Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

seamusz - You still haven't answered how the theory of evolution questions the very existence of God.

That ties into the ACLU thing. I think you're seeing "threats" to your religion where none exist.

Yeah, you're right, the country sure is doing great. Its fun to close your eyes to reality, isn't it. You can see what you want!

_________________

I don't live in the US, nubbie

EDIT:

@Didy:

I will never bar people from their right to worship. THey may do this in their homes and in their churches. Not in schools.

I don't see them so much a threat as an annoyance. I just find their political philosophy rather hypocritical when, under the guise of championing the rights of minorities, they trample under foot those fundamental rights provided under our nation's Constitution.

FYI, KN, the US Constitution prohibits ANY restriction on a person's right to free worship. That includes the right to do so at school.

_________________

Anyway. I think you are still allowed to worship, right? Your church hasn't been knocked down, right? YOu can still buy and read the bible, right?

I see no problem. It's just that the only way religion belongs in school is in history class. Cause I like stories

EDIT: You can worship AT school, but you can't put religious issues like ID in school books, because not just christians read those.

I did skip that, here it goes.

If the theory of Evolution were true, it would make the belief in God completely unnecissary. Whereas I believe that the Theroy of Biological Evolution, although it has its merits and applications, is not accurate. I believe this because it seems obvious to me that all life denotes a Creator and a design. So just as to disprove evolution would make a belief in a Creator more justifiable, the pushing of evolution is making atheism more justifiable. This is why people such as KN hang on to evolution tooth and claw. It justifies their non-belief.

Now not all evolutionists are this way, just as many religious people do not find evolution effecting their beliefs at all.

hows that?

_________________

KN:

But that's the problem. Thanks to the ACLU's efforts, religion isn't even allowed in history classes anymore. And, no, people aren't allowed to worship at school anymore. Again, thanks to the ACLU, schools are under intense pressure to avoid even the appearance of supporting religion. For that reason, they do as much as they can to prohibit student prayer and student religious discussion, even when it ought to be perfectly legal for the students to do so. This is the exact opposite of what the ACLU ought to stand for.

And because schools and other government institutions are under this kind of pressure, private businesses feel it, too. About 10 years back, major airlines in the United States started prohibiting their employees from having religious materials of any sort at work. In other words, if someone had a Bible on their desk, they could be fired. And even when I worked for Office Depot about 7 or 8 years ago, they once threatened to fire me because another employee asked my opinion about a religious subject, and I answered their question (never mind that they said absolutely nothing to the person who asked the question).

What you say about religious freedom in school ought to be the norm (at least from a legal perspective). It's not. And it's all thanks to the ACLU.

Toastpaint.

_________________

This shows KN, who utterly uneducated you are on this issue. ID has nothing to do with the Christian God. In fact, it is void of any assumption or conjecture on the identity or nature of a God, it doesn't even mention God, as such. What it does is just puts forth that the universe and life are too complex for the theory of evolution to explain, and that Earth and Universe has signs of a design and/or a designer, and is not random.

_________________

Excuuuuuuuse me princess. Evolution isn't random either

And Seamuzs, there's a very good reason it doesn't mention god. They HAD to get rid of all references to god in order for them to stand a CHANCE at it getting ecknowledged as a science. Luckily we see through this ruse

EDIT: O well... Greenpeace went overboard too, you know



I can't really find this.. worrying.. because.. you know... as long as religious people aren't shot, I'm usually ok with restricting the grasp it has on society a little. Besides, it's all because of the fundementalists. If the rest takes the hint, modernizes and ignores the fundies, the restrictions will be lifted.

Not at all. Evolution is also a complex process. Why couldn't that process have been devised by a god? I'm not going to pretend I have any idea where the universe came from. I feel it's not my place to speculate on that. I'm just here so I just do what I do. Maybe a god created it, maybe it's just there, who knows.

But what I'm saying is this. (I'm deprived of sleep and I played a four-hour poker session earlier, so I'm sorry if what I'm saying isn't cohesive.) Some people find it wildly improbable that life could start on its own and a lowly bacterium could eventually evolve into man. (Of course, these same people find it perfectly plausible that a magical being would create a planet in six days and... oh, never mind. That's not the point.) But maybe that's the whole beauty of it. Maybe the very complexity of the system is the product of a god? So you see, evolution can point to the existance of a god just as it can point away from it. But on its own, I still think evolution says nothing about God, nor should it.

Yes, some atheists do use evolution as a reason not to believe in God (Douglas Adams and Richard Dawkins being famous examples), but even so I think it's absurd to say that scientists are pushing evolution as a way of forcing their atheism on people, or as a way of telling the world that God doesn't exist, which is what you seemed to be suggesting.

- Kef

This is exactly right. What kind of intelligence could design a universe? Why, only a god, of course. So, Intelligent Design tries to talk about God without calling him God. It's still God (in the broad sense, not the narrow Christian sense).

- Kef

You see, what youre describing is ID. Evolution says that changes occur at random, and that these random mutations are what make life more advanced and complex. So to believe that a creator or designer guided this process, would fit very well into ID.

And just so you know, you keep referring to the six days creation. There are very few people who actually believe that it took God 144 hours to create the Earth, not one Christian I know believes this.

EDIT: Yes ID does say there is a Designer, but whether you think this a race of aliens or Jehovah, it doesn't matter, and that is left to individuals. What is wrong with that? Unless a mention of some sort of "god" threatens your belief in none.

_________________

As for the "six days" comment (well, my most recent one), I was just making a point. There's a lot in the Bible that's very implausible on its own.

OK, suppose then that we have this "ID evolution" theory, since that's how you see my conjecture, that God designed the processes of life and evolution and then sat back and let everything evolve on its own. Well... why all the fuss about then? This would be integrating ID and evolution, but all the fuss happens when you try to separate the two, presenting ID as an alternative to evolution.

- Kef

Evolutionist and proponents of ID make it clear that the process of evolution is RANDOM, this is the whole point of evolution. So they would say that evoluion and ID is not together at all. To say that random mutation to get the complex life that we see on the Earth, is to say that the theory of Evolution is no good. The process of apes being the ancestors of men is only a small part of the effect of evolution, the core of evolution is that it is a random process.

_________________

Yes, evolution is a random process... but that does not mean that the initial conditions could not have been designed by a god. It just means that a god did not specifically set out to design zebras, platypuses, aye-ayes, or other animals with funny names. He (according to this conjecture) just created a framework where this would be possible by random chance. The theory of evolution does not say that life itself evolved by random chance, nor did it say the universe randomly popped into existence. There is plenty of room for non-randomness. What is random is that genes mutate randomly. But the existence of genes in the first place doesn't have to be random.

- Kef

actaully, I think that it does state that that is all random... everything.

_________________

uh... no. The theory of evolution only deals with genetics and speciation, not any of the heady stuff like where life came from.

well, Ill have to look it up, but it has been my understanding that The Theory of Evolution states that life on earth all grew from a single celled organism, and it was all, from start to finish, by random mutations = No design or designer. The process of evoution, however, is a much less specific statement that would be able to co-exist with a belief in a designer.

_________________

The notion that we came from a single bacterium is not part of the scientific theory of evolution. Again, evolution is only concerned with genetics and how species develop.

For example, on the origin of life, Wikipedia says this in its article on evolution:



Clearly, the scientific theory evolution lays no claim on the origin of life -- not even that it was originally a single bacterium -- only on what happened from there. We might believe we did evolve from a single bacterium, but that is conjecture. Possibly educated conjecture, but not enough to be part of a scientific theory.

- Kef

Evolution does state that all life on Earth came from the same source, perhaps not a bacterium, but from a single ancestor. And that from there, random genetic mutations and natural selection gave us what we see all around us today...

And although it doesn't state where that life originated, it is commonly held that it was all from a single celled organism that appeared mysteriously out of a slimmy goop (my words not theirs).

To say that evolution is only conserned with how a species develop is a bit misleading. It has a lot to do (and the most evidence of) the developement of species, but it holds that all life has a common ancestory.

_________________

According to current theories, the first self - replicating molecule was an RNA strand, which eventually evolved into single - celled organisms. Just because single - celled organisms are the simplest lifeforms alive today doesn't mean that they were the first. In fact it is theorized that viruses are remnants of these early sub - cellular lifeforms, only that viruses have adapted their method of reproduction to be parasitic in nature and use living cells.

Regardless of what ID and evolution concern, the fact remains, this is all going to be taught in science class.

Evolution is a scientific theory, comprised of justifiable evidence that it exactly what happened, based on similarities between species and so fourth.

Intelligent design does not have any scientific evidence to back it up, except for the argument that evolution cannot possibly be true. Once they come up with a way to prove that intelligent design does occur, it should not be taught in science class.

Don't get me wrong, I have full respect for anyone's beliefs, but evolution is science. That's what should be taught. And besides, much stranger things have happened.

_________________

What are you basing your arguments on? Do you know what ID states? Have you read the previous 13 pages of this discussion, most of your issues have already been addressed (adaptation vs. evolution, scientific credibility of evolution, etc.)

Excactly what "stranger thing" are you talking about?

_________________

Here's a good article on ID: http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/ ... 43,00.html

Sums up the matter quite nicely, IMHO.

The writter of this article makes a mistake that is very common. He starts off by saying that ID is simply another name for creationism. The ID I am arguing for is NOT creationism. Although I personally believe in a type of creationism, I wouldn't support it being taught in a science class. Once agian, please read the rest of this discussion as most of what I am saying is repitition.

btw, what is it with just pasteing anothers articles as the whole of your argument... what ever happened to original thoughts?

_________________

ID is a form of creationism because it more or less explicitly declares the existence of God (without actually using the word "God") and that he designed the universe. This idea, as I have stated, is not scientific and therefore does not belong in a science book.



This quote is exactly right. Intelligent Design is a religious-based idea because it's obvious the "intelligence" in question is supposed to be some sort of deity. You say that ID has a place in science class, whether or not it is itself science, but I must ask: why?

As for pointing to other articles, the reason we do it is because they already express our thoughts nicely.

- Kef

In your opinion.



In your opinion



Where did I say this?



Well, in my most humble opinion, articles are a cheap way to let others do your leg work. I have posted articles before, but only to use them as substantiation of my claims. But I try to make my claim in my post. Isn't this supposed to be a discussion? If you were sitting down with a friend, would you hand out little articles and say "well this is pretty much what I think"? No, of course not. Its rude. we do have the advantage of the internet in our discussions so it is nice to reference articles of factual and opinion bases, but it shouldn't be the whole post.

If you don't want to discuss, then don't post. In my most humble, and unpopular opinion.

_________________

Where's the opinion? I think there's very little arguing that ID is talking about God, so that's not an opinion. There's very little arguing that a very very large majority of scientists, whether they believe it or not themselves, consider ID to be unscientific, so that's not an opinion.



Again, where's the opinion? Clearly it's talking about a deity since there's no other type of intelligent designer we could be talking about. So that's not an opinion. Deities are religious concepts, that's not an opinion either.

Stop refuting my arguments with "in your opinion". Truth does not become opinion just because accepting it makes it harder to push your point of view. Either show me where it's only an opinion, or accept that it's not just an opinion.

By the way, even if these were just opinions, the maxim "My opinion is as good as your opinion" is not true. If somebody tried telling you Hitler was a really great guy, would you accept his explanation that his opinion was just as good as yours? So, something being an opinion does not necessarily mean it can be dismissed. Some opinions hold more weight than others. Some people think Hitler was a great guy, and we think they're nutcases -- and rightly so.

Not that I'm comparing ID advocates to Hitler or nutcases, I'm just making a point about opinions.



From two pages ago:



This suggests you think ID has a place in science class, whether or not it is itself science. I again ask you why.



The reason it's rude is that presenting somebody with reading material interrupts the discussion. You sat down to talk, not to read. However, on the Internet, you're already reading. The difference is much less jarring and does not slow down the pace of a conversation nearly so much -- especially on a message board medium, where there is generally a reasonably long time between replies anyway. There is not a big difference between the format of a long post and of a long article, but there's a huge difference in normal real-life conversation.

- Kef

You're missing my point here. I wouldn't have a problem with Intelligent Design, if it weren't for the very nature of science.

Science if the study of nature. IT works within the universe. Evolution is one way, explained by the known aspects of our universe, to explain how we are the way we are today.

Creationism is an idea that evolution is incorrect, whitch is fine. But the explanation is of, well, intelligent design, i.e. something greater than us, above the universe, made us the way we are. That's not scientific, because science has no way of knowing what goes on outside our known world. Flaws can be found in the evolutionary theory, but the ID explanation is that of the creation outside of the universe. Yuo can't teach anything in science class unless it is science, and though I respect ID, and those who belive in it, it can't be placed under the category of science.

_________________

The problem there, DGS, is that empirical science is ill-equipped to address the issue of whether there is a creator or not, yet people jump to that conclusion.

But if you were to read Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box, you'd see that to proclaim faith in an intelligent designer is not as "unscientific" as you claim. According to Behe, there are certain processes in organisms that are necessary for life, on the molecular level. These processes cannot evolve because they cannot be broken down into smaller components without destroying them. Now molecular biology is not my strong suit--I'm more into history and theology--so don't expect me to be able to explain it to you in better detail.

_________________