By JDavid

July 31, 2008 8:46 AM | Link to this

Seems to me that if Barack Obama can hold two completely opposite views on an issue in an instant…. why compromise-??

By JDavid

July 31, 2008 8:46 AM | Link to this

Seems to me that if Barack Obama can hold two completely opposite views on an issue in an instant…. why compromise-??

By The Love Hack

July 31, 2008 9:17 AM | Link to this

Evolution of body necessarily implies evolution of thought as the body and the mind are one. Thou shalt not kill except during war. Then what is war? When is war? How, why, and who is war?

The Iraq War is the perfect battleground for evolution. Look how the mission of US troops evolved. The spin now is light years away from the “find the WMDS and depose Saddam Hussein” mission.

The War on Terror is another great example of evolution. (Which country to invade)? All countries who harbor terrorists. (But that’s even our own country). Then we’ll invade ourselves. (But that’s insane). Waterboard all critics.

What intelligent design implies is that one tyrant can decide when it’s war and which war is justified and where to send the army. All in the name of values, whatever that is.

Evolution implies a strategic vision about a country’s place in the global power heirarchy: war is a last resort and only justified in defense of strategic salients.

Intelligent design allows one tyrant’s fanciful revelations to authorize him to wield the national will and unleash the terrible calamities of war, if he implies that it was the Intelligent Designer who decided for the decider.

Intelligent design is a fast track to armeggedon. One day that little cowboy will pick on the wrong bully, who’ll bite back.

By Copyleft

July 31, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this

Yes, it’s worth pointing out in science classes that evolution (or gravity, or atomic theory, or electromagnetics) say nothing about “values,” only about how the universe works. That should take about 30 seconds.

And it’s a far cry from permitting a blatant non-science like ID equal footing with ACTUAL science, in a course designed to teach actual science.

By "The Corporal"

July 31, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this

Eienstein’s thoughts on the matter:

“His faith in determinism and causality reflected that of his favorite religious philosopher, Baruch Spinoza. Like Spinoza, (he) did not believe in a personal God who interacted with man. But they both believed that a divine design was reflected in the elegant laws that governed the way the universe worked. “When I am judging a theory,” he told his friend Banesh Hoffmann, “I ask myself whether, if I were God, I would have arranged the world in such a way.”

When he posed that question, there was one possibility that he simply could not believe: that the good Lord would have created beautiful and subtle rules that determined “most” of what happened in the universe, while leaving a few things completely to chance. It felt wrong. “If the Lord had wanted to do that, he would have done it thoroughly, and not kept to a pattern …. He would have gone the whole hog. In that case, we wouldn’t have to look for laws at all.”

From “Einstein” by Walter Isaacson (Simon & Schuster - 2007)

TO NOT SEE ORDER AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN THE UNIVERSE IS TO IGNORE REALITY …………

P.S. Don’t forget that Darwin taught that “natural selection” would eventually do away with the black races. That idiotic part of his teaching is always left out of the curriculum taught in our schools. You can’t pick and choose.

By ellis

July 31, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this

“Don’t forget that Darwin taught that “natural selection” would eventually do away with the black races. That idiotic part of his teaching is always left out of the curriculum taught in our schools. You can’t pick and choose.”

pretty funny stuff. now cite your source. :)

By Jen

July 31, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this

You know, the Catholics reconciled the two concepts years and years ago. I don’t see why everyone else can’t.

Just keep one in science class and the other in history, or something. Both subjects take about a week’s worth of lectures at the primary school level, IF that.

By The Love Hack

July 31, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this

God does play dice with the universe, moron.

By "The Corporal"

July 31, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this

To Ellis:

1) How conveniently you ignore Einstein’s thoughts on intelligent design and the source quoted. What say ye about that first ?

2) If I quote you the “races” source (like autobiographies about him) will you change your mind on evolution ?

By gttim

July 31, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this

Science class is for science. ID is not science. There is no foundation for compromise. If you allow a science class to become polluted with non-science concepts, next thing the religious fruitcakes will ask for is scripture reading during Algebra class.

By "The Corporal"

July 31, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

P.S.

I want some of you people out there to argue with Einstein - not me.

I’m just the paper boy. Take it up with the editor !

By thefisherman

July 31, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this

The Bible says that God formed man from the dust of the earth. Darwinism says that man formed from the dust of the earth.

Sounds like plagiarism to me..

By island

July 31, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this

“God does play dice with the universe, moron.”

Speaking of “morons”… that’s an assumption, not a fact, but your faith is noted… “moron”.

By Copyleft

July 31, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this

What do Einstein’s religious beliefs—or Darwin’s, or anyone’s really—have to do with science?

By "The Corporal"

July 31, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this

To gttim:

1) Intelligent design is science as it is “all through science”. Is a computer program science? Who designed it?

2) Google “Darwin and a creator” and you will find he believed in an overall Creator of the universe. He just felt that this Creater set the laws in motion that allowed evolution in the first place.

3) Did you know that the Japanese and others are experimenting with DNA as “data storage”? Reason: DNA can hold and allow for data retrieval at a much higher rate than chips or disc (millions of times)and it does not degenerate over time because it can reproduce the storage. Check it out. By the way - data storage means - you guessed it - INTELLIGENT DESIGN !!!

By RealityKing

July 31, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this

Until science PROVES how life started.., religious belief is just as valid.

By The Love Hack

July 31, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this

Corporal, I never knew a grasp of shared quantum states like that was possible.

BTW: Your grasp of Einstein is….”palmy”.

ew.

Fisherman: Carl Sagan used to say that we were star stuff. That is wrong, in a way. We are earth stuff, and star stuff. Although we sprang from clay, We were inevitable because of the behavior of particles in a shared quantum state. How and why carbon emerges inevitably is the story of our very souls. It’s how the elements are formed inevitably inside a star and why stars are formed. It’s such a grandiose picture that you cant really explain it to anyone’s satisfaction. That makes control freak type A personality p-holes very uncomfortable and they invent myths to make themselves feel safe, mommy.

The problem with bringing up Einstein is that all his theories require an observer.

That’s the key.

Let me give you a little insight into Einstein. His wife did the math, and developed most of the theory. However, the math didn’t really work. Einstein couldn’t figure out why, nor could his wife. Then one day, he was standing at the top of a hill overlooking the town and a friend remarked that all the town’s steeple clocks read 11:00 am. Einstein turned to him and thanked him and ran off with the solution to Relativity.

You see, his friend noticed the time first, because he was closer to the town, even by only a few feet, he would see the light informing him of the time before Einstein could see the light informing him of the time. Get it? Time is the variable. It is different for all observers. Time cant be defined, therefore it doesnt’ exist. It’s a plug in.

That tells us something about the nature of space time, and how we can see 14 billion year old quasars. Yet, the universe has no boundaries and is infinite.

huh?

Corporal, I think you’re needed on the short bus to demonstrate where to put the tin foil inside the helmets so no one can see and know the secrets.

bwa

By GodHatesTrash

July 31, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this

Dubya - where’s the intelligent design in that moron?

Georgia rednecks - proof of devolution, or the missing links, or just a stunted branch of the primate tree, dumb cousins to the chimpanzee?

Just some of the many mysteries of the universe to ponder…

By The Love Hack

July 31, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this

Fisherman: “Let there be light” sounds like a great way to tell about the big bang also.

The problem with bringing up Einstein is that all his theories require an observer.

That’s the key.

Let me give you a little insight into Einstein. His wife did the math, and developed most of the theory. However, the math didn’t really work. Einstein couldn’t figure out why, nor could his wife. Then one day, he was standing at the top of a hill overlooking the town and a friend remarked that all the town’s steeple clocks read 11:00 am. Einstein turned to him and thanked him and ran off with the solution to Relativity.

You see, his friend noticed the time first, because he was closer to the town, even by only a few feet, he would see the light informing him of the time before Einstein could see the light informing him of the time. Get it? Time is the variable. It is different for all observers. Time cant be defined, therefore it doesnt’ exist. It’s a plug in.

That tells us something about the nature of space time, and how we can see 14 billion year old quasars. Yet, the universe has no boundaries and is infinite.

huh?

Corporal, I think you’re needed on the short bus to demonstrate where to put the tin foil inside the helmets so no one can see and know the secrets.

bwa Hey corporal, where did the tin come from for your hat? Discover that and you will be the genius of the blog, instead of the blog stooge like Glenn

By Wiki

July 31, 2008 11:26 AM | Link to this

Darwins views on religion.

At the time of writing “On the Origin of Species”, Darwin remained a theist, convinced of the existence of God as a First Cause.

Later, with the death of his daughter Annie, Darwin lost all faith in a beneficent God and saw Christianity as futile. In his later life, Darwin was frequently asked about his religious views. He went as far as saying that “Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities.” However, he was always insistent that he was agnostic and had “never been an atheist”.

By JosephU

July 31, 2008 11:37 AM | Link to this

Jen wrote: “You know, the Catholics reconciled the two concepts years and years ago. I don’t see why everyone else can’t.”

Appended are a few Catholic teachings:

• Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught. (Pius XII, Humani Generis)

• Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)

• The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ [Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).

Partial quote from: “What Does The Catholic Church Teach about Origins?” The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation Defending Genesis from a Traditional Catholic Perspective

.

By Copyleft

July 31, 2008 12:55 PM | Link to this

Again, what do Einstein’s religious beliefs—or anyone’s—have to do with science? Plenty of scientists are atheist, humanist, or agnostic; plenty of others are believers in all sorts of faiths.

Why? Because religious belief has nothing to do with science, that’s why.

Next: “ID” will qualify as science as soon as it submits some testable hypotheses that actually explain something, as opposed to saying ‘Evolution sucks.’

Finally: “Just as valid” is a lazy way of thinking. If I don’t know what caused the house next door to burn down, is it ‘just as valid’ to assume pixies did it, as opposed to a lightning strike or electrical short?

By "The Corporal"

July 31, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this

To all of you “scientists” out there:

A couple of points:

1) “Intelligent Design” simply means that all of this has a design. It couldn’t have happened by chance. Even if evolution (macro or micro) is true and the “big bang” is true (which I believe it is) who made the “big bang”? Or if the “big bang” has happended over and over again a million times (expansion and contraction theory) then who put the matter there for the first “bang”? And if you want to ask “well who put the Designer there the first time” well that’s fine also. At least we are headed in the right direction. To ignore intelligent design in the universe is to ignore reality.

2) Now, if you are an atheist please do not continue reading. This is for Christians only. You might find these passages useful. 4,000 years ago when the greatest scientific minds believed the earth was on the back of a giant turtle, or held up by four pillars, or held up by Atlas, or was the center of the universe ……….. this is what the Bible said:

Job 26:7 (New International Version) He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over NOTHING (emphasis added).

Isa. 42:5 (Young’s Literal Translation) Thus said God, Jehovah, preparing The heavens, and stretching them out, Spreading out the earth and its productions, Giving breath to the people on it, And spirit to those walking in it.

Note: The orginal Hebrew regarding the “heavens” means “continues to stretch them out” !!

Amazing! The Bible was right on the “expanding universe” 4,000+ years ago !

I wonder just what else it may be right about ………. :o) ???

By bobxxxx

July 31, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this

“Do you think a compromise is possible in the evolution debate?”

Here’s my compromise. Put the evolution deniers who keep attacking America’s science education in prison for treason.

By island

July 31, 2008 1:09 PM | Link to this

The point of Einstein’s statement is that the universe is configured “logically”.

Physicists (Paul Davies, Lenny Susskind, John Wheeler…) recognize that it “looks like a fix”, so this “appearance of design” tells us that there is a valid scientific question as to why this is so.

It is most naturally expected that there is a dynamical structure principle behind it that will explain it from first physics principles, but there are “bolder” explanations that are more reaching, like the multiverse.

Any of these plausible natural solutions will be necessarily-preferred by science over a supernatural intelligent designer.

The “happy-medium” that will never be achieved comes in the form of a “goal oriented universe” that needs us into existence to satisfy some physical need.

We can’t get there from here, (no matter how strong the evidence might get), because this would require a compromise that recognizes purpose in nature, but without god, and the fanatics on both sides of the debate aren’t about to let that happen as long as there is a culture war to be fought.

Extremist idiots drive the world to a balance of opposing insanity that derives a precarious balance between two sure ways to kill off the human race.

THE anthropic principle.

By bobxxxx

July 31, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this

From another comment: “To ignore intelligent design in the universe is to ignore reality.”

Translation: “To ignore MAGIC in the universe is to ignore reality.”

Magic is not reality. Magic is a childish idiotic idea. People who believe in magic are uneducated insane religious hicks.

By "The Corporal"

July 31, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this

Bottom Line:

If there is no designer with a purpose - big deal. We live, we die, there is no eternal soul and we go into oblivion.

But …. if there is a designer and a sacred purpose to the universe …. who is taking the greater risk ?

Talk about “blind chance” ………….

By island

July 31, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this

“Intelligent Design” simply means that all of this has a design. It couldn’t have happened by chance…

Yes, and the bogus assumption is that non-random occurrence requires an intelligent designer.

It does not, but your equally fanatical counterparts will never make this critically important scientific point as long as they can deny the significance of any and all evidence for non-random occurrence in nature.

I think that you all should just fight your culture war, for real, and then the rest of us can resume normal lives.

By Fierce one

July 31, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this

You all are wrong. The universe was inevitable because…..

Carbon was inevitable because……

It comes down to the shared quantum state of two particles and the manner in which they dance.

The elements were all inevitable inside of stars. Hydrogen to helium to all the other elements, because that’s the way particles default.

It’s the same all over the universe no matter where you look. Particles behave the same way. Humans were inevitable when the planet earth formed. We had to spring up. There was nothing to stop us. Carbon based molecular structures behave that way.

In other words carbon cant do anything that’s not carbon like. Stars cant do anything that not star like.

What happens happens because it’s happening and cant be happening any other way. Hydrogen doesn’t become hodron or gilgon or millmon, no sir, it becomes helium only helium period. It all has to occur that specific way.

It’s a really tough concept to grasp, but if you introduce one atom of hydrogen that wasn’t here before now, then it would eventually become a universe. Particles just do that. You intro one and another is implied thus a possibility becomes a probability, BUT it requires an observer.

The universe requires an observer. that’s the main thing.

Is the observer God? or Man, or is that the same thing? Does God only exist inside the mind of a man, does it take a man’s brain for god to exist?

If so, then God and Man happened simultaneously. But that’s getting a little thick and deep.

It’s why I say that the universe was created when man first observed it. God needs man as much as man needs god. Ever wonder why you? Why do you have to go through all this torture? Because it’s necessary that you do, your observations are critical to the universe, your spin your reactions your experience and existence is required. You, and no one else but you. Required, or the universe isn’t the universe. That’s how important you are. It’s great isn’t it? Wait till you meet God. You’ll be so embarrassed you blogged like morons on the Wooten blog, trust me. I dont know if God can forgive moronium or not, I’m sure he can, no, really, you’ll all be fine, seriously, it’s okay. dont worry. bwa.

My theology theory is weak. It’s kind of a proof of god that requires that you divide by zero so it cant be right.

By "The Corporal"

July 31, 2008 1:54 PM | Link to this

Toi Fierce One:

1) You leave out one important point. Who put all the immense matter in the universe there in the first place. Observed or not - where did it come from ?

2) All of that aside, if there is no “designer” then there is no absolute “moral” law. Yes, mankind can make laws and “say” they are moral but one person’s law is no better or worse than another (i.e., I can cut off you hand for stealing and who are YOU to say I am wrong)? I can also come over to your house and put a bullet in your head and take your car that I want. You go into oblivion and then 20 years later I go into oblivion (MAYBE) if I am caught and executed. Once everyone who ever knew of that incident is in oblivion - it’s OBLIVION! So, I can do whatever I want and I am just as right and moral as anyone.

3) Final question: Should it be illegal for teachers in our public schools to put the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence (endowed by our Creator) or any of the preambles to any of the 50 state constitutions up in front of the classroom ?

By Copyleft

July 31, 2008 1:57 PM | Link to this

Corporal: What you’re saying is a version of “Pascal’s Wager.” Google or Wiki it sometime and you’ll see the logical holes in it.

For example: What if Baal is the One True God? Then you’re guilty of heresy, where the atheist has committed the comparatively minor sin of doubt.

Also: “The greater risk?” This argument suggests that people should pretend to believe, just in CASE there’s a god who’s watching. And hopefully, he’s dumb enough to be fooled by people who are just playing it safe.

Show me some evidence, or admit that this is simply a difference of opinion based on guesses and preferences.

By The Gimme's

July 31, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this

WHen Doubting Thomas was confronted by Christ who allowed him to touch his wounds, Thomas felt like a real p-hole for doubting. Similarly Glenn doubts Analchord, and wishes to cause wounds that he may stick his hairy-knuckled paws into….

Where did the matter come from? That’s the question I had in the first grade. Congratulations, spanky, you’ve reached my six year old awareness.

I told you, Glenn, matter is gleaned by a shared quantum state of two particles. Until they interact, there is no mass. Only the possibility of mass. Mass is gleaned by the probability of there being two interactive particles. The probability alone is where the matter’s mass come from.

Therefore the universe was created by the possibility that there would be a god who created mankind to observe it. The possibility alone is enough to ensure it. That’s what quantum physics is telling us about the universe.

I think.

By "The Corporal"

July 31, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this

To Copyleft:

This is from my heart ………

The “evidence” for me is how Jesus Christ has changed my life and given me the assurance of eternal life. How can I prove that? Not any more than I can take something physical from inside of me and show it to you regarding the love I have for my children …. but it’s there nonetheless ………

P.S. What do you think about my comments #1 through #3 just above your last post. Not being arguementative - just curious. II Cor. 2: 14-17 (Fragrance?)

14But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumphal procession in Christ and through us spreads everywhere the fragrance of the knowledge of him. 15For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. 16To the one we are the smell of death; to the other, the fragrance of life. And who is equal to such a task? 17Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, like men sent from God.

By island

July 31, 2008 3:01 PM | Link to this

Corporal said: 1) You leave out one important point. Who put all the immense matter in the universe there in the first place. Observed or not - where did it come from ?

This comes from the false belief that there must be a “first cause”, when in fact, cause and effect are relational concepts… in every case that we can measure, every effect is also the cause of another effect, so it would require an unfounded leap of faith to break this continuity when it comes to the big bang.

Corporal said: 2) All of that aside, if there is no “designer” then there is no absolute “moral” law.

This is not true if there is a “final cause” inherent in the energy of a strictly or largely deterministic universe.

This is yet to be decided by a final theory, although science doesn’t readily recognize this evidenced possibility, since it is driven by theoretical righteousness:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2462

By Shahar

July 31, 2008 3:06 PM | Link to this

While the intentions of the article are good, e.g. teaching the relationship between science and society as a solution to the impasse of ID and evolution, the reasoning makes the same category mistakes (e.g moving from evolutionary Darwinism to social Darwinism as if those are the same or causally connected) as those on the side of ID and in turn, serves to legitimate their concerns.

That said, I’m not suggesting that Darwinian ideas did not play a role in say, Adolf Hitler’s overall “philosophical” outlook, for one example of “social Darwinism.” Yet, many on the creationist/ID side of the tracks would have us believe that if Darwin never walked the planet, the Holocaust simply wouldn’t have happened. This is outrageous, forgetting about the fact that say, anti-semitic genocidal acts existed well before Darwin, and regardless of Adolf Hitler’s own ideological sources he encouraged a good many “willing executioners”, and drove tens of thousands more to a passive but nonetheless guilty agreement by mobilizing nationalistic and Christian themed blood and soil rhetoric. Let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater. My problem is with the claim of a direct, causal relationship from Darwinian evolutionary theory to Nazism.

Very disingenuous. Why make such a strong causal claim here? Doesn’t this move tend to conflate scientific and social Darwinism in a rather egregious and manipulative way? In fact, Darwin umambiguously rejected the idea of wiping out the “weak” as well, dehumanizing. So, my problem is less with the Nazi/Darwinism connection per se than it is with the manipulative use of such a connection, for one, to further political aims, second, to overstate the case in order to suggest that we should reject Darwinism b/c it leads to Fascism and the all around devaluing of human life. The inference, that all Nazi ideology came from Darwinism, is very disingenuous.

All in all, to capitulate to those on the ID side by teaching morality in the science classroom side by side evolution repeats this same category mistake. Science and morality should be discussed in an ethics class, and Intelligent Design arguments, some of which largely restate the 19th century theologian William Paley’s Watchmaker Argument in different terms, belongs in the Religion classroom, or minimally, the philosophy classroom. After all, evolution can be reproduced in a jar for all to see. In the terms of the op ed, what follows are related, but largely categorically different issues and questions.

By Logical Dude

July 31, 2008 3:14 PM | Link to this

Having studied Physics & Astronomy, and also Christianity, I feel there can be a compromise.
Some Christians may not like the compromise because they may need to give a little too much. Some Scientists may not like the compromise because they need to look past their own dogma.

The universe is billions of years old. Christians who believe in creation only 6000 years ago are wrong. Just like those who believed that the earth was the center of the universe, they are wrong. This argument implies that belief in something does not make it true.

Scientists who think there is no evidence for a creator also have no evidence of how things started. Science before the big bang is purely speculative, as the laws of the universe break down when trying to peer before the instant of the big bang.

This leaves room for IDers to say that God created everything, but there is also no proof except “creation must have a creator”, which is not scientifically valid. Ultimately in comes down to faith. What do you believe? Many scientists believe in God and still study and create theories of evolution and cosmology. But until there is scientific evidence for a supernatural being, then it does not belong in scientific curricula. Now, once there IS evidence, then it should be presented and defended in the peer review process.

By Copyleft

July 31, 2008 3:24 PM | Link to this

Answering Corporal’s questions:

1) You leave out one important point. Who put all the immense matter in the universe there in the first place. Observed or not - where did it come from?

Yes… and your answer doesn’t actually ANSWER that question. It just replaces it with a new one, again one that any child would spot and ask: “Then who made HIM?”

2) If there is no “designer” then there is no absolute “moral” law.

That’s true… and so what? The moral and ethical rules we invent for ourselves adn our societies work just fine (especially sinice, given that gods are imaginary, the “absolute” laws were invented too).

Yes, mankind can make laws and “say” they are moral but one person’s law is no better or worse than another

Incorrect, as philosophers and ethicists can explain far better than I. We can, and do, create moral/ethical rules that are objectively superior to others based on first principles such as

*Minimum suffering for minimum individuals *Maximum freedom up to the limits of others’ freedom and so on.

So, I can do whatever I want and I am just as right and moral as anyone.

A counter-question: So, you only do the right thing because God will punish or reward you? I don’t think much of someone whose behavior is driven by carrot and stick only.

3) Final question: Should it be illegal for teachers in our public schools to put the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence (endowed by our Creator) or any of the preambles to any of the 50 state constitutions up in front of the classroom?

No, why would it? Those are part of our political system and should be part of our children’s public education, particularly in history, government, and civics class.

What does that have to do with science?

By Copyleft

July 31, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this

Well said, Logical. But I don’t think the ID-ers will be satisfied with the type of god you allow them, which sounds more like the Deist god of the Enlightenment era (you know, the one the Founding Fathers believed in, if they bothered to believe in any at all).

Since IDers are simply creationists wearing masks, there’s no chance they will accept any rational compromise short of “Science says X, but remember, the True Christian Faith (as taught at MY church) thinks otherwise, so pay no attention to this science bunk after the bell rings.”

By "The Corporal"

July 31, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this

To island and Shahar:

Sorry guys:

So much babble.

To Logical Dude:

There is much evidence that can be provided by many scientists of note. Just do the research. One is the ability for humans to “see” ….. a many step process that defies logic without a “designer”. In other words, the various steps would not only have had to appear in the right sequence but they would have had to “know” the next step depended on the prior one …. basically a mathematical impossibility.

The problem is, atheistic scientists refuse to engage in the debate. This is not about a particular religion or denomination - it’s just about probablility.

And ……… no matter how you babble and try to describe origninal mass, or particles or whatever (the denseness thereof which is incomprehensible as it no composes the entire universe) ………. where did that come from ?

By Copyleft

July 31, 2008 3:46 PM | Link to this

And to your own “origin” question, Corporal: Then where did your creator come from?

The question is still there, it’s just been moved back one step, introducing a needless complication that doesn’t answer anything.

By Logical Dude

July 31, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this

The Corporal: I disagree on the human eyesight argument. How we see has a strong evolutionary path.

I do agree that atheistic scientists refuse to engage in the debate. They only see “Christian fundamentalists” trying to put religion in schools. (this is a very generalized statement - not to lump all scientists together) That being said, most arguments for ID are weak on scientific evidence, if not totally lacking.

Another compromise: Teach ID in civics/religious class until more peer reviewed scientific evidence is presented? That way there is SOME discussion of the subject in schools, just not in science class, where ID does not belong at this time.

By "The Corporal"

July 31, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this

To Copyleft:

1) Then we agree. It’s o.k. to keep asking those types of questions because it had to start somewhere past our universe.

2) Disagree. If there is no higher moral law - I am free to do as I please. All you can do is “physcially” try to restrain me.

3) What does this have to do with science? Everything - as they “ALL” refer to a Creator. You can’t say there is a “Creator” in an ethics or politcal class and then say there is not one in a science class any more than you can say 1+1=2 in a math class but it’s not true in an English class. Truth is Truth. Either there is a Creator or there isn’t.

By island

July 31, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this

To Corporal:

Sorry that you don’t understand science.

Bite me.

By RealityKing

July 31, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this

Our public school system is a complete failure. A world joke! We should be focusing on nothing but reading, writing and arthmetic. And when our children can once again read and reason well enough to make informed decisions on topic such as these.., we can come back to this question.

By Copyleft

July 31, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this

Actually, science classes typically DON’T say “There’s no creator”—that’s creationist paranoia. (And civics class doesn’t announce “There IS a creator,” either; it simply presents documents that contain such sentiments, without endorsing OR condemning the opinion.)

But okay. Fair enough; if you want the question of a creator’s existence to be treated as a scientific question, I’m all for it.

Now: Present some evidence for a creator. Make some testable, falsifiable claims. Show how your theory explains the available evidence better than prevailing theories do.

Once you can do that, you’ll earn entry into scientific discussions. IDers haven’t even come close. And until they do, they won’t be allowed to take up valuable class time peddling their nonsense.

By Shahar

July 31, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this

To “The Corporal:”

“So much babble” isn’t really a refutation of my comment as it is an evasion of confronting a position that you find contradicts what you seem to take as self-evident.

Since you told us to do the research, I will list some points for you that are all attributable to ID. Many on the design side like to point to the experiment at MIT from the 60’s in which one mathematician dryly noted that a whirlwind whipping through a junkyard would stand a better chance of spontaneously assembling a 747 than the current state of life on the planet having come about through Darwinian mechanism. They go on to suggest that Darwinism has been unable to come up with answers to problems like homologous structures and disjunctions, point mutations and their survival value, amino acid sequences that lead to no evolutionary sequence across phyla (claiming that microevolution is at best a fairytale), and oddest of all, gesture to the “huge gaps” in the fossil record (Err….really?) and love to gesture to all of this as so-called irreducible complexity (as if complexity is enough to drive a wedge into Darwinism and make a case for a designer). Finally, proponents of design like to suggest that we have no idea how life began and suggest that evolutionary biology’s best response so far has been the punctuated equilibirium theory, which is a failure because it is much more descriptive than explanatory. Like I said, the fact is that we can duplicate evolution in a high school science classroom in a glass jar! Now, it would be good to have a bunch of “science smarties” go at it and talk about this stuff, which on the face of it seems to be independent from religion or concepts of God (as far as I can tell the ID crowd tends to sneak all that in later).

Now, I don’t agree with any of what I just attributed to ID, however I never said that ID itself was wrong, my complaint is that it’s simply not science, e.g. it doesn’t stand up to the rigor of a scientific “theory.” Moreover, I would readily admit that in the most speculative sense, perhaps it’s possible (but maybe not probable) that there exists a designer, but we have to —in the laboratory—de-connect and bracket out such a conception of a designer from necessity.

You write: And ……… no matter how you babble and try to describe origninal mass, or particles or whatever (the denseness thereof which is incomprehensible as it no composes the entire universe) ………. where did that come from ?

There are answers —however speculative sounding to you—to that, but I’m not a scientist. I could equally pose the same question to you as you seem to assert, on the basis of belief and not knowledge the nature and intentions of God. The way in which you have set up the problem suggests that the laboratory of the scientist is no more privileged/accurate than the world of the religious fanatic. Instead, each are just differing ways of understanding the world and neither hold a greater claim to the truth. What I’m suggesting is some agnosticism, it’s not that atheisitic scientists refuse to enter into the debate with the ID side, it’s simply two sides of the same coin. But you can’t pretend that religion is science, or should inform science. It’s simply not a scientific theory.

By The Gimme's

July 31, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this

Glenn, all you write is genius derived. Your understanding is wizard-like. Your questions R valid, and correct, and advance knowledge.

My stupid question is why was god inevitable.

I also ask this dimwitted question: What is light? Is the light from a lightbulb is the same substance as the radiation at Nagasaki in 1945 or the light from the sun or a radio wave or an xray or a cosmic ray? all the same? Are they? I want to know.

Are we antennae for electromagnetic radiation? What a dumb question, eh?

Corp..I mean Glenn, you’re simply too advanced and too great a genius to hold this pathetic little stupid discussion with me about matters I know nothing about.

I’m going to go soak my head in the toilet of centripedal force

By "The Corporal"

July 31, 2008 4:24 PM | Link to this

Hey guys - I’ve enjoyed the debate but I really do have to leave for the day.

Final points:

1) The world is full of I.D. scientists who can successfully debate I.D. They just aren’t allowed to ………

2) “He who is convinced against his will is of the same opinion still”.

3) Faith is faith - whether it’s faith in God or faith in a “godless” science. I prefer God “AND” science.

God bless (no pun intended) …………

By thefisherman

July 31, 2008 4:28 PM | Link to this

For CopyLeft…

The Rich Man and Lazarus

Luke 16:19 “There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. [1] The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ 27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house— 28 for I have five brothers [2]—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”