God's 'Intelligent Design' in Classroom? Why Not?

[Melanie_]

What is the written word of our history? The Bible (which I assume you mean, but please correct me if I am wrong) is a book of gathered writings from nomadic tribes trying to find comfort when things they couldn't explain happened to them, and turning to the supernatural or spiritual for explanation. It is a history, certainly, of the traditions and beliefs held by a particular group of people at a particular time and place, and an account of the mythology of the time. Please don't misunderstand me when I use the word mythology, as I hold it in very high regard; mythology provides comfort, security, and a measure of order to society. But the Bible is not the written word of our history any more than the writings of Ovid or Homer are. I don't dispute that people can find value in reading it, just as people find insights when they read other books of philosophy or religion, but that doesn't make it the literal truth.

[Guest eureka]

All those examples, Melanie, are of beliefs in Intelligent Design. Different religions and different cultures have surrounded the belief with different muths (though surprisingly consistent in many ways). So why do we want to promote the view that science is as rigid as was the anti-scientific views of yesterday? Why not allow for the possibility that there is an area to be investigated? After all, there have been scientists who have thought they had proved the existence of God.

In my view, Black Dog, that does not negate Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design, shoen of the religios dogma, is merely a Designer who set laws of pysics and created the conditions and materials for life and then left it to develop. Perhaps there is a pattern or limit to development that we will never know.

Thoughts of evolution did not begin with Darwin. There had been suspicion of it long before. Yet, in the limits of the times, it was an untestable hupothesis that could neither be proved or disproved.

Would you then side with the faiths that would have considered the ideas as heresy? Is there no some corner of your mind that might consider the possibility that some evidence of Design might someday be found?

[B. Max]

What is the written word of our history?  The Bible (which I assume you mean, but please correct me if I am wrong)  is a book of gathered writings from nomadic tribes trying to find comfort when things they couldn't explain happened to them, and turning to the supernatural or spiritual for explanation. It is a history, certainly, of the traditions and beliefs held by a particular group of people at a particular time and place, and an account of the mythology of the time. Please don't misunderstand me when I use the word mythology, as I hold it in very high regard; mythology provides comfort, security, and a measure of order to society. But the Bible is not the written word of our history any more than the writings of Ovid or Homer are. I don't dispute that people can find value in reading it, just as people find insights when they read other books of philosophy or religion, but that doesn't make it the literal truth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hate to disappoint you but it is a record of history, but it's not the only one. Liberal types like to discredit the bibble and other ancient text so they can write their own version of history, but more importantly so they can write their own version of the future. Just like the first amendment has nothing to do with the liberal interpretation of separation of church and state, and everything to do with separating the people from their their history and god.

[newbie]

Allow me to introduce a book that may offer answers to some, if not all, of the "questions" re the Bible as historical: The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...680956?v=glance

When read with an open mind (I know that could be a feat in itself for some of our posters) it can offer some interesting and alternative possibilities that contrast the Biblical account from an archeological point of view.

[B. Max]

Actually using bible references archeologists have uncovered many historical sites.

[newbie]

Yes B. Max. I think the contrast has more to do with actual dates of when certain events happened, and some contraversy over specific leaders, time frames etc. I found it to be a very enlightening read.

[WordsAreDead]

Intelligent design is nothing but the religious fundameltalist U.S. government's attempt at bringing religion back into the classroom. And that can't happen if we are to advance as a human race. Plain and simple.

[B. Max]

Intelligent design is nothing but the religious fundameltalist U.S. government's attempt at bringing religion back into the classroom. And that can't happen if we are to advance as a human race. Plain and simple.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow, that's some advancement.

"Sex in the classroom" by Ben Shapiro – a mind-boggling first-hand account of sexual anarchy on the typical campus. As Shapiro summarizes: "Homosexuality is perfectly normal. Pedophilia is acceptable. Bestiality is fine."

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46152

[Melanie_]

I hate to disappoint you but it is a record of history, but it's not the only one. Liberal types like to discredit the bibble and other ancient text so they can write their own version of history, but more importantly so they can write their own version of the future. Just like the first amendment has nothing to do with the liberal interpretation of separation of church and state, and everything to do with separating the people from their their history and god.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did I say it wasn't a record of history? No, I just said it was no more a record of OUR history than the writings of Ovid and Homer. I did not discredit the Bible as history, but I do question the literal interpretation of the writings of an ancient tribe trying to make sense of the universe, using the limited knowledge of their time.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Melanie,

I did not discredit the Bible as history, but I do question the literal interpretation of the writings of an ancient tribe trying to make sense of the universe, using the limited knowledge of their time.

Well said. I am not quite so polite, for I call the bible 'the writings of primitives', and their concept of the universe was probably even less cognitive and astute than the average grade 5 retarded kid (pardon me, 'differently-abled' kid) of today. Not that great writings, art etc. wasn't created then, but a few millenia ago (when the 'wandering Jews' penned the 'bible', or at least the first few books, which became the Torah, while on the road) people still 'quaked' at the 'signs of an angry God' and offered sacrifices of appeasement.

Mind you, the Jews were advanced enough to abolish human sacrifice and replace it with that of rams. Then, after placing all their sins (read: blame) on the sacrifice, they pushed it over a cliff...the origin of the term 'scapegoat'.

[apollo19]

Wow, that's some advancement.

"Sex in the classroom" by Ben Shapiro – a mind-boggling first-hand account of sexual anarchy on the typical campus. As Shapiro summarizes: "Homosexuality is perfectly normal. Pedophilia is acceptable. Bestiality is fine."

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46152

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

People going off to college and suddenly transforming, becoming "liberal", shows that their parents did not raise them properly in the first place. If people do not have their own morals, then they will do whatever they want. As an athiest, personally I agree that the bible has some historical info in it. But it was written by people who, if they saw a comet in the sky, would probably run for their life for fear of their god smiting them down. Science explains lots of things and is constantly changing with new theories, while religion stays the same, even if the new science is 100% provable. I'm surprised that more religious people dont become like the Amish.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear apollo19,

As an athiest, personally I agree that the bible has some historical info in it.

Indeed, a large chunk of the bible is devoted to Mr. and Mrs. Whombegot. However, I must take this opportunity to lump atheism in with 'deism'. It is the placing of faith in an answer which you don't have.

[B. Max]

Wow, that's some advancement.

"Sex in the classroom" by Ben Shapiro – a mind-boggling first-hand account of sexual anarchy on the typical campus. As Shapiro summarizes: "Homosexuality is perfectly normal. Pedophilia is acceptable. Bestiality is fine."

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46152

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

People going off to college and suddenly transforming, becoming "liberal", shows that their parents did not raise them properly in the first place. If people do not have their own morals, then they will do whatever they want. As an athiest, personally I agree that the bible has some historical info in it. But it was written by people who, if they saw a comet in the sky, would probably run for their life for fear of their god smiting them down. Science explains lots of things and is constantly changing with new theories, while religion stays the same, even if the new science is 100% provable. I'm surprised that more religious people dont become like the Amish.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But it was written by people who, if they saw a comet in the sky, would probably run for their life for fear of their god smiting them down.

Well we must be going backwards, for when people see a light in the sky today they think it is aliens from who knows where.

Discounting the history revisionist, history should not change. There is no new science that i'm aware of that disproves anything written in the bible, or any science that proves elevolution.

[newbie]

There is no new science that i'm aware of that disproves anything written in the bible, or any science that proves elevolution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you discount archeology? The book I cited earlier has ample evidence to counter the exodus story, any secular existence of Abraham, Moses, or any of the Patriarchs.

[B. Max]

There is no new science that i'm aware of that disproves anything written in the bible, or any science that proves elevolution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you discount archeology? The book I cited earlier has ample evidence to counter the exodus story, any secular existence of Abraham, Moses, or any of the Patriarchs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I discount history revisionists.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear B. Max,

No, I discount history revisionists.

Very well, it seems your wont to discount modern science, universities, et al.....you just keep believing in Worldnetdaily, the Enquirer, etc., to keep tabs of the 'fringe account of today's history', but don't be surprised when you get left behind by the rest of us.

[Black Dog]

The fact is there is no proof what soever for evolution and it still remains a theory.

I don't know why I bother with this nonsense, really. I guess its just my left-wing belief in helping people, rathe rthan letting them wallow in their own ignorance. Anyway, evolution is a fact. The evidence that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history is massive and overwhelming. The only reason the word "theory" is used is because the only questions concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

-Stephen Jay Gould

On the other hand we have the written word of our history. To dismiss it is no different than someone two thousand years from now dismissing what happened yesterday.

Gee, on the one hand we have modern science, on the other a collection of oft-translated tribal stories set down thousands of years after they occurred after being passed down through the generations of ancient desert nomads: which is more likely to contain glaring inaccuracies?

Atheists/evolutionist what have you argue that life was all an accident. The problem is there would have to have been to many accidents and not only can they not explain the beginning of human or animal life, on top of all that there is the problem of all plant life. Where did the first seed come from.

That's a poor argument to support a thesitic origin, given the obvious rejoinder: if God created the first seed, who created God?

Sex in the classroom" by Ben Shapiro – a mind-boggling first-hand account of sexual anarchy on the typical campus. As Shapiro summarizes: "Homosexuality is perfectly normal. Pedophilia is acceptable. Bestiality is fine."

Ah, Ben. One can't help but get the feeling that he's railing against sex because he couldn't get laid.

[B. Max]

The fact is there is no proof what soever for evolution and it still remains a theory.

I don't know why I bother with this nonsense, really. I guess its just my left-wing belief in helping people, rathe rthan letting them wallow in their own ignorance. Anyway, evolution is a fact. The evidence that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history is massive and overwhelming. The only reason the word "theory" is used is because the only questions concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

The reason the word theory is used is because that is what it is, but it's so full of holes it really should be called a fraud.

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

-Stephen Jay Gould

On the other hand we have the written word of our history. To dismiss it is no different than someone two thousand years from now dismissing what happened yesterday.

Gee, on the one hand we have modern science, on the other a collection of oft-translated tribal stories set down thousands of years after they occurred after being passed down through the generations of ancient desert nomads: which is more likely to contain glaring inaccuracies?

Atheists/evolutionist what have you argue that life was all an accident. The problem is there would have to have been to many accidents and not only can they not explain the beginning of human or animal life, on top of all that there is the problem of all plant life. Where did the first seed come from.

That's a poor argument to support a thesitic origin, given the obvious rejoinder: if God created the first seed, who created God?

Sex in the classroom" by Ben Shapiro – a mind-boggling first-hand account of sexual anarchy on the typical campus. As Shapiro summarizes: "Homosexuality is perfectly normal. Pedophilia is acceptable. Bestiality is fine."

Ah, Ben. One can't help but get the feeling that he's railing against sex because he couldn't get laid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://duncanlong.com/science-fiction-fant...ies/evolut.html

The reason the word theory is used is because that is what it is, but it's so full of holes it really should be called a fraud.

The evolutionists believe they climbed down out of the trees or sprung up out of a mud puddle. Come to think of it, they have never given any reason for those of us who don't buy into the fraud to doubt them.

The fact is modern science can not prove evolution so i don't even know why you would refer to it. On the other hand the bible was not written by people after the fact, but is was actually copied from much older ancient text and manuscrips.

That's a poor argument to support a thesitic origin, given the obvious rejoinder: if God created the first seed, who created God?

No it is another question the evolutionists can't answer as you have just demonstrated. Nor can they answer how, if things evolved over long periods of time, and since many things depend on one an other could one thing exist without the other.

[Black Dog]

The reason the word theory is used is because that is what it is, but it's so full of holes it really should be called a fraud.

Evolution can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry.

For instance, your link claims evolution is fraud because of a lack of transitional forms. Too bad there are dozens and dozens of such creatures: there have been more than 18 transitional hominid forms relating to humans alone.

The fact is modern science can not prove evolution so i don't even know why you would refer to it.

Again: the scientific community is united behind evolution. Evolution has never been seriously challenged because the evidence demonstrating it is overwhelming.

On the other hand the bible was not written by people after the fact, but is was actually copied from much older ancient text and manuscrips.

Which were, in turn, derived from the stories and legends of a pre-literate nomadic people.

No it is another question the evolutionists can't answer as you have just demonstrated. Nor can they answer how, if things evolved over long periods of time, and since many things depend on one an other could one thing exist without the other.

I'm not going to get into speculating on the origin of the first amino acid and the later development of single celled life forms. Suffice it to say that science's inability to answer this question with 100 per cent certainty does not call into question the fact of evolution. In other words, your question is largely irrelevant to the debate and a typical tactic by creationists who cannot challenge the fundamental truth of evolution and instead, try to expolit the inevitable gaps in knowledge. It's worth pointing out, again, that your argument contradicts itself: if "many things depend on one an other" and one thing cannot "exist without the other", where did God come from?

[B. Max]

The reason the word theory is used is because that is what it is, but it's so full of holes it really should be called a fraud.

Evolution can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry.

For instance, your link claims evolution is fraud because of a lack of transitional forms. Too bad there are dozens and dozens of such creatures: there have been more than 18 transitional hominid forms relating to humans alone.

The fact is modern science can not prove evolution so i don't even know why you would refer to it.

Again: the scientific community is united behind evolution. Evolution has never been seriously challenged because the evidence demonstrating it is overwhelming.

On the other hand the bible was not written by people after the fact, but is was actually copied from much older ancient text and manuscrips.

Which were, in turn, derived from the stories and legends of a pre-literate nomadic people.

No it is another question the evolutionists can't answer as you have just demonstrated. Nor can they answer how, if things evolved over long periods of time, and since many things depend on one an other could one thing exist without the other.

I'm not going to get into speculating on the origin of the first amino acid and the later development of single celled life forms. Suffice it to say that science's inability to answer this question with 100 per cent certainty does not call into question the fact of evolution. In other words, your question is largely irrelevant to the debate and a typical tactic by creationists who cannot challenge the fundamental truth of evolution and instead, try to expolit the inevitable gaps in knowledge. It's worth pointing out, again, that your argument contradicts itself: if "many things depend on one an other" and one thing cannot "exist without the other", where did God come from?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We are not trying to answer the question of where god came from. We are trying to answer the questions that creationists love to avoid that totally render evolution a fraud.

[Black Dog]

We are not trying to answer the question of where god came from. We are trying to answer the questions that creationists love to avoid that totally render evolution a fraud.

Again: you are arguing from an ignorance of he evidence. Did you know that complex organic molocules have been created spontaneously in labaratory experiments? There are a number of scientific theories on how the early building blocks of life were formed. Due to the time span is question, though, that's not a question that canever be answered with 100 per cent certainty.

However (and once again), science's inability to answer this question with 100 per cent certainty does not call into question the fact of evolution. The process of evolution has been exhaustively documented, demonstrated, and tested.

[B. Max]

We are not trying to answer the question of where god came from. We are trying to answer the questions that creationists love to avoid that totally render evolution a fraud.

Again: you are arguing from an ignorance of he evidence. Did you know that complex organic molocules have been created spontaneously in labaratory experiments? There are a number of scientific theories on how the early building blocks of life were formed. Due to the time span is question, though, that's not a question that canever be answered with 100 per cent certainty.

However (and once again), science's inability to answer this question with 100 per cent certainty does not call into question the fact of evolution. The process of evolution has been exhaustively documented, demonstrated, and tested.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It has not, and that is why it is a theory, one full of holes and should not be taught as fact as it is being taught.

Did you know that complex organic molocules have been created spontaneously in labaratory experiments?

Good grief, a guiding hand. The next thing you know man will be calling himself god.

[Black Dog]

It has not, and that is why it is a theory, one full of holes and should not be taught as fact as it is being taught.

It takes a special kind of bullheaded buffoon to stare straight into the piles and piles of evidence and the overwhelming scientific consensus on evolution, shut one's eyes, plug one's ears and chant "la la la, I'm not listening!"

Good grief, a guiding hand. The next thing you know man will be calling himself god.

Meaning what? that somehow he prescence of human observers changed the results of the chemical processes? Or that they reached in and magically created organic molocules out of sludge? You have no idea what you're talking about.

Evolution is a fact. Period.

[B. Max]

It has not, and that is why it is a theory, one full of holes and should not be taught as fact as it is being taught.

It takes a special kind of bullheaded buffoon to stare straight into the piles and piles of evidence and the overwhelming scientific consensus on evolution, shut one's eyes, plug one's ears and chant "la la la, I'm not listening!"

Good grief, a guiding hand. The next thing you know man will be calling himself god.

Meaning what? that somehow he prescence of human observers changed the results of the chemical processes? Or that they reached in and magically created organic molocules out of sludge? You have no idea what you're talking about.

Evolution is a fact. Period.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Evolution is not fact. The fact so far is your attack of those who don't buy into the fraud.

[Black Dog]

Evolution is not fact. The fact so far is your attack of those who don't buy into the fraud.

The earth is not round. The earth does not travel around the sun. These are arguments of equal calibre to your assertion that evolution is a fraud (a fraud, it should be pointed out, that is being perpetuated through generations, with thousands of scientists colluding to keep the truth, whatever that is, from us).

I find it telling that you attack evolution, but offer no evidence of your own (I already demolished your "no transitional species" attack), nor presented any alternatives.

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15