Who Here is a Christian? bLinD fAiTh rEbeLs :)

[BVS]

Again, I say:

It's not even allowed to be MENTIONED.

It can't be disproven, yet, it is not even allowed to be SAID in a public school classroom in the U.S.
Not even 30 seconds of one biology class in the whole school year can be used to utter words in its general direction . . .

Again, I ask:

Why does it need to be mentioned? There are things to be taught by schools, there are things to be taught by the church, and there are things to be taught by parents etc...

 

[got2k9s]

Science, first off, is NOT a democracy. You cannot form an interest group and suddenly decide you have a scientific theory.

I think you have the order wrong on this one.

"Intelligent design" is merely a hypothesis created by people with ideological aims--to put fundamentalist Christian religion into public schools.

This is a completely 'unfair' statement. (I put ' around the word unfair because I don't particularly like it, but it seems to fit, here.)

First of all, there is a very negative vibe associated with common current usage of the word 'fundamentalist.' Defined as "returning to the fundamentals" is fine, but the fanatical spin is not fair.

You can NOT say that all people who believe that, even CREATIONISM, not just ID, should be even so much as **discussed** in public schools is a fundamentalist Christian, indignant about their religion.

I just take issue when people get so arrogant as to think that their "blind faith" supercedes others' rights to have different faiths or the lack thereof.

How is it any more arrogant than when people think their beliefs in evolution or alternative explanations re: origins supercedes others' rights to have different beliefs?

What I typically hear in the argument is overwhelming support for *ADDING* 'Creationism' or 'ID' to the classroom discussion, which it/they is/are not allowed to be discussed, today.

AND, I think we are also forgetting to distinguish, in some of these conversations, between high school and college courses, as there IS no "religion" class in public high schools in the U.S.

 

[got2k9s]

Again, I ask:

Why does it need to be mentioned? There are things to be taught by schools, there are things to be taught by the church, and there are things to be taught by parents etc...

Because to completely ignore it is idiotic, considering the staggering amount of people who believe it v. evolution.

And again, as discussed before, there are elements in/of the belief if/of evolution that do not necessarily contradict even Creationism, and I use the word to take it one step farther than "ID."

 

[BVS]

Because to completely ignore it is idiotic, considering the staggering amount of people who believe it v. evolution.

No to teach it in school would be idiotic. School is for teaching TANGIBLE subjects. Unless maybe philosophy at the college level.

And again, as discussed before, there are elements in/of the belief if/of evolution that do not necessarily contradict even Creationism, and I use the word to take it one step farther than "ID."

I agree, but it doesn't belong in a science class because, like you said, it can't be proven.

 

[got2k9s]

No to teach it in school would be idiotic. School is for teaching TANGIBLE subjects.

I couldn't disagree more.
Even those who don't go to college need to learn how to THINK.
And I don't mean in a 'brainwashing' way - - but learn how to think and REASON.

You can't achieve that as well without 'less than tangible' subjects.

 

[BVS]

I couldn't disagree more.
Even those who don't go to college need to learn how to THINK.
And I don't mean in a 'brainwashing' way - - but learn how to think and REASON.

You can't achieve that as well without 'less than tangible' subjects.

Name one untangible subject you were taught in school.

 

[melon]

First of all, there is a very negative vibe associated with common current usage of the word 'fundamentalist.' Defined as "returning to the fundamentals" is fine, but the fanatical spin is not fair.

You can NOT say that all people who believe that, even CREATIONISM, not just ID, should be even so much as **discussed** in public schools is a fundamentalist Christian, indignant about their religion.

I don't care if fanatics believe it or otherwise reasonable people believe it. Scientific theory is not determined by how "popular" a hypothesis is. Imagine the chaos if we started determining mathematical formulas on popular consensus, rather than on factual data?

How is it any more arrogant than when people think their beliefs in evolution or alternative explanations re: origins supercedes others' rights to have different beliefs?

What I typically hear in the argument is overwhelming support for *ADDING* 'Creationism' or 'ID' to the classroom discussion, which it/they is/are not allowed to be discussed, today.

AND, I think we are also forgetting to distinguish, in some of these conversations, between high school and college courses, as there IS no "religion" class in public high schools in the U.S.

It doesn't matter anyway, because fundamentalist Christians would object to the secular manner in which religion is treated in university settings. I happen to have been a research assistant for a Religious Studies department for a year when I was in college.

Again, science is not determined by BELIEF. That is for the proper realm of PHILOSOPHY or RELIGION, and there are studies in those fields accordingly. Science is determined by FACT and OBSERVATION over long periods of time and by multiple, highly educated professionals. It is not the job of science to be popular. It is only supposed to be factual, just as math is only supposed to be factual. I don't care if 90% of America believed in ID; it will NEVER be science. As such, it has no place in a science curriculum.

Melon

 

[got2k9s]

Name one untangible subject you were taught in school.

Revisionist history.

 

[BVS]

Revisionist history.

Wow you are showing a problem to prove your point?

 

[got2k9s]

I don't care if fanatics believe it or otherwise reasonable people believe it. Scientific theory is not determined by how "popular" a hypothesis is. Imagine the chaos if we started determining mathematical formulas on popular consensus, rather than on factual data?

Who said anything about talking about it, even as a 'theory?'
I said DISCUSSING it in school. Even THAT is not allowed.
(Again, high school v. college/university)

It doesn't matter anyway, because fundamentalist Christians would object to the secular manner in which religion is treated in university settings.

Again, with the "fundamentalists."

I am a Christian and I believe the Bible, yes. Decide for yourself if that makes me 'a fundamentalist' or not, but it seems to be a very narrow (and prejudicial) pigeonhole of supporters of the idea of ID/Creationism's place in school . . . but anyway, I took philosophy and religion courses at university. I didn't object to them or the way ideas and alternate ideas were presented or discussed.

I would think that anyone interested in believing in something would know not only why they believe it but also why they don't believe everything else that opposes it. That's the intellectual way of going about it.

Science is determined by FACT and OBSERVATION over long periods of time and by multiple, highly educated professionals.

Let's not confuse 'education' with 'intelligence.'

And, so, the earliest scientists were not really scientists, because they had no predecessors or no long periods of time with which to have theorized and analyzed and hypothesized?
I think that's an unfair judgment.
To say what you did is to say that Science is almost not a living thing . . . or at least that scientists are not really scientists until a determinable period of time has passed.

So, anyone tesing out a new theory or idea is just a well-educated plebian?

All right, friends, I am outta here for now.

Have a good night . . . or morning, depending on where you are.

 

[got2k9s]

Wow you are showing a problem to prove your point?

No, I'm answering your question.


G'night all, seriously this time.

 

[BVS]

No, I'm answering your question.

Um no, because even if bias is placed on the history, it's still tangible...

 

[A_Wanderer]

Well if ANYTHING is circular in my reasoning, it's that designer = God is automatically assumed (believed?) just like for you, designer = God is automatically dismissed.

Why is it easier for you to believe in ALIENS than a supernatural God?

Because life on other planets would be entirely consistent with a "life emerged through natural processes" argument. I do not think that the existence of aliens has been scientifically proven, but I do think that their existence could be proved by evidence.

You are the one that raised the issue of God. The mere fact that you bring God and a supernatural being into the discussion shows that what you think to be intelligent design is not science.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Again, I say:

It's not even allowed to be MENTIONED.

It can't be disproven, yet, it is not even allowed to be SAID in a public school classroom in the U.S.
Not even 30 seconds of one biology class in the whole school year can be used to utter words in its general direction . . .

Read some Popper, falsifiability is the criteria for scientific theory.

You admit that it cannot be disproven.

Inability to disprove means that it isn't falsifiable.

Falsifiability is a prerequisite for scientific theory.

Therefore it is not a scientific theory and has no place in the science classroom other than illustrating the difference between scientific theory and pseudoscience.

 

[melon]

Who said anything about talking about it, even as a 'theory?'
I said DISCUSSING it in school. Even THAT is not allowed.
(Again, high school v. college/university)

Considering existing high school curriculum standards, there is likely not room for ID. But no one says that learning and discussion ends outside of the classroom. Like-minded groups can meet at churches or their own homes to discuss whatever you'd like. The U.S. is already behind many nations in terms of the quality of math and science education, and we should be spending more time honing our skills on universally-accepted scientific and mathematic principles, rather than delving into what is deemed by the scientific community to be religious-based pseudoscience. Talk about ID in a scientific career, and you'll be as jeered at as a Holocaust denier at a bar mitzvah. There may be many people who do not like that, but that's the way it is.

Again, with the "fundamentalists."

I am a Christian and I believe the Bible, yes. Decide for yourself if that makes me 'a fundamentalist' or not, but it seems to be a very narrow (and prejudicial) pigeonhole of supporters of the idea of ID/Creationism's place in school . . . but anyway, I took philosophy and religion courses at university. I didn't object to them or the way ideas and alternate ideas were presented or discussed.

I would think that anyone interested in believing in something would know not only why they believe it but also why they don't believe everything else that opposes it. That's the intellectual way of going about it.

But that's not the role of science. Likewise, there are many conservative rural regions of the country that would love any excuse to completely trash science education, in favor of turning it into a pseudoscientific theology class. Religious studies courses at the university level have been successful probably because most universities are run by far more competant people than at the local school level. Any old yokel with zero qualifications can be on a local school board, which is often why I think our public educational system is a mess.

Frankly, I do not object to the idea of secular philosophy / religion courses, but I flat out do not trust our existing public school system to run them with the same integrity as the public universities.

Let's not confuse 'education' with 'intelligence.'

Our president is certainly living proof of that.

And, so, the earliest scientists were not really scientists, because they had no predecessors or no long periods of time with which to have theorized and analyzed and hypothesized?
I think that's an unfair judgment.
To say what you did is to say that Science is almost not a living thing . . . or at least that scientists are not really scientists until a determinable period of time has passed.

Science *is* a living thing, and it is living as we speak. Read detailed scientific publications and you'll see modifications to existing scientific theory all the time. Most of these are of little concern to generalized high school science courses, so that may be why science seems so "stagnant."

So, anyone tesing out a new theory or idea is just a well-educated plebian?

ID is a hypothesis, not a scientific theory. And science welcomes truthful and verifiable scientific data to any hypothesis. Unfortunately, ID has not passed any of this muster at all. If it is to be taken seriously someday, then it will have to prove itself. Science does not have to accept ID, just because a mob of people scream loudly.

Melon

 

[anitram]

Not even 30 seconds of one biology class in the whole school year can be used to utter words in its general direction . . .

It has nothing to do with biology, why should any time be wasted on it?

I'd like there to be a mention of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie for 30 seconds of one biology class. After all, when they spawn, the world's most beautiful child may be born. This is surely grounded in genetics.

And I never, NEVER see any ID proponent asking we include the Hindu theory of the cycles of destruction and creation in a biology class. Talk about thinly veiled intentions.

 

[deep]

include the Hindu theory of the cycles of destruction and creation

now that is a great story

I sat through an eight hour (over two nights) stage production produced by Peter Brooks of The Mahabharata

this story is older than the Bible
four times longer than the Bible
around 2.5 million words

 

[A_Wanderer]

Illogical is illogical

 

[indra]

Because to completely ignore it is idiotic, considering the staggering amount of people who believe it v. evolution.

If there is already a staggering number of people who believe creationism or intelligent design, why does any time need to be spent teaching it? Why teach kids what they already know? What the fuck is the point in that? Honestly. What the fuck is the purpose?

It's pushing religion -- and a specific one at that -- period.

 

[deep]

Illogical is illogical

c'mon
Wanderer

as a fan of Serenity

you should enjoy this epic

 

[A_Wanderer]

I would raise Mal as a point who isn't a fan of religiousity but he is markedly anti-theist than atheist.

I wouldn't want it stuck into my science classroom any more than other creation epics.

 

[Liesje]

now that is a great story

I sat through an eight hour (over two nights) stage production produced by Peter Brooks of The Mahabharata

this story is older than the Bible
four times longer than the Bible
around 2.5 million words

I'm not as familiar with this creation story as with others, but they are all so interesting. Sometimes they are all so similar and sometimes very different. I think Christians tend to hold our creation story up on a pedestal too much (actually the entire Old Testament I think). Ours is in no way unique and there are many much older ones (like the Hindu one). Much of Genesis is merely a re-interpretation of the older stories like the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh and the Enuma Elish. The more I study and open my mind to other creation stories, I feel the better I understand my Christian one.

 

[melon]

Much of Genesis is merely a re-interpretation of the older stories like the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh and the Enuma Elish. The more I study and open my mind to other creation stories, I feel the better I understand my Christian one.

Not a surprise, considering much of early Judaism's believed Sumerian roots. Even tradition holds that Abraham came from Ur, the most important city in ancient Sumer.

Melon

 

[Liesje]

However, your reply does lead me toward a question for you . . .

I am wondering about your thoughts on "the evolution of man" being consistent with the Christian belief of the creation of man, or the creation story . . . the Bible states that God created man, in the form of a man.

Just wondering your thoughts on this . . .

First off, I am a Christian and I do believe in ID and that humans are created in the image of God/Jesus Christ.

Next, I know you're asking for my opinions on how ID and evolution can possibly work together, but I guess my honest answer is this: you're question illustrates one of the major misconceptions about the Christian creation story. Our story, as it has been translated out of Hebrew into various other languages that include inferences based on Greco-Roman/Western culture now reflects a creation story based on actions and events. The way the story was originally written and intended to be interpreted was simply a narative that illustrates the nature of relationships - the nature of the relationship between God and humanity and the nature of the relationships between two human beings (not neven necessarily man and woman). The Hebrew word we now read as "Adam" actually refers to the couple as a whole - two humans in relation to each other - NOT a single male human being. That's just one example of how our Greek culture has fostered unfortunate misinterpretations of the original story. The point is not HOW God created humans, but simply that He did.

I don't really have much of an opinion on human evolution because it's not something I've studied like I study theology and it's not something I'm particularly interested in. Regardless of the extent that science can prove human evolution, my opinions of the supreme authority and transcendence of God won't change. I'd rather spend my time studying the original Hebrew texts (which I have to do through various courses at my college since I can't read Hebrew for myself) than debate the scientific credibility of human evolution. The creation story is not science and it's not a timeline...for all I know or care, it may not even be real. It may be a myth like most of the other OT narratives, but a "myth" implies the existence of some truth regardless of the chronology and characters in the story are true. The Genesis creation story's purpose is to define the nature of relationships, period. It was not intended to prove this or that or deny this or that or have any relevance to any field of science. The study of Christian ID and the Genesis creation story belongs in the field of theology, not science.

 

[melon]

First off, I am a Christian and I do believe in ID and that humans are created in the image of God/Jesus Christ.

Out of curiosity, do you really believe in "intelligent design" or are your beliefs closer to "evolutionary creationism"/"theistic evolution"? Both believe in a God-created evolution. The problem with ID, specifically, is that it modifies existing scientific theory to arbitarily conform to its pre-existing ideology against natural selection, whereas the latter accepts secular scientific theory completely, attributing it to God.

That's kind of why this ID stuff blindsided me a couple years back. I really thought that this issue had been divided only between the literal creationists and the "evolutionary creationists." And then this ID kind of pops out of nowhere.

Melon

 

[Liesje]

Out of curiosity, do you really believe in "intelligent design" or are your beliefs closer to "evolutionary creationism"/"theistic evolution"? Both believe in a God-created evolution. The problem with ID, specifically, is that it modifies existing scientific theory to arbitarily conform to its pre-existing ideology against natural selection, whereas the latter accepts secular scientific theory completely, attributing it to God.

I definitely believe in the evolution of plants and animals (God-willed). Like I said, human evolution is where I get stuck. I believe that God created humans in His image, so humans are different from all other living things, which were not created in the image of God. I suppose if human evolution to some extent was/is God-willed, I have no problem accepting it. I don't know if I can accept that humans came from apes, though, because apes were not created in the image of God. But, I'm not the type of person that takes the Bible so literally I believe everything was created in 7 "regular" days. So maybe since animals were created first, God's "creation" of humanity was allowing/willing the evolution of humans from apes. I wish I could say more confidently, but like I said, it's not something I believe there is a definite answer to in the Christian creation story and it's not the purpose of the story so I spend much more time trying to correctly exegete the original text. I hope that answers your question?

ETA: I also wanted to say that the Hebrew word for "creation" with God as the creator doesn't necessarily imply the method of creation, so like I said before, maybe God's creation of humanity was simply allowing humans to evolve from apes into something other than an ape, something in the image of God. Also, the passage about humans being created from dust does not mean that God created humans with his "hands", so to speak, from earth or some materials. The Hebrew word there interpreted as "dust" does not refer to actual dust, but "that which is transient". Just some food for thought I guess.

 

[melon]

I don't know if I can accept that humans came from apes, though, because apes were not created in the image of God.

Perhaps I take a more liberal take on this question, but I believe that God looks like everything. How do we know what God looks like? Everything is in His image, and everything is beautiful.

That's not too much of a logical stretch, as Vedic Hinduism (which predates Judeo-Christianity historically) believes that the creator deity, Brahman, is literally everything--including both existence and non-existence.

As such, I'm not offended to belong to such an illustrious line of creation. But that's my view.

I hope that answers your question?

It does. Thanks for your honest answer.

Melon

 

[Liesje]

Perhaps I take a more liberal take on this question, but I believe that God looks like everything. How do we know what God looks like? Everything is in His image, and everything is beautiful.

That's not too much of a logical stretch, as Vedic Hinduism (which predates Judeo-Christianity historically) believes that the creator deity, Brahman, is literally everything--including both existence and non-existence.

As such, I'm not offended to belong to such an illustrious line of creation. But that's my view.

That is a very nice way of looking at it. I suppose I struggle with that because I've spent 21 years being taught from Christian Reform perspective, which places a LOT of emphasis on the cultural mandate in Genesis (God defining the nature of the relationship between humanity and the rest of the creation - humans have dominion but are to use the creation to glorify God...to put it very simply). Believing that everything is created in the image of God, not just humans, pretty much destroys the cultural mandate and the Christian Reformed worldview of Creation-Fall-Redemption, but it's a new way of looking at it and I'll keep than in mind next time we study the text...

 

[melon]

That is a very nice way of looking at it. I suppose I struggle with that because I've spent 21 years being taught from Christian Reform perspective, which places a LOT of emphasis on the cultural mandate in Genesis (God defining the nature of the relationship between humanity and the rest of the creation - humans have dominion but are to use the creation to glorify God...to put it very simply). Believing that everything is created in the image of God, not just humans, pretty much destroys the cultural mandate and the Christian Reformed worldview of Creation-Fall-Redemption, but it's a new way of looking at it and I'll keep than in mind next time we study the text...

Again, just my view, but I believe that too much of the traditional definition of "God" revolves around human definition of imperialism. Indeed, even the title, "Lord," in the Bible comes from medieval feudalism, not the original Hebrew or Greek.

Melon

 

[got2k9s]

Because life on other planets would be entirely consistent with a "life emerged through natural processes" argument. I do not think that the existence of aliens has been scientifically proven, but I do think that their existence could be proved by evidence.

"Could be proven by evidence?" COULD??
Yet, you have no problem whatsoever believing in their existance before it's even PROVEN.
Not very "scientific."
Sort of contradicts why you have such a difficult time believing in God. Just because tangible evidence that God exists hasn't been found doesn't mean that He doesn't. Furthermore, again, the very essence of God and of Christianity itself is one of FAITH. God hasn't the intention to PROVE His own existence to anyone. That's the whole point of "faith."

But more about 'proof' in the scientific world . . .
Are you also trying to say that EVERYTHING that is readily accepted in the scientific community can be traced back to irrefutable proof? Absolutely NOT!

You are the one that raised the issue of God. The mere fact that you bring God and a supernatural being into the discussion shows that what you think to be intelligent design is not science.

I brought God into the discussion in response to your using the word "designer."