Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

I do agree that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a creator. However I do note that many, perhaps a majority, of those here on this thread who argue against ID in the schools explicitly say or at least strongly imply that science is either incompatible with the idea of a creator or at least makes the concept unnecessary for a thinking person. As I'm sure you will agree, that is an unsupportable and illogical conclusion.

georgeob1 wrote:

I do agree that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a creator. However I do note that many, perhaps a majority, of those here on this thread who argue against ID in the schools explicitly say or at least strongly imply that science is either incompatible with the idea of a creator or at least makes the concept unnecessary for a thinking person. As I'm sure you will agree, that is an unsupportable and illogical conclusion.

georgeob,
Rosborne and Lola responded to this. In my opinion, most people on this thread did not imply that science makes the concept of a creator unnecessary. This would be the extreme position that Richard Dawkins seems to favor. We discussed Dawkins recently and most of us seem to feel that Dawkins is "off base" when he uses science to justify atheism.

You don't seem to take into account that some of us may control ourselves because we can't allow ourselves to do otherwise, that is we have a well functioning conscience.

Living my life so that I feel I've been fair and helpful is coming from me and has very little to do with external authority.

There is no reason to assume other universes must not exist

And for yet others, its a ho-hum; no problem at all since it doesn't register in their consciousness; there is neither question nor answer.

These people are ruining my fun and they well may set us back at least 50 years. Damn! It's so annoying.

I have made it clear that I don't advocate the mixing of theology and science in our schools.

However, I do note that, absent the ideas of a god, there is nothing logically to prevent you or anyone from developing a personal code that permits anything.

rosborne979 wrote:
My impression from the last few posts from Speni and George is that Strawmen have evolved into Scarecrows.


btw.......I don't want to let this go by without acknowledgement. Very well said.

Rosborne and Lola responded to this. In my opinion, most people on this thread did not imply that science makes the concept of a creator unnecessary. This would be the extreme position that Richard Dawkins seems to favor. We discussed Dawkins recently and most of us seem to feel that Dawkins is "off base" when he uses science to justify atheism.

Dawkins is a fine spokesman for the scientific theory of evolution, but I agree with Wande.......Dawkins goes too far if he tries to use it to disprove the existence of God.

Lola objected to this from George-

Quote:

However, I do note that, absent the ideas of a god, there is nothing logically to prevent you or anyone from developing a personal code that permits anything.

George is quite correct there.John Lennon once said about New York-"It frightens me what you can do in this town with my money."

They didn't even have little pink umbrellas in their cocktails to keep the rain out.

Quote:

Thank you Lola. You now have two definite votes.

I do know how uncomfortable it is to come down from a position taken, whether carelessly or thoughtfully. I certainly don't find it easy and often don't do it when I should. I thank you both.

Gee!

I wake up to five pages.What can I do?

One at once is my best shot.

Lola wrote-

Quote:

You don't seem to take into account that some of us may control ourselves because we can't allow ourselves to do otherwise, that is we have a well functioning conscience.

What a disastrous idea if everybody else is not as sweet as you which they are not.Unless being trampled underfoot is your chosen path to martyrdom.

..."Jesus Saves".

Many people have an internalized conscience and are quite able to take responsibility for our decisions and actions. Dependence on an idea of external authority is a convenience many people use and for some, it's a necessity. Many of us don't need God to be forced on us.

Richard Dawkins suggests morality/altruism/being nice is quite easily explainable without resorting to fear of punishment from the super alpha male in the sky.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Richard Dawkins suggests morality/altruism/being nice is quite easily explainable without resorting to fear of punishment from the super alpha male in the sky.

Then perhaps you could explain it to us. While you are at it explain evil and what factors might explain the balance between the two.