When Lil Stash was jamming with his band, Smilin Jon, the covered a few NoFX. Unfortunately, this was not one of them. I think it was written after Smilin' Jon broke up.

piffle.

Even Anthony Flew is no longer an atheist.

Piffle back atcha.

Because Anthony "flew the coop" matters why? There are many former Christians who have seen the light and become Athiests. Should I think that proves something?

But, you surely see the humor in those who deny science yet believe in the virgin birth, don't you?

Impossible according to God's Word (i.e. they may have called themselves "Christians", but they were not).



Because Andrew Flew coming to the realization that a Deity responsible for intelligent design exists, then perhaps also members of a punk rock band.



Who are the "those/who"?

"Intelligent design"?

I take it you are an Adonis-like specimen of humanity, perfect in every regard? Ah, but even then there are design flaws. Lots of 'em. Oh, wait, I know--they're all the result of sin, which the all-powerful Creator did not create, and yet exists.

People who believe in "intelligent design" are the best arguments against "intelligent design" you can possibly find.

Uh-huh. Take your assertion up with Einstein.

Sorry, I'm too busy icing down my "intelligently designed" knees after mowing the lawn.

You're obviously able to sit at your computer.
Perhaps you should net search the meaning of "intelligent design".

Perhaps you and your fellow Creationists should stop attempting to comment on the weather while your heads are placed in a position from which it is impossible to see the sun.

"The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science. Intelligent design's leading proponents – all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank – believe the designer to be the God of Christianity."

I.e. it's crap invented by medievalists to try and end-run the separation of church and state and impose their primitivism on the rest of us. Am I on the right track, no pun intended?

There are noted scientists, Einstein included, who believe/d in intelligent design without believing in "the God of Christianity."

There are noted scientists, Dotsenko included, who believe/d in intelligent design and also in "the God of Christianity."

Can't say it any better than this:

Launched by Phillip E. Johnson’s book Darwin on Trial (1991), the intelligent-design movement crystallized in 1996 as the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC), sponsored by the Discovery Institute, a conservative Seattle think tank.

Johnson, a law professor whose religious conversion catalyzed his antievolution efforts, assembled a group of supporters who promote design theory through their writings, financed by CRSC fellowships. According to an early mission statement, the CRSC seeks “nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies.”

Johnson refers to the CRSC members and their strategy as the Wedge, analogous to a wedge that splits a log — meaning that intelligent design will liberate science from the grip of “atheistic naturalism.”

Ten years of Wedge history reveal its most salient features: Wedge scientists have no empirical research program and, consequently, have published no data in peer-reviewed journals (or elsewhere) to support their intelligent-design claims. But they do have an aggressive public relations program, which includes conferences that they or their supporters organize, popular books and articles, recruitment of students through university lectures sponsored by campus ministries, and cultivation of alliances with conservative Christians and influential political figures.

The Wedge aims to “renew” American culture by grounding society’s major institutions, especially education, in evangelical religion. In 1996, Johnson declared: “This isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science. It’s about religion and philosophy.”

^ Certainly was not Einstein's focus or goal.

Did I stutter?

He wasn't an advocate of what is now called "intelligent design," either. He was an advocate of science.

Be more specific as to who the who are.

That's like saying there are those who deny science and yet believe Muhammad flew to Jerusalem and then up to seven? heavens on a pegasus type animal.

Maybe "they" do deny science...maybe "they" don't.

I know no one who believes in the Virgin Birth and "denies science", so its difficult to comment.

Or that there was a virgin birth, or that the universe was created in six days, or that Moses parted the Red Sea, or any other religious belief.

Again, I do not denigrate your religious beliefs. I salute you if they help you through the day.

I believe that all religious beliefs are equally invalid.

But because you believe in a particular set of tenets does not invalidate any other set of tenets, no matter how ridiculous they might seem. Even "Muhammad [flying] to Jerusalem and then up to seven? heavens on a pegasus type animal."

Many self-identified Christians in the USA complain about their persecution by society at large, but who have no problem denigrating the beliefs of others. Like fundamentalist Christians denigrating Mormons or Muslims for their beliefs.

Well, why not start with the New Earthers? 6,000 to 10,000 years old? Really?

Did God really stop the sun when Joshua marched around and blew his horn? Did he really "stop the sun"?

pssst: we can really have this conversation if you want, but it's kind of a waste of both our times... don't you think?

Somewhere I read that our personal freedom comes from our acceptance of others. Or, put another way, our personal freedom comes from letting go of our desire to control others.

I know this applies somehow. But, forgive me if I don't have a clue as to how. If you're so inclined, I'd appreciate being put on a subject.

Basically I was agreeing with you that pursuing the conversation further is a waste of time. I could just as well have said "to each his own." This ground has been covered over and over, again and again. To do so again is a waste of time as neither will likely change. Thus, my comment that the freedom each of us has truly comes from our giving up the feeling we have to control others rather than accept them as they are. That doesn't mean we have to agree with them, but to attempt to change them is fruitless and unnecessary, for they are who they are because they have chosen to be the way they are.

This is where it gets interesting.

I've no desire to control Iky and the other Creationist idjits.

They, however, will tell you that because I am against them crippling the science education of an entire nation by foisting their medievalist crap on a generation of schoolkids, I am trying to control them.

In other words, because I do not wish my children's children to be controlled by such errant nonsense, I am somehow intolerant.

Given that they worship the ultimate stalker, I suppose such passive-aggressivity is to be expected.

I fully agree that religion is a belief system which requires faith, and as such does not belong in the classroom unless the class is Religion. What may be perfectly acceptable to teach in a church Sunday School class would not be acceptable in our school classrooms. Any attempt to present a religious belief system as fact in our educational system would be totally inappropriate.

I understand now. Thanks.

Including ID. They will give a phoney denial of it being religion ("we aren't saying how it was designed"). But, it's phoney.

Did I miss something? Is Ilky, since he is singled out, trying to stop science from being taught as it always has been in our schools? I think he states otherwise, not that it matters.

I know many Christians and not a one of them would change our science curriculum in schools. The virgin birth is a personal belief only.

I know several who think Intelligent Design should be taught in our schools.

It must be the crowd you run with.

I am not sure even Happy Camper would have advocated teaching it in school. Why? There is a place for that that works for those believers and it is not public schools.

If folk weren't trying ( and needing the courts to stop it in some cases ) to get ID into our schools, it would be a non-issue. Why would I care what people teach in their Sunday Schools?

I must say that I agree that the real issue is that advocates of ID, most want it taught in public schools. Really, that is the main drive of the whole movement. Why else would they change the lexicon to one that sounds more scientific? The point is to minister to those that they cannot reach through "traditional" channels, and open those channels that are closed to them, like public schools and other governmental institutions...

Their agenda is kind of ambitious. They want to add to the list of four fundamental forces;
The strong nuclear force
The weak nuclear force
Electromagnetism
Gravity
... a fourth;
Magic

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/fforcon.html#c1

Oh the hypocrisy...ROTFL

ROTFL LOL GMWAS

O(pen) W(ide) ->

Like this guy?

Dear Mr. Grose [CA State Board of Education]:

In response to your inquiry about my personal views concerning the "Case for DESIGN" as a viable scientific theory for the origin of the universe, life and man, I am pleased to make the following observations.

For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. In the world around us, we can behold the obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design. We can see the will of the species to live and propagate. And we are humbled by the powerful forces at work on a galactic scale, and the purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny and ungainly seed with the ability to develop into a beautiful flower. The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based.

While the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design. To be forced to believe only one conclusion - that everything in the universe happened by chance - would violate the very objectivity of science itself. Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye?

Some people say that science has been unable to prove the existence of a Designer. They admit that many of the miracles in the world around us are hard to understand, and they do not deny that the universe, as modern science sees it, is indeed a far more wondrous thing than the creation medieval man could perceive. But they still maintain that since science has provided us with so many answers, the day will soon arrive when we will be able to understand even the creation of the fundamental laws of nature with a Divine Intent. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But, must we really light a candle to see the sun?

Many men who are intelligent and of good faith say they cannot visualize an electron. The electron is materially inconceivable and yet, it is so perfectly known through its effects that we us it to illuminate our cities, guide our airliners through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive Him? I am afraid that, although they really do not understand the electron either, they are ready to accept it because they managed to produce a rather clumsy mechanical model of it borrowed from rather limited experience in other fields, but they would not know how to begin building a model of God.

I have discussed the aspect of a Designer at some length because it might be that the primary resistance to acknowledging the "Case for DESIGN" as a viable scientific alternative to the current "Case for CHANCE" lies in the inconceivability, in some scientists' minds, of a Designer. The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction.

We in NASA were often asked what the real reason was for the amazing string of successes we had with our Apollo flights to the Moon. I think the only honest answer we could give was that we tried to never overlook anything. It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance.

With kindest regards.

Sincerely,

(signed) Wernher von Braun

Iky! You've Godwined yourself!

Not true. Ask the JIOA.

Being an advocate of science does not rule out belief in God Who created the universe. (Also see Wernher von Braun's letter to the California State Board of Education.) Nor does unbelief in a personal God and Saviour.



— C. Seelig, Helle Zeit—Dunkle Zeit (Europa Verlag, Zuürich, 1956), p.72, quoted in Jammer, p. 124.




— From E. Salaman, "A Talk With Einstein," The Listener 54 (1955), pp. 370-371, quoted in Jammer, p. 123.

But planned by who? The Christian God or Zeus or Zoroaster or Ra or....?

And since it's unconstitutional to promote one faith over another, it's not gonna get taught anyway. No matter what von Braun or those other guys think about it.

Von Braun reminds me of "The Rocket Boys". Ever see it? Wonderful movie.

What difference does that make scientifically?



See? No mention of a specific "who".

And speaking of faith...it takes faith to believe that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were NOT created by a designing intelligence.

THAT faith is being taught/promoted "over" faith in intelligent design.

Just the fact that there is some intelligent "who" out there means that religion enters the picture. How can one teach intelligent design without getting into talk about gods/goddesses? I don't think it's possible. While some scientists are men of faith, the hypothesis can't be taught in schools because of that god/goddess issue being central to the hypothesis.

And, even if it was being taught, since it is simply a hypothesis, it would have to be taught as such. There has been no scientific evidence to advance intelligent design to the theory stage and, thus, it can't accurately be called a theory. And you can bet the religious community would balk at intelligent design not being given theory status and, thus, being taught at a different level than Darwin's theory, even though they clearly don't understand what theory means in the scientific mileau. It would be a whole other can of worms.

I really don't understand the fear of Darwin's theory anyway. A person of faith might very reasonably say that their god has designed evolution. But it's still best to leave that out of the classroom.

Just to be clear, I have no problem with religions being taught in the classroom as long as they are taught on the same level, not one over another, as part of a cultural studies and/or comparative religion class.

Einstein would agree with you.



For starters by not labeling the intelligent designer as a god or goddess. While Einstein did sometimes use the name God in his lectures and interviews, he also used the words "spirit", "intelligence", and "Old One." Call the "who" the "designer".

Also, I'd probably introduce students to Stephen Myer and use his material on DNA.



You are assuming and projecting. Imo, Intelligent Design should be taught in the public school classroom as a scientific inquiry.

And just a side note: The M-theory cannot be proven, so really, it's simply a hypothesis. It can't accurately be called a theory either. I believe most scientists like to fudge a bit and call it a hypothetical theory. =-)

You have self-identified as a Christian on this board, do you believe in the basic Christian tenet that God created the universe and everything in it by His Eternal Word?

OK

I would use the term "designers". Surely, it would have to have come from a Committee.

Exactly like him.

Thank you for proving my point. It is impossible to teach ID without bringing spirituality into the discussion and, therefore, is not appropriate for a science class.



Yes, but I don't take 7-day creation or Adam & Eve literally. But what does my belief system have to do with what is constitutional and proper teaching in a science class?

I notice that you have switched from "religion" to "spirituality".

Einstein, by his own words, was a very religious man. That does not mean he worshipped gods and goddesses.

He did however, believe that "science without religion is lame." I certainly do not want our public school children exposed to "lame" science classes, do you?



Just curious.

Do you believe in the Christian tenets of the Virgin Birth, the death, the Resurrection, and the Ascension of the Crucified Christ?

To me, religion and spirituality should be one and the same. While some people can be spiritual without being involved in an organized religion, their spirituality is still their personal religion.

Spirituality or religion do not belong in a school unless their simply being taught as part of a cultural studies or comparative religion course.

Yes. I think I have made that clear in other discussions. It's like you're always trying to trip me up or something. Odd.

Nope, not trying to "trip" you up at all.
Just curious, that's all.
Thank you for responding.

The question has been asked and answered numerous times before.