Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Pope on the Periphery of ID

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

[From a colleague:] “Here’s a more complete summary of the Pope’s Wednesday audience. Note the clear emphasis on knowledge of God through reason prior to revelation: “Even before discovering the God who reveals himself in the history of a people, there is a cosmic revelation, open to all, offered to the whole of humanity by the Creator.” That view is both biblical and an important theme in the philosophies of Aristotle and Plato as synthesized by Thomas Aquinas. The Pope’s point becomes even clearer when he lays aside the prepared text and speaks extemporaneously to the assembled pilgrims — including Cardinal Schönborn, who was present.”

Creation Reveals God and His Love, Says Benedict XVI
Comments on Psalm 135(136) at General Audience
Date: 2005-11-09
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=79681

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 9, 2005 (Zenit.org).- God’s created works are the first sign of his existence and love, says Benedict XVI.

From “the greatness and beauty of created things” one knows, by analogy, their author, the Pope said at today’s general audience. He was commenting on Psalm 135(136):1-9, as part of his ongoing series of reflections on biblical passages used in the Liturgy of Vespers.

“God does not appear in the Bible as an impassible and implacable Lord, or an obscure and indecipherable being, or fate, against whose mysterious force it is useless to struggle,” the Holy Father explained when commenting on the Jewish poetic composition.

About 25,000 pilgrims gathered for the audience in St. Peter’s Square.

The Pontiff told them that God manifests himself “as a person who loves his creatures, he watches over them, he follows them in the course of history and suffers because of the infidelity with which the people often oppose his hesed, his merciful and paternal love.”

“The first sign of this divine charity,” he noted, quoting the psalmist, must be “sought in creation: … the heavens, the earth, the waters, the sun, the moon and the stars.”

“Even before discovering the God who reveals himself in the history of a people, there is a cosmic revelation, open to all, offered to the whole of humanity by the Creator,” Benedict XVI said.

“There is, therefore, a divine message secretly inscribed in creation,” a sign of “the loving faithfulness of God who gives his creatures being and life, water and food, light and time,” he added. “From created works one ascends … to the greatness of God, to his loving mercy.”

When the Pontiff finished his address, he put his papers to one side and commented on the thought of St. Basil the Great, a Doctor of the Church, who said that some, “deceived by the atheism they bear within them, imagined the universe deprived of a guide and order, at the mercy of chance.”

“I believe the words of this fourth-century Father are of amazing timeliness,” said Benedict XVI. “How many are these ‘some’ today?”

“Deceived by atheism, they believe and try to demonstrate that it is scientific to think that everything lacks a guide and order,” he continued. “The Lord, with sacred Scripture, awakens the drowsy reason and says to us: In the beginning is the creative Word. In the beginning the creative Word — this Word that has created everything, which has created this intelligent plan, the cosmos — is also Love.”

The Pontiff concluded, exhorting his listeners to allow themselves “to be awakened by this Word of God” and invited them to pray that “he clear our minds so that we will be able to perceive the message of creation, inscribed also in our hearts: The beginning of everything is creative Wisdom and this Wisdom is love and goodness.”

Other papal commentaries on the canticles and psalms of the Liturgy of the Hours are posted in the Wednesday’s Audience section of ZENIT’s Web page.

Comments
Puck, In #106 you say: “…but my personal beliefs do not matter.” To the contrary, your personal political beliefs are the main issue. Would the following points accord with your beliefs regarding secondary education in America? Local voters shall not control their own science curriculums. National Science Police shall control local science curriculums. Students may entertain competing theories except in biology. Although theories are notoriously ephemeral, Darwinism shall be taught as infallible. Standard Form Darwinism shall be determined by a Science Sanhedrin composed of bureaucrats. The Science Sanhedrin shall preside over a centralized, command-and-control knowledge system. The Standard Form shall be promulgated in every classroom of every school of every district of every state in the Republic. No district shall deviate one single angstrom from the Standard Form unless a Standard Emendation be issued. Deviation from the Standard Form shall result in threats and lawsuits. When expedient, Sensitive judges may pose as Great Science Savants. “Mean,” “dumb” judges may not pose as Great Science Savants. The Science Sanhedrin shall receive regular blandishments and boot-cleanings. Wonderstruck villeins in smallheld lands shall pay annual Sanhedrin Tax to maintain Police Science, Lawyer Science, Papal Bull Science and their respective toadies in the manner to which they’ve grown accustomed. Simple Hayseed folk shall annually sing “Lawdy I feel so happy…” in the form of a contrapuntal round.pmob1
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PST
Puck, I have a mild clinical interest in your intellectual delusions. Could you please tell me: 1) Which Smart-O-Meter you use for Dumbness detection? 2) What is the percentage of Really Smart people in Western society? 3) The proper role of Mind Police in structuring curriculums for hayseed offspring? Thanks,pmob1
November 20, 2005
November
11
Nov
20
20
2005
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PST
puckSR "I have always been told that humility is the hallmark of a wise man…..Hmmm" Then I suggest you get enough humility to stop calling the public "dumb". Physician, heal thyself. The Cobb sticker makes no mention of any theory except evolution. Try again and stick to the facts.DaveScot
November 17, 2005
November
11
Nov
17
17
2005
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PST
DaveScot: I have always been told that humility is the hallmark of a wise man.....Hmmm I thought the reasoning behind challenging the sticker was made clear DaveScot The sticker is suggesting "questioning" Evolution...this would imply seeking alternatives All current alternatives to Evolution are considered religious I know, I know....ID isnt religious, its just theistic The lawyers are currently arguing in Dover that ID is religious...thus the reasoning. If you would like me to explain this again...just ask Hmmm..so the intelligent designer could simply be human? If the Intelligent Designer is another biological organism, then wouldnt that biological organism need some form of creation? It would have either been created by yet another biological organism, and some organism at some time would have had to been created in a different way; or your suggesting, and i believe you are, that the other organism may not be as constrained by our biological laws....in which case, perhaps we are not as constrained as we believe by biological laws. I typically find the "who created God" question laughable, but in this case it is rather relevant. Please do explain, since this is at least an attempt to make ID non-theistic.puckSR
November 16, 2005
November
11
Nov
16
16
2005
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PST
puckSR You seem to have dodged, dived, ducked, and dodged the following point I made to you, thus I shall throw it at you again:
As to your denial that the courts are being used by Darwinian narrative apologists to shield the story from criticism… The following sticker, inserted into Cobb County Georgia HS biology texts was objectionable and the ACLU sued the school district for its removal and won the suit. Sticker: “Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.” What sayeth you now to that, Puck?
Well? [tap tap tap]DaveScot
November 16, 2005
November
11
Nov
16
16
2005
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PST
puckSR "Im just saying that a lot of people in the world are dumb." I've an IQ of 153. To me, you're "dumb" too. Should I discount your opinion because of it? Stop calling the public dumb unless you want a taste of your own medicine.DaveScot
November 16, 2005
November
11
Nov
16
16
2005
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PST
puckSR "Explain to me how ID can fit into an Atheistic viewpoint?" Easy. The intelligence is of natural origin and violates no known physical laws in its actions. We already have scientific knowledge of one intelligent agency capable of genetic engineering. They are embodied as bipeds wearing white coats drinking coffee around gene splicing machines and engineering workstations. According to the evolutionists the agents mentioned above are of natural origin and violate no known physical laws. That seems to fit well enough into an atheistic world view. There is nothing whatsoever that prohibits other kinds of intelligent agency from acting in the universe. The key to sticking with science is not postulating intelligent agents that violate the known physical laws that govern time and space and matter and energy. Of course there always remains the possibility, likelyhood in fact, that there are physical laws yet to be discovered and these may have some bearing on the emergence of intelligence and design.DaveScot
November 16, 2005
November
11
Nov
16
16
2005
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PST
puckSR "While your expertise is in biology…mine is in theology/philosophy" While your expertise is in theology/philosophy, mine is in digital design. DNA is a digital code. Trust me, it's designed.DaveScot
November 16, 2005
November
11
Nov
16
16
2005
03:26 AM
3
03
26
AM
PST
Avocationist...I am a very religious person...far from being agnostic...but my personal beliefs do not matterpuckSR
November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PST
While your expertise is in biology...mine is in theology/philosophy ID is theistic. Theism-is the belief in one or more gods or goddesses. More specifically, it may also mean the belief in God, a god, or gods, who is/are actively involved in maintaining the Universe. If you havent noticed I am referring in particular to the secondary part of the definition My mind is very open, and in a way, you could say that I believe in ID...if it is as loosely described as Avocationist claimed it to be in another comments section. I will ask you a question that upsets your theory of theistic science. How do you determine what justifies divine intervention? I know you strongly claim that biology is pushed by the hand of God, but what standard will you put forth to determine without question divinity of an action? Evolution of species...hand of God abiogenesis...hand of God astrophysics...?hand of God? earthquakes...?hand of God? plate tectonis...?hand of God? see...it all depends on how loose your definition for intelligent design. However...the looser it gets, the closer your "theory" gets to philosophy.puckSR
November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PST
Oh Puck, No need to be snotty, I had looked up both definitions, although mine did not include the front-loading scenario under deism. I really don't think accepting theism or ID means the naturalistic approach would change. Why would it? Is nature inconsistent because God created it? How is it any less amenable to study? Do you realize that the question of whether or not there is a God, and if so what kind of God, is already a fact, and that we are studying nature just fine? Are you an agnostic?avocationist
November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PST
Now, I must admit, speaking objectively, that with the emergent subjective mind may have also come emergent subjective reality. It may very well be that reality is forever emergent and shapes itself to the subjective experience. Ok, philo-babble off. I just wanted to give you an example of how objective objectivity should be.observer_in_context
November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PST
When you take a moment to mentally encompass and breathe, it's exciting, isn't it? That we are each a part of it all, whatever it is, a being in existence. No matter what you believe, the last statement is true for each one of us, albeit subjectively. And though subjective, there is enough commonality in our individual experiences that we can debate the nature of existence, our origins, and ourselves. It is impossible to discuss our origins without making inferences as to the nature of existence because it is this nature of existence that makes way for our origins (in whatever form or method that happens to be). Within each of us lies our undeniable, individual, subjective truth. Outside of all of us is objective truth, the kind of truth that remains true regardless of whether any one or all of us perceives it or not. It is extremely difficult, but not impossible, for any human mind to see much at all beyond its undeniable, subjective truth. Sorry, that's life, seen through your eyes, interpreted and reasoned by your brain. Individual (or even collective) subjective truth will never match the absoluteness of objective truth. It is objective truth, objective reality that holds the key to how we have become and which buoys and enables our own naturally limiting subjective truth. How can we escape the bonds and bounds of our subjective truth to see more of this objective truth that is the source of existence and our origins? We seek to become more objective. And what does "truth" demand to be found within a subjective human mind? Brutal, blunt, selfless and uncaring honesty, within ourselves and with others. ob·jec·tive adj. 1. Of or having to do with a material object. 2. Having actual existence or reality. 3. a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal. Focusing on definition 3a, it must be said (and is obvious by reading many of the comments in this thread) that very few humans are capable of being objective. Avocationist pointed this out earlier by commenting, ‘Of course, most people would say they seek truth. But talk is cheap. In fact, truth is for the few.’ Again, looking at definition 3a, objectivity only arrives when one lets go of many things: Firstly, the need to win. If you simply must win then you simply cannot be objective. If the truth is all that is sought then there is nothing to lose and therefore no need of seeking to win. Secondly, banish the words “I believe” and think a thousand times before using the words “I know”. Failing to do so will prejudice all subsequent inquiry and you will forever be at the mercy of subjective thinking that will lead you to “a” truth, but not “the” truth. Further, do not turn speculation into immutable truth. That is the surest way to build a flimsy house of cards. Thirdly, and this is paramount, any concern of your being must be denied. You cannot be objective if you are concerned with preserving your place or status, even your very life or being. Fear, love, hope, desire, and the will to survive, while significant and useful traits for being human, have little to do with being objective or for discovering truth. You cannot seek to stack the deck of understanding such that there be a favorable outcome for you, for now or for eternity. Doing so will only result in you blissfully deluding yourself. Truth, objective truth, says let the chips fall where they may. This is where honesty is required and most difficult to hold steady. Selflessness may seem so inhuman. But in the search for objective truth, selflessness will hold the light pure in comparison to the obscuring pall of the “Me, me, me! What’s in it for me?” kind of selfness. Even wondrous feelings of aw should be guarded. Aw, like any emotion, can be a great motivator. Allow emotions to be motivators for seeking the truth not for deciding what truth is or what truth could be, should be, or must be. Objective truth flows objectively regardless of any subjective claims made on its behalf. Fourthly, don’t mentally paint the object with colors that make it most pretty. If you don’t paint it with false glitziness its natural beauty will eventually emerge for you to appreciate. (“Truth is beauty, beauty is truth.” “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” You should always seek to have a clear, sharp eye for maximum exposure to natural beauty, natural truth.) Fifthly, be unbent, be inquisitive. You cannot begin with the anthropic principle and seek to be objective from there forward. Nor can you begin with thoughts that an intelligent designer is foolish and seek to be objective from there forward. Part of letting go is the letting go of our prior truths to relearn them again, objectively. What harm can that be if they were true after all? They would be as the captured butterfly set free. Oh, and just one other thing… This really should be about YOUR understanding of things, right? You don’t want to go on through life feeling like your concepts are brought to you courtesy of the mind of Joe Blow, do you? Understand that, just like you, Joe Blow lives a subjective existence. He is no more capable of striving for objective truth than you are. If it is important enough, do it for yourself. Toss what Mr. Blow has convinced you to be true out the window and seek truth for yourself. Perhaps you will find yourself basking in the glow of beautiful, self-evident, objective truth. And perhaps it will be the same as what you had assimilated from Mr. Blow before. Even so, it will be warmer and truer. Adhering to the rules laid forth, with time and your own independent deep contemplation, you will discern objective truth, as best an innately subjective mind can. That is what you want isn’t it? The truth? You do want the truth, right, no matter where it leads, no matter what sacrifice? Now, focusing on definition 2, “having actual existence or reality”, well, that’s what this debate is all about, right? (Please forgive me for not being well versed on either side of the issue.) On the one hand, ID says that the complexity of living things leads to the inescapable conclusion that there must be an intelligent agent at the root cause of life. On the other hand, evolution is saying that regardless of how life arrived, it appears through evidence of an incomplete fossil record that complexity has steadily evolved from humble beginnings to man and perhaps eventually beyond. Neither is provable to be 100% correct. In that sense one could argue that they are on equal footing and that if one is taught and advocated then so should the other in the name of fairness and the quest for understanding and truth. However, if the quest for truth is for objective truth then whatever “truth” is proposed should pass through the objectivity filter described above and emerge unchanged, unscathed. Yes, I have opinions, what I have come to perceive as objective truth. And my objective truth continues to evolve as new information is acquired via my subjective reality, filtered objectively as best I can. I know that I have not contributed substantively to either side and I apologize if I have merely taken up space. However, much of the dialog here moved me to note to all that truth is and that it does not bow to any agenda other than the most sincere quest.observer_in_context
November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PST
"We could most definately teach Theism, if you could prove it more completely." Who said anything about teaching theism? ID is not theism.Is there any evidence you would accept for it anyway? I doubt it. "Personally, before attempting to introduce proof of God, i would find a lot more evidence than i would to introduce a new scientific theory" So when Darwinism falls (and it will)you will erect another naturalistic myth to take its place because any theory that is not naturalistic is unscientific to you. And when that one falls? I do not accept the naturalistic definition of science but I'm more concerned about whether a theory is true than if it is "scientific" by some arbitrary deffinition. I have been studying this crap for 23 years and I have a degree in biology so dont bother trying to change my mind, it is quite closed (like yours) :). Bored now. ps: oh yes! let the damned lawyers decide!MGD
November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PST
MGD, i believe i just explained a Theistic/Deistic approach to evolution We could most definately teach Theism, if you could prove it more completely. Personally, before attempting to introduce proof of God, i would find a lot more evidence than i would to introduce a new scientific theory. Besides, if you prove that Theism is true, it simply means that we will abandon the long standing belief that science must be approached from a naturalist perspective. This, of course, would help alot. All of those impossible problems....God did it. MGD, who decides? Well i expect that the SCOTUS will eventually get to decide. They will have many briefs filed explaining both sides positions, and in the end...due to the mass of briefs supporting Theistic evolution, they will side with evolution being compatible with Theism.puckSR
November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PST
Hmmmm... Id=theism. What if ID is true? Can we still not teach it because ID=Theism acording to you? If there is design in nature are we not allowed to see it? Can we only teach theories that can have athiestic interpretations? Why? Who's point of view does this serve? “Evolution can easily be explained in the context of Theism or Deism.” Evolution meaning descent, certainly. Darwinism or any other naturalistic hypothosis is a harder nut to crack (and swallow). Just because some may accept Darwinism and still be theists doesn't mean that the two positions are compatible, perhaps they are only being thoughtless, or diplomatic, or scizophrenic. Who decides? You? The ACLU? Sticker: “Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.” Dave, the offending words are: "open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.” :) Such words are the enemies of indoctrination.MGD
November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PST
DaveScot: Explain to me how ID can fit into an Atheistic viewpoint?puckSR
November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PST
DaveScot: Im not being an elitist. The american public is not generally the brightest group. Most public is not. Im not saying that the British public is any smarter. OR the Chinese. Im just saying that a lot of people in the world are dumb. The fact that a significant percentage of our population cannot name the president should be a strong indication of my point. What alternative is currently presented to evolution? Creationism---------->Judeo-Christian...religious ID------------------->Theistic...religious Magic---------------->???....not religious Dont Think about it-->Stupid.not religious The fact that all alternatives to evolution are either inherently religious or plain stupid should explain their actions. They wanted good religion free education Avocationist: Darwinism to a Deist: God created the reality in which we now exist. He knew how and when things were going to fall together(determinism). He created the properties of nature, and the laws that govern nature. He allowed the universe to unfold according to his design. One of his designs was evolution. He knew beforehand how things would evolve, because he designed evolution, and the enviroment that it was occuring in. He knew we would be the eventual product of this evolution. Darwinism to a Theist: Same as above, except that God has the free-will to occasionally reach down and tinker with his creation. i.e. Jesus, miracles, that sort of thing. If this bothers you, ask yourself this question...is God constantly moving the cosmos? No, because he created them so that they could keep moving, He is not spinning the planets with his hand. I think now would be a good time to look up Deism, since you obviously had no idea what i was talking about in my recent post. While you are at it, you may want to look up Theism too, since that is the definition i am working with.puckSR
November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PST
Puck “Evolution may appear Atheistic…but it can easily fit inside a Theistic or Deistic viewpoint.” Intelligent Design may appear Theistic…but it can easily fit inside an Atheistic or Agnostic viewpoint.DaveScot
November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PST
Puck, "Evolution may appear Atheistic…but it can easily fit inside a Theistic or Deistic viewpoint." I don't agree because the idea of a God who somehow has nothing to do with matter is inherently a contradiction. If there is a God, that God is the source of existence itself. We already have departed from Darwinism in the strictest sense. Once we have a God who is the source of existence, how can we ever imagine that life is an accident? "Evolution can easily be explained in the context of Theism or Deism." Not if you believe that life is fully accounted for by random processes without goal or purpose. "Besides, why are we judging the merit of a scientific theory based on its religious tendency?" I wasn't. I was judging whether a philosophic theory is compatible with a scientific one. "You also make a huge mistake Avocationist You claim that the Atheist has a closed mind? But the ID proponent has an open mind? You argue that ID proponents have an open mind because many supported Evol at one time. But most Atheists were religious at one time, shouldnt the same argument apply?" I didn't exactly state the the atheist has a closed mind. My opinion is it is a matter of perception, and that does involve a willingness, but it is also a matter of individual development. Yes, your are right that an atheist often has a somewhat open mind. Darwin, for example, and he is very typical, said that Christianity is a damnable doctrine and he didn't see why anyone would want it to be true. He is completely correct, and so it often happens that the person who is able to think for himself and who cannot bear the cruelty of Christian doctrine, responds with atheism. (I think Christian doctrine needs to be reformed.) However, the atheist often stops thinking much after his rebellion, and remains stuck in a reaction to a negative theology, which is on a low level of understanding anyway. "However, in the event that the designer is evil, or at least sadistic, wouldnt that actually be even worse for young people than a religiously abstinent deity?" Well, I'm all for truth, whatever it is. I hardly think the deity can be evil...an abstinent deity is already a bit evil (tho not sadistic), and a nonexistent deity is a recipe for existential despair.avocationist
November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PST
puckSR As to your denial that the courts are being used by Darwinian narrative apologists to shield the story from criticism... The following sticker, inserted into Cobb County Georgia HS biology texts was objectionable and the ACLU sued the school district for its removal and won the suit. Sticker: "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." What sayeth you now to that, Puck?DaveScot
November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
02:38 AM
2
02
38
AM
PST
puckSR "The American public is ignorant" Elitism is ugly, puck. ", and no matter what your opinion(ID or Evol), we probably should not leave this debate in the hands of the public." Well my friend, I'm afraid that's how the system works in the United States. Maybe you should move somewhere where benevolent dictators decide public policy. I hear Singapore ain't all that bad...DaveScot
November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
02:31 AM
2
02
31
AM
PST
Hmmm Im sorry, im trying to throw some fairly objective information into the mix so i have to challenge the idea that "ID may have theistic connotations to some". ID=Theism....ID cannot be Deistic or Atheistic...please explain a situation in which it could be Evolution may appear Atheistic...but it can easily fit inside a Theistic or Deistic viewpoint this has been the center of a massive debate on this website...the atheism of Darwinism. Darwinism in non-denominational ID is inherently TheisticpuckSR
November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
12:10 AM
12
12
10
AM
PST
"You do realize that this all sounds like a conspiracy theory right?" No, I didn't mean it that way.A little paranoid are you? What is a conspiracy anyway? When people of a like mind work for a common goal. Maybe in secret? This is no conspiracy as it's all being done in the open. Still, why the obsession with this subject? Would it be permissable to teach about some new theory about gravitation, for instance, that differed from general relativity, but was able to answer some questions better than GR? What about alternatives to quantum theory? Would that be ok? Then why not ID? Because it may have theistic connotations to some? Darwinism has athiestic connotations to some, why dont we ban it? The ACLU certainly seems to have a secular agenda. In any case I believe that the people should decide what their children learn, not advocacy groups and not lawyers.MGD
November 14, 2005
November
11
Nov
14
14
2005
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PST
"And why do the ACLU, the NCSE and the other usual suspects lawyer up so readily? Could it be to protect their creation myth from public scrutiny and preserve their social status and power? Why, yes I think it might be." You do realize that this all sounds like a conspiracy theory right?puckSR
November 14, 2005
November
11
Nov
14
14
2005
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PST
"Souns like worth rereating." thats: sounds like worth repeatingMGD
November 14, 2005
November
11
Nov
14
14
2005
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PST
DaveScot: You are truly twisting the facts on Scopes. In both Scopes and Dover, the question is being raised over personal ideology in the classroom. They are not "escaping criticism" in public schools. The public generally does not have the information to decide the argument over most scientific matters. Look at a number of the polls that are performed each year to help you decide this fact(over anything). The American public is ignorant, and no matter what your opinion(ID or Evol), we probably should not leave this debate in the hands of the public. Avocationist: Christianity is a form of Theism. Evolution can easily be explained in the context of Theism or Deism. ID is more strongly associated with Theism than Evol, but the argument can be made for either. Besides, why are we judging the merit of a scientific theory based on its religious tendency? You also make a huge mistake Avocationist You claim that the Atheist has a closed mind? But the ID proponent has an open mind? You argue that ID proponents have an open mind because many supported Evol at one time. But most Atheists were religious at one time, shouldnt the same argument apply? Get back to me on this, since i believe that your using somewhat contradictory logic. Oh and let me explain the morale issue with ID. ID is much better morally for children if we teach that the creator is good. A good theistic deity is better than atheism for moral purposes. However, in the event that the designer is evil, or at least sadistic, wouldnt that actually be even worse for young people than a religiously abstinent deity? BTW Agnosticism always leans towards Religion. If they leaned even the slightest towards non-religion, then they would identify with Atheism. Just my personal observation.puckSR
November 14, 2005
November
11
Nov
14
14
2005
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PST
My bad on the Scopes appeal. I thought it'd been overturned on constitutional grounds but it was a technicality. Not until 1968 did SCOTUS rule that it was unconstitutional on establishment grounds to ban the teaching of evolution. The points still stand however. Evolution first gained the undeniable right to be taught in public schools via judicial fiat and now it has gained an undeniable right to escape criticism in public schools via judicial fiat.DaveScot
November 14, 2005
November
11
Nov
14
14
2005
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PST
"MGD: On the lawsuit, the school board were pushing their worldview into the classroom politicaly( against the scientific advice they were presented with), They were the ones trying to bypass the scientific community. Any lawsuit was an attempt to raise the standards back up." The school board was doing their job, setting the curriculum, how dare they cross the Scientismic Priesthood! Now I may not agree with what the school board did (let's try teaching the 3R's and get that right first), but they are not responsible to that priesthood but to the people who elected them. Those who have been voted out of office are paying for the controversy no matter what the reason. This spin, by the way, doesn't exonerate you from a charge of dishonesty. It was not the proponents of ID who took this to court. As for raising the standards, using legal tricks to protect a favored theory from public examination proves that this is a worlview in its death throes. If there is no controversy, teach the counterclaims and refute them. "And why do the ACLU, the NCSE and the other usual suspects lawyer up so readily? Could it be to protect their creation myth from public scrutiny and preserve their social status and power? Why, yes I think it might be." Souns like worth rereating.MGD
November 14, 2005
November
11
Nov
14
14
2005
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PST
Hey Puck, "Now, they are trying to ban ID on the same concept of ID being religious. You may argue that ID is agnostic, but it is still Theism. You cannot have ID without Theism, but you can have Evolution with Theism, Deism, or Atheism" Well, I disagree that theism or deism are tenable, that is, they rest on very shallow metaphysical thought processes, but I can't really go into my personal understanding of the nature of God. You do realize that guys like William Povine at Cornell (I think) openly state that evolution leads to atheism and shows there is no God, meaning or afterlife? "Explain this to me…what exactly has ID shown to be true that would completely violate Evolution? ID has some great arguments..its a very interesting philosophical perspective." It is important to note that ID is considered to be an inference, an interpretation of scientific data. I'm not sure you should go so far as to call it a philosophy...so are we to consider any good arguments against gradualist, random mutation and natural selection evolution to be an argument in ID's camp? Denton has a chapter I just finished called "A Biochemical echo of Typology" that does a great job, I think, of helping to demolish evolution. I also really like the arguments from information theory. Are you saying there must be one final triumphant argument? I guess in that case it all depends on how much you need to be convinced. As I said, I think the fossil evidence alone is sufficient, although if all the other evidence were more favorable, I'm sure the fossil record could be explained. However, that isn't the case. The Golden Key was me - just remember you heard it from me first!avocationist
November 14, 2005
November
11
Nov
14
14
2005
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PST
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply