Intelligent design

[Guest Warmaster]

You can't "disprove creation" in basically the same way you can't "disprove an underwater "atlantean" race of superhumans with webbed feet living on our planet." Maybe they're just eluding us?

It's empty logic, if you know what that is.

[Decadence]

[QUOTE=Warmaster]You can't "disprove creation" in basically the same way you can't "disprove an underwater "atlantean" race of superhumans with webbed feet living on our planet." Maybe they're just eluding us?

It's empty logic, if you know what that is.[/QUOTE]


If that is the case, you also can't disprove evolution. And again it is coming down to a book. If you don't want your child being taught evolution, just... er teach them ID at home, and leave the rest of us out of it. Even if the christian social group is the majority, they really need to stop making such a big deal, I'm sorry you lost a court case a good bit of time ago (I can't remember the exact date) and you really need to stop trying to overturn old presidents because you are on power trips. And by the way this ebtire contraversy is probly driving away a lot of people who would have looked into christianity.

And warmaster you can't prove ID any more then you can prove we are not in the matrix being harvested as energy sources for robots.

I know that isn't much of a contribution, but I really felt the need to say something. And evolution is only a theory, albeit the best one we have, and most probable one. Also how are atheist children supposed to deal with being taught ID when they are told at home a god or gods do not exist?

PS: Unless I misunderstood you war.
PPS: I keep using the matrix as an example because it is the only thing I can think of that would seem equally absurd to both sides.

[Brasil]

[quote name='Adahn']The key words used here are "nearly completely". I'm all for scientific discovery, but there is a problem in the teaching of evolution. It is taught as infallible. It is taught in a manner that denies the possibility of any creation theory. If Evolution is able to provide evidence that denies the possibility of Creation, then I'm all for throwing religion down the crap chute. However, since disproving religions is impossible (I think), it should not be presented in schools as the final word on the origin of life and humanity.[/quote]
It's already disproving religion, though. The very nature of the story of Creation is getting plinked away at as the years go by. But we shouldn't even need Evolution to know that 90% of religious canon is fictional at best.

For all intents and purposes, religion proves itself (the vicious cycle we all know and love) and it disproves itself.

[quote]Children are very impressionable. If you teach them Evolution in a manner that disproves religion, they will probably believe you. You remove their choice to think and decide for themselves. Until Evolotion disproves religion (again, impossible, I think), it should not be taught in a manner that removes the children's choice.[/quote]
You do realize that suing school systems so they institute I.D. is removing a child's choice, too, right? What's it going to do to the child when they're hearing about divine intervention in a science course? What's that going to do to how they view science--and how they view the rest of the world?

You talk about preventing removal of choice...but you're shoving a doctrine in their face that has absolutely no grounding in reality: "Hey kids! This is an alternative!"

But it isn't an alternative. I sound really glib throughout much of this, but the entire Pro-I.D. debate is just so silly and bizarre that I'm having a hard time respecting anyone who would even consider exploring the idea in anything other than a Philosophy or Religion course.

[quote]This is a social problem, Brasil. You must understand that while Christianity is a religion, it is also a very large and influential social group. The Christians as a social group saw their interests in danger. ID was their social response. If you can show me how Christians don't function as a social group, and also how ID isn't their social response to Evolution, then my argument will be invalid.

If you see the problem for what it truly is (a social one), then you will realize that "religious or spiritual doctrine or ideologues in the classroom" is unnecessary in order to solve the problem. If Evolution isn't taught in the manner I have described so many times, then the Christians' social interests will no longer be in danger. The problem will be resolved without requiring talk of religion.

So long as the Christian social force is a dominant one in the United States, we must cater to their social desires. I, for one, am not personally concerned with the outcome of this 'debate'. I do not share the Christian social perspective. I do, however, find the confrontation between the "Scientist social group" and the "Christian social group" interesting. The scientists [i]want[/i] evolution to be presented to children as a way to disprove religion. The Christians want their ID theology to be required to be presented to children. What I propose disappoints both groups, and that's the beauty of it. If Evolution is presented as fallible, neither group gets what it desires, yet the problem is resolved.[/quote]
It's not a social problem. A social problem is something like drug abuse, homelessness, child abuse...you get the idea. A bunch of Fundamentalist Christians getting their panties in a twist because public schools (READ: non-private; READ: non-religious) aren't teaching a religiously-founded doctrine.

Adahn, don't present this as an issue that's a threat to society. It isn't. It's a threat to Fundamentalist Christians who still haven't grown out of the Dark Ages, just like it's a threat to Catholics who hate Protestants.

[quote]Let's have the scientists and the Christians walk away from this with their heads down. Fix the problem without screwing only one group, because the way the argument between the groups is set up now, either one getting its way screws the other. In order to drive my argument home, I'll illustrate it for you. If my illustration is offensive, I apologize. I will (regretfully) make it as unoffending as possible.

Option A: Christians------>Scientists
Option B: Scientists------>Christians
Option C: ------>Scientists
------>Christians

Here I can ask a question of the rest of you viewing this thread. Which option (A,B, or C) would be most satisfying for you? If you say "option D", then you're a hippie. Nobody is coming out of this without getting screwed.[/QUOTE]
It's not that your illustration is offensive; it's that your illustration makes no sense whatsoever, even after you've explained it.

And you know what? To answer your question...

The Christians need to get screwed on this one.

[Charles]

[QUOTE=Brasil] And you know what? To answer your question...

The Christians need to get screwed on this one.[/QUOTE]

[center][img]http://img414.imageshack.us/img414/2961/crowdapplause7rn.gif[/img][/center]

[Guest Warmaster]

@Decadence: You DID misunderstand me, in a way ^_^ You see, the reason you cannot disprove creation and the "underwater race" is that there is literally no data to analyze. Nothing. I suppose, not having thought it through at all myself, that you can say the same thing about us being inside "the Matrix," although most certainly not one as unstable as in the movie ^_^

If we had some observable evidence in either direction, then there would be something to "disprove" or "support." But, when you are talking about something that we cannot observe in any way, then whatever you say can neither be supported or disproven.

This is actually the basic "agnostic" stance towards religion. Can't prove or disprove it, so may as well remain "unbiased." However, you can't "sorta believe in god," so agnostics are really just atheists (by the definition of atheist, actually ^^), but that's neither here nor there.

[TheShinje]

Option D:


Philosophy | Science.
Christians | Scientists.

While some aspects of my faith can be argued with science, the gist of it cannot. Science, lets face it, is not really the area for a faith based creationism to be espoused.

The unprovable aspects of my faith are the personal, it's what God does in me that has sustained my belief in him, moreso that any rationalising or how all the animals fit on the ark discussion.

That, simply, cannot be taught in science.

[Adahn]

[QUOTE=Brasil]It's already disproving religion, though. The very nature of the story of Creation is getting plinked away at as the years go by. But we shouldn't even need Evolution to know that 90% of religious canon is fictional at best.

For all intents and purposes, religion proves itself (the vicious cycle we all know and love) and it disproves itself.[/QUOTE]You are advocating the teaching of a theory in an anti-Christian manner in public schools. We have shifted from a heavily religious school system to what is becoming an anti-religious one. Is neutrality on the issue not enough for you, Brasil? Is there no middle ground, no compromise in the war between the secular and non-secular in schools?

[QUOTE=Brasil]
You do realize that suing school systems so they institute I.D. is removing a child's choice, too, right? What's it going to do to the child when they're hearing about divine intervention in a science course? What's that going to do to how they view science--and how they view the rest of the world?

You talk about preventing removal of choice...but you're shoving a doctrine in their face that has absolutely no grounding in reality: "Hey kids! This is an alternative!"[/QUOTE]The Christians are going about this all wrong. They are abusing their social power here. The teaching of ID will resolve [i]their[/i] conflict, but even if they succeed it will cause more conflict and division. This is why I stated that it was [i]a [/i]solution, however incomplete and temporary.

[QUOTE=Brasil]
But it isn't an alternative. I sound really glib throughout much of this, but the entire Pro-I.D. debate is just so silly and bizarre that I'm having a hard time respecting anyone who would even consider exploring the idea in anything other than a Philosophy or Religion course.[/QUOTE]If it were so silly and bizarre, the Christians would be laughed out of every formal debate and every courtroom. As it stands, they hold so much social power over the country that no matter how silly and bizarre their ideas are, their power gives them validity in the eyes of the public.

[QUOTE=Brasil]
It's not a social problem. A social problem is something like drug abuse, homelessness, child abuse...you get the idea. A bunch of Fundamentalist Christians getting their panties in a twist because public schools (READ: non-private; READ: non-religious) aren't teaching a religiously-founded doctrin.

Adahn, don't present this as an issue that's a threat to society. It isn't. It's a threat to Fundamentalist Christians who still haven't grown out of the Dark Ages, just like it's a threat to Catholics who hate Protestants.[/QUOTE]You take my use of the word 'problem' and apply too strong a meaning to it. For your benefit, I will call it a social conflict. Using the new word, I will attempt to describe the situation again without arousing your preconceptions of what a social "problem" constitutes. The Christians have their panties in a bunch because their interests are being threatened. From their perspective, the teaching of evolution in schools as infallible is damning the souls of millions of children. Their response's purpose is to remove this threat, but the greedy SOB's are biting off more than they can chew in suing for the teaching of their ID theory.

If science gets its way and continues "damning the souls of millions of children" (from the Christian perspective), the conflict will not be resolved. If the Christians get their way and can "save the souls of millions of children" with their ID theory, the conflict will not be resolved. If the manner of teaching evolution presents it as a fallible theory, providing children with a [b]choice[/b] to believe it or not, the conflict is resolved for the Christians and the scientists, though unsatisfactorily for both parties.

[QUOTE=Brasil]
It's not that your illustration is offensive; it's that your illustration makes no sense whatsoever, even after you've explained it.[/QUOTE]Scientists screw Christians: Scientists continue their teaching of Evolution in a manner that makes it appear infallible.
Christians screw scientists: ID is taught in schools alongside Evolution.
Scientists and Christians both screwed: Evolution is required to be taught as fallible, though an understanding of its mechanisms and applications is required of the students.

I thought it made sense.

[QUOTE=Brasil]
And you know what? To answer your question...

The Christians need to get screwed on this one.[/QUOTE]Brasil, if the Christians get screwed, is that going to stop them and solve the conflict? We both know that the answer is that it will not. Do you not think it feasible to explore possible solutions that will [i]actually[/i] bring about a resolution to the conflict?

P.S. Shinji is a hippie.

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f][QUOTE=Brasil] Chabi, creationism is creationism, regardless of what religion you look at. The fact that I focus on the Judeo-Christian creation story here is irrelevant. You said Islam says the world was created in 4 days. That doesn't avoid or deflect my criticisms, because my criticisms remain the same even for Islam's creation story.

And I.D. doesn't have merit. That's what I'm trying to impress here. It's laughable as a science. It's laughable as a faith. It tries to cater to two conflicting viewpoints and comes off as horribly lame in the process, because it cannot reconcile those two contradictory viewpoints, no matter which creation myth you examine.

There are only gaps in Evolutionary theory because macro-E takes tens of thousands of years. But the evidence for macro-E is there. There is no evidence that there's a creator or God.

Again, if you want to explore I.D. in schools, explore it in a philosophy or religion course, because it does not belong in a science course, because there is absolutely no evidence to support it. There's only subjective and qualitative conjecture.

Come on. Your reply here ignores what I've shown in the creation texts themselves. You're only repeating "I.D. has merit." You have no case anymore. lol[/QUOTE]

First of all, [B]Intelligent design = Creation[/B]. Intelligent design calls for a Creator, and "author" of existance. The creator can choose any method in how he creates, meaning "POOF!" things can be created out of nothing, and it's possible for things to be manipulated to create other things. Creation includes natural processes and physical laws. The creator is not bound by these laws because he created them (no kidding!). There is intelligence and wisdom behind the way natural processes and physical laws work so elequantly together. So why is intelligent design so "laughable" as a faith if it is responsible for creation?

I've been doing a bit of reading and came across an excellent book: [U][B]The complete idiot's guide to Understanding Islam[/B][/U]. I will quote several passages because it explains the creation theory well.

[QUOTE]How did God proceed to make the Universe? Did he announce, "let there be light"? Actually no. There is no such verse in the Qur'an. What he did do will sound very familiar from a scientifc point of view. He said the word "be", and an object like a ball (or something equivalent to it) appeared, and the He split it into pieces. The materials from this initial explosion were the building blocks for all things in the universe. The force of that blast continues to expand and spread this matter in all directions even to this day.[/QUOTE]Anything ring a bell people?
[QUOTE]God finished the creation of the universe in six segments, ostenibly called days, and then mounted the throne of power to govern the universe on the seventh. He did not rest, for as the Qur'an says, he never tires. With that said, Muslims do not believe that the universe is only a few thousand years old, as some religious groups assert. Islam can accept the theory that the universe is is billions of years old, however. How can this be when it the Qur'an declares it took God six days to create everything? The answer lies in the meaning of the arabic word for day, youm. The term youm can mean a day as we know it or a segment of time independent of the 24 hour Earth day. The Qur'an further points out that a day to God is not like ours. In one verse, it says a day to God could be like a thousand years. In another it says that the time it will take the angels to ascend to God for Judgement Day will be a day that is equivilant to 50,000 years of our time. We simply can't concieve of time the same way God does. After all, He made time. So the length of time in years it took for creation is negotiable.

Out of the six days, or time periods, that God took to create everthing, the final two days were for creating planets like ours.[/QUOTE]
The So that means that God could have created the universe in six segments, each of which could have been several billion years. And each which could have varied in length as well (yes Brasil! God created time, he has the ability to manipulate it to his liking, so anything is possible and he does not need to be consistent if he doesn't want to!) Also, note that the six days mentioned do not include the creation of life, even though they theoretically could have included it because the "days" could have varied in length.
[QUOTE]First of all, Islam attributes the origin of life only to God. He is the exclusive author of existence. In this sense, Islam would say that God is the Creator. This makes us creationists in a fashion. The first match up with an evolutionary idea comes from the Qur'anic statement that God created all living things from water. The animals and plants were here before we humans were, as evidenced by the chronological appearance of Adam and Eve after the Earth was populated with lifeforms. The Qur'an even makes an allowance for the diversity of species and the extreme age of Earth.

Muslim scholars unanimously agreed that the universe developed over a long period of time and that life arose on Earth through natural processes. One of God's names from the Ninety-nine names of allah is, strangely enough, Al-bari, or the Evolver.

This line of argument works well and brooks little dissent among the members of our community- until we get to the formation of human beings. Here is where the battle lines are drawn. In general, most muslims are of the view that God created humans in a unique way, apart from the evolutionary mechanism. Although a few theologians argue that humans could have evolved as well, with Adam and Eve being the first of our kind in the chain of development, this view is currently in the extreme minority. So while Islamic theology can generally go along with many aspects of the evolutionary theory with regard to plants and animals, Muslim opinion leans more strongly toward creationism where humans are concerned.[/QUOTE]

I personally agree it is indeed possible that God could have evolved creatures from a single organism. But I also equally think it's God could have just created them individually , because he doesn't need to make things evolve to obtain "fitness" and diversity to begin with (he might simply choose to).

I also think that humans were created because God states in the Qur'an that humans were made in the best fashion (ahsani taqweem). Therefore, we have always possesed great intellect. We were "perfect" to begin with. This does not leave room for the idea that we evolved from inferior creatures that could not speak and had inferior intellect to our own. Maybe bones of beings like the famous lucy show what humans looked like in early times, but if that is the case, those beings certainly were not inferior to today's humans. And those beings certainly did not evolve from even more inferior creatures similar to apes. Also, maybe certain humans evolved to look like those creatures, if they had been placed in severe conditions that required a more animalistic anatomy. Also, as I mentioned before, a certain tribe of wicked people was turned into apes, so that could explain this phenomena.

Now before you assert that if humans were on earth for only tens of thousands of years, that it doesn't provide enough time for evolution in humans to occur, let me ask this: If God is indeed the author of existance, then could he not alter things as he wills? Could he not speed up the evolutionary process? Could he not allow more mutations to occur and create an even greater selection pressure?

Also, could God have not created the Earth in a short amount of time, and becuase of his supreme power make it seem like it is very old. He would have complete control over the chemical and physical processes that occur that we use to measure the age of the Earth.

Honestly, if there is such things as a creator, ANYTHING is possible! But for science's sake we can stick to observing nature with the notion that physical laws remain consistent.

A change in these physical laws results in the supernatural, and that alone is the concept that needs to be left out of science.

Anyway I have to agree with Adahn on this. Theologians cannot impose their religion on others in the science classroom, but science should not be taught in such a manner that it completely and utterly denies the existance of a creator, because it fails to disprove it.

The evolution theory is taught at a very early age. My little sister was only eight when she was learning it! Adahn's right, she is at a very impressionable age, and does not have enough knowledge to make an informed decision.

If you think that I.D should remain in religion or philiosophy classes, then these subjects need to be taught at an early age too, not just in high school or university (ofcourse from a completely neutral standpoint in public schools).

I know that you will never change your mind about I.D, simply because you stick to the opinion that science is quantitative and objective, and refuse to accept the fact that creation can be looked upon in a completely logical and objective way. The [B]fact[/B] remains that the universe cannot exist with a creator. Until someone disproves this, all your atheistic ideas of existance remain subjective.
[/COLOR]

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=Chabichou][color=#004a6f]First of all, [b]Intelligent design = Creation[/b]. Intelligent design calls for a Creator, and "author" of existance. The creator can choose any method in how he creates, meaning "POOF!" things can be created out of nothing, and it's possible for things to be manipulated to create other things. Creation includes natural processes and physical laws. The creator is not bound by these laws because he created them (no kidding!). There is intelligence and wisdom behind the way natural processes and physical laws work so elequantly together. So why is intelligent design so "laughable" as a faith if it is responsible for creation?

I've been doing a bit of reading and came across an excellent book: [u][b]The complete idiot's guide to Understanding Islam[/b][/u]. I will quote several passages because it explains the creation theory well.

Anything ring a bell people?

The So that means that God could have created the universe in six segments, each of which could have been several billion years. And each which could have varied in length as well (yes Brasil! God created time, he has the ability to manipulate it to his liking, so anything is possible and he does not need to be consistent if he doesn't want to!) Also, note that the six days mentioned do not include the creation of life, even though they theoretically could have included it because the "days" could have varied in length.

I personally agree it is indeed possible that God could have evolved creatures from a single organism. But I also equally think it's God could have just created them individually , because he doesn't need to make things evolve to obtain "fitness" and diversity to begin with (he might simply choose to).

I also think that humans were created because God states in the Qur'an that humans were made in the best fashion (ahsani taqweem). Therefore, we have always possesed great intellect. We were "perfect" to begin with. This does not leave room for the idea that we evolved from inferior creatures that could not speak and had inferior intellect to our own. Maybe bones of beings like the famous lucy show what humans looked like in early times, but if that is the case, those beings certainly were not inferior to today's humans. And those beings certainly did not evolve from even more inferior creatures similar to apes. Also, maybe certain humans evolved to look like those creatures, if they had been placed in severe conditions that required a more animalistic anatomy. Also, as I mentioned before, a certain tribe of wicked people was turned into apes, so that could explain this phenomena.

Now before you assert that if humans were on earth for only tens of thousands of years, that it doesn't provide enough time for evolution in humans to occur, let me ask this: If God is indeed the author of existance, then could he not alter things as he wills? Could he not speed up the evolutionary process? Could he not allow more mutations to occur and create an even greater selection pressure?

Also, could God have not created the Earth in a short amount of time, and becuase of his supreme power make it seem like it is very old. He would have complete control over the chemical and physical processes that occur that we use to measure the age of the Earth.

Honestly, if there is such things as a creator, ANYTHING is possible! But for science's sake we can stick to observing nature with the notion that physical laws remain consistent.[/color][/quote]
Chabi, do you even realize what argument you're using here? Do you even realize what the fundamental theme in those excerpts is?

It's the Uncaused Cause argument. Two pages ago, I explained why the Uncaused Cause argument is a lame defense of Creationism/I.D. I thought I had made it pretty clear, but I guess since you're again using it, I didn't explain it clearly enough. I'll recap quickly:

The Uncaused Cause (as it relates to this topic) is a religious cop-out. The variations of the Uncaused Cause argument include "God is excused from the laws of _____ because He created ______," "It happens because God makes it happen," and "The rules don't apply to God because He is the Supreme Being and doesn't need to adhere to the rules."

Do you get what I'm saying here? Uncaused Cause is just another way of dodging potent criticisms of religion. Instead of actually countering the criticism with the same type of logical assessment the criticism is based on, Uncaused Cause merely retorts with "Well, God is beyond our comprehension, so therefore the criticism is invalid."

Or,

"It is because God made it like that."

That is the fundamental reasoning behind any variation of the Uncaused Cause defense. Some say it has no weaknesses, so therefore it's a solid and logical defense. Bull. lol. It's nothing more than proving X with X., which is not a valid defense.

I can't see how (or why) you're still trying to make your point, because it was broken down days ago.

[quote][color=#004a6f]A change in these physical laws results in the supernatural, and that alone is the concept that needs to be left out of science.

[u]Anyway I have to agree with Adahn on this. Theologians cannot impose their religion on others in the science classroom, but science should not be taught in such a manner that it completely and utterly denies the existance of a creator, because it fails to disprove it.[/u]

The evolution theory is taught at a very early age. My little sister was only eight when she was learning it! Adahn's right, she is at a very impressionable age, and does not have enough knowledge to make an informed decision.

If you think that I.D should remain in religion or philiosophy classes, then these subjects need to be taught at an early age too, not just in high school or university (ofcourse from a completely neutral standpoint in public schools).[/color][/quote]
[i]Then why are you supporting including I.D. in science courses?[/i] Regardless of "disproving" the existence of a creator, [i][u][b]are you able to give any concrete evidence that a creator exists[/b][/u][/i]? There's concrete evidence that macro-E and micro-E exist. More and more, scientists are figuring out what was happening at the beginning of Earth's lifespan (and the universe's lifespan, as well). At this point in time, given the relative infancy of evolutionary theory, you expect schools to include Creationism, simply because science is still too young to give definite answers regarding the origins of life?

I deny the existence of a Creator, but I'm no Evolutionary Biologist. Should I automatically be touting Creationism because I don't buy into some ancient mythology? That's the argument you're using:

If someone doesn't believe in the existence of a Creator, and completely and utterly denies the existence of said Creator, and can't prove a Creator doesn't exist, that someone should start including Creationism/I.D. in his or her usual discourse.

Now, honestly, I think you should have taken Jordan's advice two pages ago.

[quote][color=#004a6f]I know that you will never change your mind about I.D, simply because you stick to the opinion that science is quantitative and objective, and refuse to accept the fact that [u]creation can be looked upon in a completely logical and objective way[/u]. The [b]fact[/b] remains that [u]the universe cannot exist with a creator[/u]. Until someone disproves this, all your atheistic ideas of existance remain subjective.
[/color][/QUOTE]
What "Fact" are you talking about? lol. I could very easily point to Tralfamadorianism or Flying Spaghetti Monsterism and say the same thing. No offense, but your argument is completely meaningless. lol

And Creationism [i]can't[/i] be looked upon in a completely logical and objective way, because the [i]very concept itself[/i] is [b]completely illogical[/b] and [b]completely subjective[/b]. Is it coincidence that only religious people believe in Creationism, while Atheists do not? It's no coincidence. Do you know why?

[i]Because the belief in Creationism is entirely subjective[/i]. Creationism is not fact. But Evolution is [u]not[/u] subjective. Those who deny the existence of Evolution are the same people who were hunting down Galileo and Copernicus because they were challenging the Geocentric universe.

I sound fairly harsh throughout the reply here, but I keep seeing the same religiously-founded rebuttal points over and over again, long after the idea behind them has been debunked, and it's just getting annoying. It seems like even the most fundamental counter to I.D., the fact that it depends on superstition and mythology, has been completely ignored here, and [i]that[/i] is really getting absurd.

[quote name='Adahn']You are advocating the teaching of a theory in an anti-Christian manner in public schools. We have shifted from a heavily religious school system to what is becoming an anti-religious one. Is neutrality on the issue not enough for you, Brasil? Is there no middle ground, no compromise in the war between the secular and non-secular in schools?[/quote]
Anti-religious? What are you talking about? Anti-Christian? lol. Try [b][u]non[/u][/b]-religious. The problem is that Fundamentalist Christians and Pro-I.D. groups see non-religious and see a threat. And frankly, not to sound indignant or glib, but I don't blame them, because if my entire belief structure was built on 2500 year-old, outdated religious doctrine most likely written out of fear and ancient superstitions, I'd be scared when modern technologies start plinking away at it.

[quote]The Christians are going about this all wrong. They are abusing their social power here. The teaching of ID will resolve [i]their[/i] conflict, but even if they succeed it will cause more conflict and division. This is why I stated that it was [i]a [/i]solution, however incomplete and temporary.[/quote]
Adahn, you need to start fighting the Pro-I.D. groups then, if you feel that way. You're a smart guy, and you see the problems here. Join us...fight the power. lol

[quote]If it were so silly and bizarre, the Christians would be laughed out of every formal debate and every courtroom. As it stands, they hold so much social power over the country that no matter how silly and bizarre their ideas are, their power gives them validity in the eyes of the public.[/quote]
Just wait for the backlash, because I guarantee you it's going to be insane if Christians today keep going the way they're going. It's going to be the 1840s all over again, except those revolting aren't going to be Catholics; they're going to be everyone else.

[quote]You take my use of the word 'problem' and apply too strong a meaning to it. For your benefit, I will call it a social conflict. Using the new word, I will attempt to describe the situation again without arousing your preconceptions of what a social "problem" constitutes. The Christians have their panties in a bunch because their interests are being threatened. From their perspective, the teaching of evolution in schools as infallible is damning the souls of millions of children. Their response's purpose is to remove this threat, but the greedy SOB's are biting off more than they can chew in suing for the teaching of their ID theory.[/quote]
No, when you say "social problem," the implication there is something like gang warfare in the inner cities. I didn't apply too strong a meaning to anything. You mis-used a word. lol

And like I've said time and time again, religious perspective is historically, certifiably insane. I don't respect much of religious perspective, because of that whole "Here's Today. There's the Dark Ages. You're farther back that way" timeline.

[quote]If science gets its way and continues "damning the souls of millions of children" (from the Christian perspective), the conflict will not be resolved. If the Christians get their way and can "save the souls of millions of children" with their ID theory, the conflict will not be resolved. If the manner of teaching evolution presents it as a fallible theory, providing children with a [b]choice[/b] to believe it or not, the conflict is resolved for the Christians and the scientists, though unsatisfactorily for both parties.[/quote]
And gasp, what is happening? Christian parents are taking their children out of public schools, children are being excused from class when the Evolution unit is started. Christians have it pretty damn good already. That's why they need to start getting screwed over entirely.

[quote]Scientists screw Christians: Scientists continue their teaching of Evolution in a manner that makes it appear infallible.
Christians screw scientists: ID is taught in schools alongside Evolution.
Scientists and Christians both screwed: Evolution is required to be taught as fallible, though an understanding of its mechanisms and applications is required of the students.

I thought it made sense.[/quote]
Misformatted arrows (and the arrows in general) do not represent screws. I'm no moron, and even I couldn't see that whole "Getting screwed" aspect. All I saw was "Scientists arrow Christians," "Christians arrow Scientists," then a jumbled spacing on two lines.

[quote]Brasil, if the Christians get screwed, is that going to stop them and solve the conflict? We both know that the answer is that it will not. Do you not think it feasible to explore possible solutions that will [i]actually[/i] bring about a resolution to the conflict?[/quote]
Give a mouse a cookie, Adahn, give a mouse a cookie. The mouse needs to get completely screwed.

[quote]P.S. Shinji is a hippie.[/quote]
No, Shinji has common sense.

[popilongsleeves]

Bonjour ma cherie.- I am poppylong sleeves (or actually not).- your philosophy makes me yawn sometimes, but other no... I need some replies to this e-mail, so please feel free to talk and answer back to my personal queries.

If God exists?? I do believe so.- is he christian? God is God.... do not came back to me with those nonsense... I used to live in the jungle, with people from different religions and stories about god... but what is important is spirtuality. I go to mass every sunday.- but I may have better connection with someone that listens to mantras on a sunday afternoon... I used to need to right a lot, to express life, to be happy about creation...

explanation??? Yes, science can give very accurate explanations, and that is great... scientists studying like crazy cats to find new explanations for evaolutionary (and forget about basic, stupid and un-intelligent stickers-etiquetes such as "I am not a Biology evolutionary" " i believe in science" type of nonsense... christianity gives one explanation, muslim other, jewish once more, bhudism, and so... try to look beyond those etiquetes... and find spirituality...

What do you think about this?? Any reaction?? please, be honest with yourself and tell me that you love me... I need friends--- and love, lots of love... today it was good day.- bought some beautiful things, and I believe in God. so Thank you all...

[Adahn]

With more information comes a broader perspective. The Christians have enough control over their own children that evolution poses them no direct threat. There will be enough discussion about evolution among peers and other adult figures that the children's ability to make their own choices about their beliefs is not threatened. The Christians see I.D. being implemented as an easy way to reach millions of children in the hopes of saving their souls.

Christians, I know you think the large social group that represents you is doing a good thing by pushing I.D. to be taught in schools, because in the end it would be a good thing from your perspective. The way you're doing it though, is not right. The Christian religion is quite harmless on a personal level, and may even push people to be better. However, when the group acts together like this, inviting conflict, it is dangerous, and no longer good.

The ends do not justify the means, Christians. Saving souls is only good if it is done the right way. Pushing for I.D. is the easy way out. If you want to save children, step up your youth programs in schools. Please, keep it out of the courtrooms, for God's sake, and your own.

EDIT: Are there no responses? Have I dealt the killing blow? If so, I think I'll start keeping track. This makes one.