Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

One assumes one's fans are paying attention and are quick on the uptake.

Who would want any other sort of fans?

I'm a musician, I play locally on weekends, and have a bunch of tube amps and other toys.

See if you can do Ain't Talkin' Chum.

As I walked out tonight in the mystic garden
The sexy flower girls were dangling from the vine
I was passing by yon cool crystal fountain
I thought I'd take her from behind





The real question is, does intelligent design favor one sexual position over another and if so why?




Intelligent behind?

Farmerman wrote:


I loved that area of Maine-people-scenery-everything. I bet the guy you're talking about is one of the McGowan's. They were this family with about eight adult siblings who still all lived in town or nearby in the surrounding area. The parents owned the gas station and restaurant right on route 2 there in Canaan- really nice people- one of the brothers- Patrick- was a local politician-but a good one- really worked hard for the people of the community.

Anyway, before you get back on topic here, what I was going to tell you was that if you ever go back, try to go back in mid-October (you have a heater in the RV, right?). And if you drive west on Route 2 from Canaan into Skowhegan, there's a bend in the river right before you get into Skowhegan and in the early morning, especially in the fall, the mist comes up off the water, and with the autumn foliage, etc., you've never seen anything more beautiful. I haven't lived there for eight years, but that scene is still imprinted on my brain.

*Also try to go to the Rangely Lake District - north and west of Canaan- up by the Saddleback ski area- another great area of incredible beauty and good camping.

Spendius, you say that art is about speed. What the hell are you talking about?

Chum wrote-

Aidan.Ive been around the Rt 2 "mining district" a lot and have seen the area change freom wilderness to small villages of yupee mc mansions and ski lodges. We have property all the way North nenar Estport and we go there and spend most of our time on the water.
We were going to sail to Newfoundland to Lans Aux meadows but have decided against a long voyage this yer. So we are going to chug around Fundy alot and just paint and fish. (Whatevermood hits us on any particular day).

JL, spendi was reffering to the late "Art" Arfons, when he spoke of "Art is about speed"

That's sad- I'm glad you warned me. I guess it's just another type of evolution- although what positive purpose could that kind ever possibly serve?

FM, are there any archaeological activities that go on at L'Anse aux meadows, or has it all already been dug up?

The BBC just said that Mr Bush's statement on global warming is being greeted around the world with a great deal of skepticism. Some are calling it a snow-job to stall.

Maybe it's due to all the valueless assertions they are used to.

I actually think Mr Bush is serious. The prospect of China and India and some others catching up to the American dream must be pretty alarming.

Maybe the principle enshrined in the lines Bob Dylan wrote a long time ago-

"Oh Baby, that God you're prayin' to
Is gonna give you back what you're wishin' on someone else."

have finally sunk in.

The rest of them are on the point of letting it rip and you would have to be a racist to deny them the opportunity.

Set, I know that the excavations at L.a.M. were only partially complete a few years ago. There is an interpretive center there and some of the excavations that have just flat been covered over until bigger budgets are available to complete the job.

Each year we plan to steam out and make the turn at Belle ISle Straijght and then ride it out. However , with the price of marine diesel at over 4 bucks, Were not gonna do it this year. Maybe well just take the Ferry and ride all over Newfie land. (But, seeing as they only have 1 decent road, that probably aint happening either)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/opinion/31brownback.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

What I Think About Evolution
by Sam Brownback

IN our sound-bite political culture, it is unrealistic to expect that every complicated issue will be addressed with the nuance or subtlety it deserves. So I suppose I should not have been surprised earlier this month when, during the first Republican presidential debate, the candidates on stage were asked to raise their hands if they did not "believe" in evolution. As one of those who raised his hand, I think it would be helpful to discuss the issue in a bit more detail and with the seriousness it demands.

The premise behind the question seems to be that if one does not unhesitatingly assert belief in evolution, then one must necessarily believe that God created the world and everything in it in six 24-hour days. But limiting this question to a stark choice between evolution and creationism does a disservice to the complexity of the interaction between science, faith and reason.

The heart of the issue is that we cannot drive a wedge between faith and reason. I believe wholeheartedly that there cannot be any contradiction between the two. The scientific method, based on reason, seeks to discover truths about the nature of the created order and how it operates, whereas faith deals with spiritual truths. The truths of science and faith are complementary: they deal with very different questions, but they do not contradict each other because the spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God.

People of faith should be rational, using the gift of reason that God has given us. At the same time, reason itself cannot answer every question. Faith seeks to purify reason so that we might be able to see more clearly, not less. Faith supplements the scientific method by providing an understanding of values, meaning and purpose. More than that, faith ?- not science ?- can help us understand the breadth of human suffering or the depth of human love. Faith and science should go together, not be driven apart.

The question of evolution goes to the heart of this issue. If belief in evolution means simply assenting to microevolution, small changes over time within a species, I am happy to say, as I have in the past, that I believe it to be true. If, on the other hand, it means assenting to an exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence, then I reject it.

There is no one single theory of evolution, as proponents of punctuated equilibrium and classical Darwinism continue to feud today. Many questions raised by evolutionary theory ?- like whether man has a unique place in the world or is merely the chance product of random mutations ?- go beyond empirical science and are better addressed in the realm of philosophy or theology.

The most passionate advocates of evolutionary theory offer a vision of man as a kind of historical accident. That being the case, many believers ?- myself included ?- reject arguments for evolution that dismiss the possibility of divine causality.

Ultimately, on the question of the origins of the universe, I am happy to let the facts speak for themselves. There are aspects of evolutionary biology that reveal a great deal about the nature of the world, like the small changes that take place within a species. Yet I believe, as do many biologists and people of faith, that the process of creation ?- and indeed life today ?- is sustained by the hand of God in a manner known fully only to him. It does not strike me as anti-science or anti-reason to question the philosophical presuppositions behind theories offered by scientists who, in excluding the possibility of design or purpose, venture far beyond their realm of empirical science.

Biologists will have their debates about man's origins, but people of faith can also bring a great deal to the table. For this reason, I oppose the exclusion of either faith or reason from the discussion. An attempt by either to seek a monopoly on these questions would be wrong-headed. As science continues to explore the details of man's origin, faith can do its part as well. The fundamental question for me is how these theories affect our understanding of the human person.

The unique and special place of each and every person in creation is a fundamental truth that must be safeguarded. I am wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man's essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos. I firmly believe that each human person, regardless of circumstance, was willed into being and made for a purpose.

While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man's origins, we can say with conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.

Without hesitation, I am happy to raise my hand to that.

I'm not sure that Mr Brownback has said anything useful there. His statement seems too emollient as one would expect from a politician who seeks votes from both camps.

He completely fails to address the social consequences issue or the muzzling question and the difficult problem of the educational arrangements in classrooms in areas having different traditions.

why is it that god simply cannot have started the evolutionary process?

Of course, no one knows exactly what a spritual truth is as opposed to a truth.

Joe(sooth)Nation

A spiritual truth might be like an evolutionary truth in the sense that it works to adapt those who hold it to a more successful outcome than one in which they didn't. Human nature being included in the environmental factors.

It is a well known philosophical maxim that each individual human being ia all alone in the universe. Indeed this proposition is thought by some to be the driving power of Western scientific society (The Faustian culture).

To mitigate such a severe doctrine we erect bonds such as marriage and family, clubs and parties and such like by the use of spiritual "truths". Anti-ID, in the last analysis, recognises none of them and regulates social organisation with rules. That was the essence of "Thatcherism". It is the abiding subject in 1984, Brave New World,Catch 22 and Darkness at Noon.

If one compares two groups of people; a christening or marriage ceremony and a subway train at rush hour the difference might be apparent.

That was the biggest pile of fence-sitting, spin-doctored, squirming under the bright light, pandering jargon I've ever seen.

Good job Mr. Politician.

(I feel like I answered this already )

Sam Brownback That , in itself is a contradictory statement.