cicerone imposter wrote:mesquite, The people who support ID are saying that there is a controversy about ID that needs to be addressed in our schools so that children can discuss it, because evolution doesn't answer the question of where everything came from, and science doesn't have the answer.
That's all they're asking for. yuk yuk yuk...they think we're all stupid.
....if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
Intrepid-
IMO, intelligent design is simply a PC way of saying "creationism".
Yes, the scientists who work to further explain evolution do NOT know everything. But realistically, even to the skeptic, there are far more known reasons for considering the veracity of evolution, than ID.
There is a large body of scientific evidence that supports evolution. The ONLY thing that supports ID is the Bible.
So if it is a matter of choosing to believe the work (and proof) of modern scientists, flawed and incomplete as it is, as opposed as accepting wholesale the writings in an ancient book, I will choose to stick with the modern scientists.
Phoenix32890 wrote:Intrepid-
IMO, intelligent design is simply a PC way of saying "creationism".
Yes, the scientists who work to further explain evolution do NOT know everything. But realistically, even to the skeptic, there are far more known reasons for considering the veracity of evolution, than ID.
There is a large body of scientific evidence that supports evolution. The ONLY thing that supports ID is the Bible.
So if it is a matter of choosing to believe the work (and proof) of modern scientists, flawed and incomplete as it is, as opposed as accepting wholesale the writings in an ancient book, I will choose to stick with the modern scientists.
Um, sorry but I think you are confusing me with someone else. I have not posted anything about ID. If you are referring to my duck comment...that was directed. as a joke, to CI's remark about stupid.
Hi Everyone!
Miss me? Been up all nite working on my website.
Anyway, I am off to bed for now. But, I did want to say one thing.
I, in no way whatsoever, agree with Pat Robertson's remarks! IMO he made all Christians look more than bad!
Will see you all later!
Momma Angel
Intrepid- I think that I misinterpreted your remark. Anyhow, no matter who brought it up, my "take" on ID still stands.
Mesquite,
Re: Sunlover's earlier post...I see the letter as a well-written recap of what a few extremely liberal clergy believe, but not at all reflective of the vast majority of clergy in the US today.
The children will obviously ask the following question during a discussion of ID, who's the Intelligent Deisgner? Oh my gosh, it's god!
Who is god? Well, it's the god of the bible. It says god created the heavens and the earth is six days. Can you prove it? Well, no, but that's what we believe...
Phoenix, I guess I had better respond since I sorta got off topic. There have been many intelligent clergy, dear. It's the ones who shout the loudest that get the most attention, I'm afraid. I don't really equate intelligence and religion, myself. Intelligence is abstract and religion encompasses a million concrete things.
Letty- And that is exactly my point. I find it difficult to understand how intelligent people, who use their minds to comprehend all that is about them in the world, can suspend their logical faculties when it comes to matters of religion.
The "empty barrels" who wail and shout, are nothing but pathetic caricatures. Only the most gullible and naive amongst us would even begin to acknowledge what those folks are spewing. (The problem is that there are a lot more gullible folks that I had ever dreamed. And they are coming out of the woodwork, lately.)
My object is to explore whether faith (meaning suspension of cognition in the service of the supernatural) and intellectual inquiry is compatible, can both exist in one person, or is the embracing of one necessitate the denial of the other.
I think for religious people, their religion comes first, so they will rationalize their belief even at the cost of common sense and logic.
I have seen it in my sister. When her husband was sick as a result of Parkinsons and a heart attack, she kept praying for his return to health, and she believed with all her might that god will save him. He passed away about five years ago. When god didn't answer her prayers, she was angry at god, and quit going to church. She recently started going back to church, and have regained her trust in god. I'm not sure how she rationalized all this in her mind.
Her ability to rationalize this kind of situation is beyond rational and common sense. I believe that her trust in religion is absolute no matter how many disappointments she may experience. She believes god has a plan for her future, and lives every day with this expectation.
Phoenix, I think you once called it cognitive dissonance, and therein lies the problem.
At an early age I challenged many tenants, but I kept quiet about it, because of abject fear. You see, Phoenix, and I'm only speaking for myself, I don't tend to be a logical person, and I think is has to do with creativity.
cicerone imposter wrote:Interpreting the bible by believers and unbelievers has already been touched on. Most of us know how believers interpret the bible. What interests me more are the beliefs of both christians and others that are poles apart - on practical issues.
A good example is the recent statement by Pat Roberts that he believes in the assassination of leaders that disagree with our policies, and he says there's nothing wrong with assassinating the leader of Venezuela.
Pat Robertson has a very large following of christians. Maybe some that are not christians.
His influence is large, and many listen to his 'teachings.'
I find this kind of issue to be the core of what is wrong with religion.
The man is 75 years old and his time in the evangelical spotlight is rapidly slipping away. He may just be getting senile
Well, I just now read where Pat Robinson claims that he was misinterpreted. Oh, well. We basically have to make those kinds of decisions on our own.
husker, Wrong on two points; I'm 70 years old, and accusing me of being senile on this point is only your opinion. We'll have to hear the others on this discussion board to see if you are right or wrong. The fact that you don't understand the issue made about Pat Robertson's influence on christians is a fact. If you disagree, please show proof.
Letty-
Oh, I don't think that creativity and rationality were opposites. I simply believe that creative people think "out of the box". Personally, although I have nothing but my life experiences to back it up, I tend to think that creativity is primarily genetically determined. If you are not creative, all the schooling in the world won't make you so.
I have always interested in the differences in people who are inductive or deductive thinkers. I am a deductive thinker, not very creative, but can pull together a lot of concepts, and come up with logical conclusions.
My husband, on the other hand is an inductive thinker. Although his area of strength is not artistic, he amazes me with the method with which he problem solves. Definitely "out of the box"!
slkshock7 wrote:Mesquite,
Re: Sunlover's earlier post...I see the letter as a well-written recap of what a few extremely liberal clergy believe, but not at all reflective of the vast majority of clergy in the US today.
Uh huh, "...few ...vast majority ...Extremely liberal". I think you have just defined your box.
For me I do not call 7,016 and counting "a few".
http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm
Yes, Phoenix. You're right. I think that creativity is a gene thing, and I was lucky enough to have a family who nurtured it. I don't support Pat Robertson and I never have and I never will.
