Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Add the power of a God to your already bleak view of human nature and it's really terrible. At least Atheists cannot claim a higher power as justification for their immoral actions.

----Yes, but perhaps the consent of the governed means something

The Princes also form a little, rather exclusive society amongst themselves. Athiests also know better than to marry their cousin-sister-mother-father.

I very seriously disagree with your assumption that Atheism has no morality.----I explained how morality came about in social animals. I seriously doubt the morality of anyone that claims morality issued forth from an imaginary Deity.

That is a seriously debateable assumption.

It would take too long to explain that dehumanizing persons is an accepted military tactic. Cowboys will be cowboys. I have no ready alternative to Guantanamo but I think something of this sort is regrettably necessary.

Christian morality is often an oxymoron, and usually incomprehensible.

Kosovo, Iraq, Somalia all put that paragraph down as simply wishful thinking that has absolutely no basis in observations.

Except when that higher power is that natural law that the strongest shall prevail.

What I wonder at, is Spendius alternating description of evolutionism as atheism and then as its own religion. It seems to me that he should pick sides, and decide whether evolutionism is secular and therefore in his view corrosive to society, or its own religion, and therefore, in his view, hypocritical.

I didn't describe evolutionism as atheism. I couldn't have done because the idea has never crossed my mind. Evolutionism simply offers a non-miraculous explanation of the development of life forms from the beginning of life without an explanation of the origin of the starting point. It thus leaves open a Divine originator. The atheist denies that. To him there is no Divine originator for anything. It is merely the pointless whizzbangpop of happenstance with no meaning.

Evolutionism is not a religion because it limits itself to what it can prove, or thinks it can prove on the evidence it selects, and it therefore requires no beliefs. It can be used to justify anything except faith, hope, charity, love, art, beauty, self-sacrifice or anything else which allows humans to imagine themselves to have a vestige of dignity and it can only produce dignity from the exercise of power and preferably untrammeled power. Hence the constant use of assertions which are an effete form of King Kong beating his chest with his fists. And evolutionism asserts that the "progress" is upward towards ever more killing and destruction. Humility being incoherent obviously. Hence Jesus was mad and thus all his teachings worthless. And the longer the neck of a giraffe the more successful the giraffe was and thus more attractive to the ladies despite it taking aeons to extend necks like that and trees changing to shrubs at a far faster rate or even to grasslands where it performs with singular awkwardness and self-evident inefficiency. Better stick to fins becoming wings on the assumprtion that it is progress to fly rather than swim skipping conveniently over the uselessness for swimming of a fin which is half wing and the uselessness for flying of a wing which is half fin synergistically accompanied with the myriad other changes required to "relocate" from water to land and airwaves and all taking tens or hundreds of millions of years which renders the process unobservable (teleological explanations of carefully chosen fossils by expert, peer-revied, experts [it is said] - well paid at least - notwithstanding). {spendi has nurse rub eyelids with snake oil}.

It is so much easier to have God having done it with a magic wand and the first principle of evolution is the conservation of energy. Classier too. Saves us thinking we are grubs which allows us, some of the time, to behave in ways grubs don't. Some of us anyway.

It has been said (whoops) that the idea came from drawing an analogy with the progress of human life being achieved, under the guidance of the Church, to life in general, which is stretching analogy further than Auntie Bessie dare stretch her corsets. Having "discovered" the progress in nature ( an ability to feed on new things) the evolutionists then circled around to use their "discovery" to justify their social belief that it was right and proper, divinely sanctioned and perfectly natural for them to luxuriate in the productions of the less fit, whose noses were ground in the dirt, along with those of their children, the ones who survived such exposure, without reference to the chance of their birth.

Evolutionists assume that "adapted" means well designed which is pushing the boat out further that Auntie Bessie would risk at the theme park. Whenever I watch nature films I cannot help thinking what a bunch of silly sods these life forms are. Are their adaptations as good as all that considering the timescale they have had to get their act togetther?

Of course it's corrosive- it's anti-education. Education began in religious settings. The idea that not teaching evolution in schools will hold back the progress of the science of the Christian world is an idea that only the very simplest sucker would swallow. It's the idea of a person with such a low view of his fellow man that he could only have figured it out from introspection.

Doesn't take brilliance to understand that one should not sow discord in whatever society you are dependent on for your needs-wants.

Basically ethical acts are ones that are not detrimental to society as a whole.

Thats probably how religion got into the morality business.

IMO we nowadays can explain morality and enforce it without recourse to the supernatural.

When a Kansas sky is dark and looming, natives are, ironically, content. A torrential day is, for them, better than one characterized by a swing in temperature, odd winds, and as one local describes it, "a strangeness in the air" that signals an impending tornado. On one particularly rainy day in Wichita, the roads are flooded in deep, thick puddles, and with the rain estimated to continue for the next four days, it seems positively biblical.

Off the main drag in northeast Wichita sits New Song Academy, a bright brick building with a charming cul-de-sac and bright green bushes. The entrance is a cheerful reflection of its name, and one is immediately greeted by a fresco of Noah's ark, an image repeated on the sofa pillows, in other paintings, a patchwork quilt, and crafted items enclosed in a locked glass case. Statues of elephants, giraffes, and lions sit poised and motionless, two by two. At the front desk, cheery Linda clicks on the loudspeaker to start the day. "Good morning, teachers and boys and girls. Let's fold our hands and bow our heads and close our eyes and get ready to speak to God this morning. Heavenly Father, thank you so much for this wonderful day. Thank you for all the many blessings you give us. Each and every day. Please watch over our teachers, watch over our mommies and daddies today, and bring them safely back to us this afternoon. Help us to listen to our teachers and do the things you would like us to do in your name. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen."

New Song Academy is a private Christian school whose students range from infancy through grade six. If the word "Christian" has become taboo in certain quarters, the words "Christian school" are utterly detonating. But the nondenominational New Song Academy has nothing to apologize for. As owner and executive director Phyllis Lowen states, they don't adhere to a method of teaching that involves "shoving anything down their throats."

Amy White is young, blond, and greets her students with "sweetheart" and a kind voice that never alters, even when she needs to use a firm hand. A young boy gets up out of his seat and comes to her for help. "Go back to your seat and raise your hand, sweetheart," she says. "Manners and discipline are very important here," Amy tells me. "Even after lunch they get a cookie, but only if they've used two ?'pleases' and two ?'thank yous.'?" Behavior is noted by a colored square stuck beside the child's name in a large decorative plaque hanging at the back end of the classroom. Blue is the best, yellow a first runner-up, and red indicates a trip to the office. Today every child has a blue square by his name. It's a good day.

The morning begins with two pledges, the Pledge of Allegiance, and then a similar, revised version, to God. This summer Amy has grades one through six in her schoolroom, lessons distinguished by individual needs. They pray before their snack?-a cupful of Cheerios?-and thank God.

New Song Academy uses A Beka Books, Christian science texts that, according to A Beka's Web site, "present the universe as the direct creation of God and refute the man-made idea of evolution." The lessons are otherwise incredibly similar to anything in the public school sector.

The students are introduced to atoms and plants, molecules and the universe, with "reminders" at the beginning and end of each lesson that these are God's laws and creations. One of the children's science books is called Investigating God's World, which starts off with a friendly reminder: "Science is possible because we live in an orderly world that operates according to a well-designed plan. As we study science, we are really studying the works of God." At the top of one of the lesson pages, in the header, reads a verse from the Bible: "Do all things without murmurings and disputings. Philippians 2:14."

"We tell them to keep an open mind," Amy says. "We don't tell them what to believe."

Midafternoon the children line up for "chapel," and today they're performing. Obediently they form two lines and file out across the decorated hallway strewn with pasted pictures they'd posted from their creationism class the week before. The title on each page is "God Made . . ." and they'd cut out pictures to demonstrate that God has made everything from the flowers to Earth itself. A collage of their images displays itself brightly.

Chapel service for these kids is an array of enthusiastic songs about their love for God, complete with Macarena-esque turning and wiggling, hand gestures, and air guitars. In the background, enigmatically, an audience of puppets bob their heads along with the music. Several things are clear: These are happy, disciplined children who love going to school, and love Jesus.

Jerald McClenahan might get some of New Song's students when they're ready to move on to high school. Berean Academy?-a nondenominational Christian school?-is 35 miles northeast of Wichita off a country road in Elbing. A science instructor for grades 9 through 12, Jerald doesn't actually use a text, finding A Beka Books "contrived." "They seem to just throw in some Scripture verses. They don't integrate [creationism and evolution] well. I don't want [my students] to be self-righteous." He chooses to start his life science classes off simply, and with the book of Genesis: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. . . . And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

"God created order and duty," Jerald says. "He's created this world. And this gives us insight into His character. The world is really a revelation of God in His greatness, evidence of His love for us." How then would you explain tragedy in the world? I ask. "God gave us this great Earth. It was a beautiful place, but because of our sins the Earth will be cursed. It's because of our abysmal mess-ups that we have bugs, crop failures, disease. Death came after sin. The Earth is cursed. God is kind to let us live. God is love, but He is righteous." Were there dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden? "Oh, yes!" he says. "Everyone loves the dinosaurs, don't they? How do I know? Because the Scriptures talked about the deluge of Noah, and before that the dinosaurs were around. They must have died off or drowned. That makes them antediluvian?-before the flood." How do you explain medical science? "Well, it's not a threat to my scientific principles to believe in miracles. There were miracles in the Gospels."

Jerald's science students are asked to do exercises to learn how to look inside themselves on a spiritual level. "Some kids say they would like to be a better daughter or son. Some say they'd like to learn how to understand God better, serve Him, be more loving towards Him. God gives us the raw material and we do the best we can. But when we see God as our Creator, it helps us." And then he adds, "The term ?'evolution' is misused. Earth scientists have an issue as to where the universe came from. The process of evolution is a biological thing, and species change. I don't believe He created variations in species?-the Pekingese and the poodles. But God created all species so that they can change. But the word ?'evolution'? Conservative scientists don't use that word."

I ask him what became of the Garden of Eden. "I don't honestly know," he says. "The Scriptures don't say what happened to it. I'm guessing it looks like my garden, filled with weeds and deterioration." And then Jerald McClenahan, science instructor, perks up a bit and declares, "But I do believe along with the Garden of Eden, He gave us the solar system, and the heaven, moon, and the stars."

kind voice that never alters, even when she needs to use a firm hand.

Proud atheists
Steven Pinker and Rebecca Goldstein, America's brainiest couple, confess that belonging to one of America's most reviled subcultures doesn't mean they believe scientists can explain everything.

The worst atrocity you agree to will be your Nirvana.

The greatest pleasures are born from conquered repugnance.

...it is only by enlarging the scope of one's tastes and one's fantasies, by sacrificing evrything to pleasure, that that unfortunate individual called man, thrown despite himself into this sad world, can succeed in gathering a few roses among life's thorns.

Quote:

Proud atheists
Steven Pinker and Rebecca Goldstein, America's brainiest couple, confess that belonging to one of America's most reviled subcultures doesn't mean they believe scientists can explain everything.

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/10/15/pinker_goldstein/

Novelists are the way to go Bernie.