monarchy enforced religion over the years. Corrupt human-lead insitituions.

[Absinthe]

The doctrine of science, like all other doctrines, is simply a way of seeing things. It is a way in seeing things that allows man to observe reality as effectively as possible and invent according to these observations...

In other words, Man in the attempt to assume power for himself so that he may take on the role of god, has killed god.

Great. How's that a religion?

In all honesty, Frenzy, I think you just like to spout out gloom/doom pseudointellectual BS in an attempt to sound deep. A lot of your words are shallow nonsense.

[OCybrManO]

spout out . . . pseudointellectual BS in an attempt to sound deepThat's like half of the people on the forum... :laugh:

[Absinthe]

Ah, true. :) But this is just nuts. "Man has replaced God because science is the religion of human creation and although we are not omnipotent we are kinda close to it UND GOTT IST TOT lalelulelo..."

That's the talk of a crazy person, or somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about.

[kirovman]

It's also the talk of someone who has very little understanding of science.

[Mechagodzilla]

And the difference between religion and philosophy.

Oups.


Here's a tip - don't decide what you think someone means, and then argue against it. It just ends up with you looking like you're talking to yourself.
In other words, a F's making straw men.

[>>FrEnZy<<]

In all honesty, Frenzy, I think you just like to spout out gloom/doom pseudointellectual BS in an attempt to sound deep. A lot of your words are shallow nonsense.

I am deep, BIATCH.

[>>FrEnZy<<]

No, I say it because I believe that if God exists, he/she is a ****. Simple, really.

And Im asking Why? and asking is it because you think god is responsbile for the bad things that are happening to humanity. Why do you need to get so touchy for? Your a moderator, be moderate.


So I guess we just imagined all those religious wars then?
Anyway, Organised Religion is a means of controlling people under a system of values that works to prevent free thought.

Those wars were lead by people. Im saying, that god is a unified system of values held by alot of people. Whether that may be Buhddism, Christianity or Western Culture. Besides, every form of organisation with power has always been a means of controlling people. People NEED to be control, and controlling their thoughts is the most effective way of doing that. Without control there is chaos.

[Absinthe]

God and his Word may be perfect, but it is ultimately humans that are responsible for its dissemination and implementation. That's all that matters when you get down to the bottom of it. The actual existence of such a god is pretty much an irrelevance.

[>>FrEnZy<<]

I agree, but i would say that The existance of god's word influences the way in which humans disseminate and impletment, hence the relevancy of his existance.

[Kyorisu]

Killing god sounds like a fine idea to me.

[Pi Mu Rho]

And Im asking Why? and asking is it because you think god is responsbile for the bad things that are happening to humanity. Why do you need to get so touchy for? Your a moderator, be moderate.

You think that's getting touchy? Trust me, you've never seen me being "touchy". Also, a moderator isn't here to be "moderate" - I suggest you find a better definition.

Those wars were lead by people. Im saying, that god is a unified system of values held by alot of people. Whether that may be Buhddism, Christianity or Western Culture. Besides, every form of organisation with power has always been a means of controlling people. People NEED to be control, and controlling their thoughts is the most effective way of doing that. Without control there is chaos.
Now there's a viewpoint at odds with everything else you've said.

[digitalfire]

If evolution is true, there is no concept whatsoever of right and wrong. Hey, if its okay for animals to eat each other, why can't I eat you? And why should I let some person who evolved from a rock tell me it's "wrong" to rob a bank? I should be able to make any choice I want, right? How can people even use the words "right" and "wrong" when they do not have any basis of truth? It's truly scary to think of what this world is coming to.

"If you tell a lie long enough, loud enough, and often enough, the people will believe it." -Adolph Hitler

[Icarusintel]

I don't think I was intelligently designed... unless something went wrong when I got to the production phase

[Raziaar]

If evolution is true, there is no concept whatsoever of right and wrong. Hey, if its okay for animals to eat each other, why can't I eat you? And why should I let some person who evolved from a rock tell me it's "wrong" to rob a bank? I should be able to make any choice I want, right? How can people even use the words "right" and "wrong" when they do not have any basis of truth? It's truly scary to think of what this world is coming to.

"If you tell a lie long enough, loud enough, and often enough, the people will believe it." -Adolph Hitler

Alot of people already think that way. Too many people.

[Razor]

It is a theory that has the right to be taught in public as long as it is taught in Religious Education classes and not science classes, unless, their is concrete scientific proof to base Intelligent Design on.

[CptStern]

which there isnt ...ID shouldnt be taught in a religious education class ...maybe a christian education class but not a general religious education class

[CptStern]

If evolution is true, there is no concept whatsoever of right and wrong. Hey, if its okay for animals to eat each other, why can't I eat you? And why should I let some person who evolved from a rock tell me it's "wrong" to rob a bank? I should be able to make any choice I want, right? How can people even use the words "right" and "wrong" when they do not have any basis of truth? It's truly scary to think of what this world is coming to.

"If you tell a lie long enough, loud enough, and often enough, the people will believe it." -Adolph Hitler


I whole heartedly reject that notion as both grossly inaccurate and insulting to people of other religious faiths. As if the bible is the only means of learning morality :upstare: I dont need a passage in book to tell me that murdering someone is wrong ...btw how do you feel about capital punishment?

[Mechagodzilla]

"If you tell a lie long enough, loud enough, and often enough, the people will believe it." -Adolph Hitler

BING BING BING!!
WE HAVE A WINNER.

Comparing all of science to the extermination of jews? Brilliant, stupid!
Of course, that quote is much more about FAITH and how people can be fooled into rejecting rationality and logic (aka science) by creating BELIEF SYSTEMS for them.

:x dur. :x

I love how the only thing stopping digitalfire from murdering us is the idea that he might go to hell if he does. :D
I find that infintely scary, that there are people out there who act 'moral' for purely self-serving reasons (getting heaven's toy surprise).


On one hand we've got a 2000+ year old book that may/may not have been written by a crazy man.
On the other, we've got the collective rational thoughts of human history.
Guess which one's the lie?

Apparently if you tell the truth "long enough, loud enough, and often enough" some people will do anything to believe you are wrong.
Including comparing you to hitler, I guess.

[CptStern]

"I love how the only thing stopping digitalfire from murdering us is the idea that he might go to hell if he does."


:laugh: ...... :| .....:sniper:

[Absinthe]

If evolution is true, there is no concept whatsoever of right and wrong. Hey, if its okay for animals to eat each other, why can't I eat you? And why should I let some person who evolved from a rock tell me it's "wrong" to rob a bank? I should be able to make any choice I want, right? How can people even use the words "right" and "wrong" when they do not have any basis of truth? It's truly scary to think of what this world is coming to.

Oh my! Reasoning and empathy are of course no longer valid if evolution is true! If our arbitrary sense of right and wrong is but a human creation, then obviously we shall turn into amoral anarchists that kill at random and rape our daughters in spite of our own human emotions and natural inclinations.

How ridiculous. If the only thing keeping you moral is God's will, then I assert that I'm a far better man than you.

[Sulkdodds]

Godwin's Law strikes again!

[Flyingdebris]

all that evolution states is that over long periods of time tiny changes within a species eventually become greater changes and eventually result in new species. These changes will either benefit the species and it will become sucessful or they may be a detriment and cause the species to be unsucessful.

This has absolutely nothing to do with morality.

Just because humans and apes more than likely share a common ancestor has nothing to do with me being kind, courteous, moral, and civil with other humans.

[Kmack]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: (http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/onionmagazine_1020.article.jpg)

thats priceless

[Stigmata]

If evolution is true, there is no concept whatsoever of right and wrong. Hey, if its okay for animals to eat each other, why can't I eat you? And why should I let some person who evolved from a rock tell me it's "wrong" to rob a bank? I should be able to make any choice I want, right? How can people even use the words "right" and "wrong" when they do not have any basis of truth? It's truly scary to think of what this world is coming to.I'm sorry, but that's quite possibly one of the worst leaps of logic I've ever read.

[Ennui]

I am going to agree with Stigmata on this one.

[Reaktor4]

If evolution is true, there is no concept whatsoever of right and wrong. Hey, if its okay for animals to eat each other, why can't I eat you? And why should I let some person who evolved from a rock tell me it's "wrong" to rob a bank? I should be able to make any choice I want, right? How can people even use the words "right" and "wrong" when they do not have any basis of truth? It's truly scary to think of what this world is coming to.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
you are nuts.

[kirovman]

Agreed with the above few posts.

Crazy. We don't need higher powers in order to have ethics or moral values or humanity. It's all instinct and natural. Successful species don't tend to eat their own kind. We don't tend to fight, murder, steal in normal life (well not the more educated of us anyway) since we know that pain hurts and quite a lot of us have feeling of empathy.

Which is why we look down on such people as thieves, murderers etc.

[Sulkdodds]

Right that's it. Animals eat eachother all the time. Thus, I am going to eat you! :v

[Stigmata]

Agreed with the above few posts.

Crazy. We don't need higher powers in order to have ethics or moral values or humanity. It's all instinct and natural. Successful species don't tend to eat their own kind. We don't tend to fight, murder, steal in normal life (well not the more educated of us anyway) since we know that pain hurts and quite a lot of us have feeling of empathy.

Which is why we look down on such people as thieves, murderers etc.Exactly.

Now if only we can get Mechagodzilla to explain this, using a hilarious metaphor that may/may not involve ghosts and a game of American football... :E

[Absinthe]

Now if only we can get Mechagodzilla to explain this, using a hilarious metaphor that may/may not involve ghosts and a game of American football... :E

Aye, Mecha deserves some kind of award for his talents in such areas.

[neptuneuk]

i dont understand, all we hear is religious people bitching that scientists are being ignorant to their theories (beleifs...) theores wtf!?!? i think that there's a pink unicorn on the moon. is that a theory??... anyway they bitch about science being ignorant to their beleifs yet they completely ignore the scientific facts replacing ancient religious beleifs (which are usually thousands of years old) scientists havent completely ignored ID theory though, they know what it is and what it states and have evaluated it as being a non-factual beleif which breaks many existing laws of science. ancient religious beleifs were just created by the respected leaders of their time time to try and explain to people why everything exists using knowlegde only comprehendable to their minds. for example it would be very difficult to explain to an ancient person the concept of atoms or even that the world is spherical!
of course as we have progressed through time we have also progressed with knowledge and we no longer have the need to beleive outragous stories to help us understand the world around us, hence creationism, or whatever they call it nowadays has been rendered obsolete. we need to move on as a race and begin discarding obvious false information and replacing it with facts (which we know and can prove) or theories based on factual observations.
anyway religion is needed, it is an import source of morals and philosophy for many people and should be regarded in that way. the problem nowadays is that people are still treating religious texts as a source of factual information and ignoring the important moral and philosophical content in which religion should be based upon. :)
kthxbyelolwtfbbq!?!?!

[Stigmata]

religion is needed, it is an import source of morals and philosophy for many people and should be regarded in that way.Just like this lovely gem (http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/)?

I agree with all that you said, up until this. I'm sure morals were around long before the Bible was "created by God" i.e. written by a bunch of crackpots to impose their morals on the masses. Besides, as that link proves, the Bible is more a source of hatred and bigotry than morality.

[neptuneuk]

^ this is also true

[kirovman]

Religion is fine, until you get people using it for power/influence, which is what has been happening with Monarchy, the Church, terrorism and indeed with the United States government.

[Milkman]

Its quite obvious to me that there is no backing to it. It is an attempt by creationists to "compromise" with evolution on their terms.

[Jintor]

If i was intelligently designed... why am i so screwed?

[neptuneuk]

If i was intelligently designed... why am i so screwed?

makes good entertainment for god's reality show