Re: Re: RELIGION: No Intelligence Allowed

[Guest guest]

Here's an interesting overview of ID. It's not Creationism. If you're a

confirmed Atheist, then there's no point in considering ID, you MUST believe

some unexplained " magic " is responsible for creating new species from old.

Otherwise, open minds might consider ID as an alternative to neo-Darwinism.

Unfortunately many folks can't get by the labels of " science " and

" religion " ; if you're simply interested in the truth, you might consider

alternative theories.

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3Calvert.pdf

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:48 AM, jmr1290 <jomarex@...> wrote:

> Anybody who can think from one end of an idea to the other without

> losing sight of where they started out understands that this

> " Expelled " movie is Christian propoganda. And don't forget that there

> are a lot of Christians who don't agree with these kinds of tactics or

> even the notion of " Creationism " .

>

> You can have as much religion as you like, as long as you don't try to

> force it on me or my child's society.

>

> Teaching religion (creation " science " or " intelligent design " ) in

> public schools will always cause a lot more problems than teaching

> scientific ideas which people all around the world, *of any religion*,

> can agree on, or at least argue about the same principles of.

>

> There will always be disagreement and discussion about what is True,

> and that's a good thing, since we constantly acquire new knowledge and

> perspectives. This truth should be something that people arrive at

> from following the logical leads, though, not from cooking up

> something in secret meetings, which they then manipulate so skillfully

> that simple-minded people are unknowingly slipped from one

> fraction-of-an-idea to another fraction-of-an-idea, and before they

> know it, they have been carried far away from any Science.

>

> Religion is so fragile that, if you'll notice, it's always a grave

> " sin " to question religious ideas (at least in those two big violent

> religions that each keep trying to forcibly take over the whole

> world). This is just another example of that tactic of putting people

> on the defensive, accusing them of doing what you've been doing ( " you "

> meaning the people who put out this movie).

>

> Joy

>

>

> >

> > *On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...>wrote:

> > *

> > >

> > > *Sounds like more Christian propaganda....*

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > Gene. Here's the deal. You get PICKED and CHOSEN to be on the

> God-Team. We

> > all know you don't want to be picked or chosen. And I don't

> honestly think

> > I've ever seen anyone PUSHING you to be on the God Team, so would you

> > PULEEZE get over yourself. Do you see other people driveling on and on

> > about not being on the Atheist team, or whatever you call yourself?

> It's

> > old! It's boring! Get a new line!

> >

> > Sharon

> >

> >

> >

>

--

Alan (alanmjones@...)

[Guest guest]

'science' and 'religion' aren't simply labels. they actually have meaning, and

are relevant to the discussion.

If you're 'simply interested in the truth', you might consider the meanings of

words, consider logical thought occasionally, and not try to teach religion in

the guise of science.

btw - the whole notion of 'intelligent design' as a philosophical/religious

topic is very interesting, and I have nothing against it. But I wouldn't teach

it in a French class either, regardless of whether I'm interested in " the

truth " .

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " Alan " <alanmjones@...>

> Here's an interesting overview of ID. It's not Creationism. If you're a

> confirmed Atheist, then there's no point in considering ID, you MUST believe

> some unexplained " magic " is responsible for creating new species from old.

> Otherwise, open minds might consider ID as an alternative to neo-Darwinism.

> Unfortunately many folks can't get by the labels of " science " and

> " religion " ; if you're simply interested in the truth, you might consider

> alternative theories.

>

> http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3Calvert.pdf

>

>

> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:48 AM, jmr1290 <jomarex@...> wrote:

>

> > Anybody who can think from one end of an idea to the other without

> > losing sight of where they started out understands that this

> > " Expelled " movie is Christian propoganda. And don't forget that there

> > are a lot of Christians who don't agree with these kinds of tactics or

> > even the notion of " Creationism " .

> >

> > You can have as much religion as you like, as long as you don't try to

> > force it on me or my child's society.

> >

> > Teaching religion (creation " science " or " intelligent design " ) in

> > public schools will always cause a lot more problems than teaching

> > scientific ideas which people all around the world, *of any religion*,

> > can agree on, or at least argue about the same principles of.

> >

> > There will always be disagreement and discussion about what is True,

> > and that's a good thing, since we constantly acquire new knowledge and

> > perspectives. This truth should be something that people arrive at

> > from following the logical leads, though, not from cooking up

> > something in secret meetings, which they then manipulate so skillfully

> > that simple-minded people are unknowingly slipped from one

> > fraction-of-an-idea to another fraction-of-an-idea, and before they

> > know it, they have been carried far away from any Science.

> >

> > Religion is so fragile that, if you'll notice, it's always a grave

> > " sin " to question religious ideas (at least in those two big violent

> > religions that each keep trying to forcibly take over the whole

> > world). This is just another example of that tactic of putting people

> > on the defensive, accusing them of doing what you've been doing ( " you "

> > meaning the people who put out this movie).

> >

> > Joy

> >

> >

> > >

> > > *On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...>wrote:

> > > *

> > > >

> > > > *Sounds like more Christian propaganda....*

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Gene. Here's the deal. You get PICKED and CHOSEN to be on the

> > God-Team. We

> > > all know you don't want to be picked or chosen. And I don't

> > honestly think

> > > I've ever seen anyone PUSHING you to be on the God Team, so would you

> > > PULEEZE get over yourself. Do you see other people driveling on and on

> > > about not being on the Atheist team, or whatever you call yourself?

> > It's

> > > old! It's boring! Get a new line!

> > >

> > > Sharon

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

>

>

> --

> Alan (alanmjones@...)

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:48 AM, jmr1290 <jomarex@...> wrote:

> Anybody who can think from one end of an idea to the other without

> losing sight of where they started out understands that this

> " Expelled " movie is Christian propoganda.

I haven't seen it yet so I can't agree or disagree. I take it you've seen

it?

> Teaching religion (creation " science " or " intelligent design " ) in

ID is science, not religion. It sounds like you know nothing about it. I

agree with your comments below about religion. I take it you are an

Atheist?

> There will always be disagreement and discussion about what is True,

> and that's a good thing, since we constantly acquire new knowledge and

> perspectives. This truth should be something that people arrive at

> from following the logical leads, though, not from cooking up

> something in secret meetings, which they then manipulate so skillfully

> that simple-minded people are unknowingly slipped from one

> fraction-of-an-idea to another fraction-of-an-idea, and before they

> know it, they have been carried far away from any Science.

>

> Religion is so fragile that, if you'll notice, it's always a grave

> " sin " to question religious ideas (at least in those two big violent

> religions that each keep trying to forcibly take over the whole

> world). This is just another example of that tactic of putting people

> on the defensive, accusing them of doing what you've been doing ( " you "

> meaning the people who put out this movie).

>

> Joy

>

--

Alan (alanmjones@...)

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " haecklers " <haecklers@...>

> Actually, in enlightened cultures, Christian and Muslem, there were

> periods - often called golden ages in their histories, where open

> discussion of ideas was welcomed and those same times were the

> periods where they had the most advancements - not just in

> spirituality but also medicine, inventions, etc.

How could you read what I wrote and infer that I said that 'open discussion of

ideas' should not be welcomed. however in enlightened environments, we do

differentiate a bit between ideas, and not all of them are deemed worthy of

discussion. Is it worth debating, for instance, whether the Nazis were right or

wrong by killing millions of people? Is this an enlightened discussion that we

should welcome?

There is also some amount of compartmentalization that would take place in an

enlightened society. For instance (if math would indeed be taught in your

enlightened society), it generally would be rather strange if the teacher

decided to teach something entirely different. Intelligent Design is religious

philosophy, and should be discussed/taught where it is indeed relevant. Not as

an attempt to propagandize - by teaching it as an 'alternative' to science. It

is not an alternative, and doesn't compete with it.

>

> Squashing free thought and hindering people's ideas and pursuit of

> truth will lead to a country of followers with too much fear to have

> many new or unique ideas, then inventiveness, creativity, and

> progress will go out the window.

This has NOTHING to do with what I said, so I will not waste me time by replying

further.

>

> Religion isn't fragile, but the versions of it that are wildly

> opposed to what the Bible (or whatever religious book applies)

> teaches are pretty fragile. What do you do when you can't go to the

> source?? Any truth should be able to stand up to scrutiny - whether

> it be Darwinism or cholesterol. When those proposing the ideas fear

> any challenging discussion, then you start to wonder what they have

> to hide. For instance, no dentist in the state of Pennsylvania will

> debate Connett on the safety of water fluoridation. Why not?

> Isn't it safe?? Can't it stand up to scrutiny? Are there no experts

> who can prove it is safe?

>

Whether fluoride is safe or not IS science, and if a scholary article is

rejected simply because of its conclusion, then that is an issue. However,

discussing intelligent design in a science class, or rejecting an intelligent

design article in a science journal is an entirely different issue, and I think

that the facile comparison that you're making uses very faulty logic.

> The resistance to allowing a well-written Intelligent Design article

> to appear in a scholarly magazine is not unique. This type of

> censorship is widespread, on the safety of GM products, fluoride,

> diet, what causes cancer, heart disease, etc. and much, much more.

> Questionner beware - you're entering hostile territory of late. ID

> is just one case in point.

>

>

> >

>

> > >

> > > Religion is so fragile that, if you'll notice, it's always a grave

> > > " sin " to question religious ideas (at least in those two big

> violent

> > > religions that each keep trying to forcibly take over the whole

> > > world). This is just another example of that tactic of putting

> people

> > > on the defensive, accusing them of doing what you've been doing

> ( " you "

> > > meaning the people who put out this movie).

> > >

> > > Joy

> > >

> >

> > --

> > Alan (alanmjones@...)

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Science is a discipline that uses quantitative methods for proving or disproving

phenomenon. Theological arguments should not be taught as science or as an

alternative to science. That does not mean that a given theological argument is

wrong. It's just not science. Intelligent design has no place in a course on

biology.

The problem is that sometimes the proponents of scientism take it one step

further. They don't limit themselves to saying that, according to science, that

there is no proof of God. No, they go further and say, " there is no God " . This

is the hubris of scientism: it claims to be the final ontological word. So, we

must make a distinction between science and scientism.

[Guest guest]

I would bet that lot of scientists believe in God - and probably that the

breakdown is similar to the rest of the population, or at least the highly

educated population.

I really don't see that a scientist's conclusion that there is no god shows any

more hubris than an orchestra conductor's similar conclusion. A true scientist

wouldn't view this conclusion as a scientific result, and so it is just a

conclusion based on his life experience, same as anyone else's belief in god or

not.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: Seay <entheogens@...>

> Science is a discipline that uses quantitative methods for proving or

disproving

> phenomenon. Theological arguments should not be taught as science or as an

> alternative to science. That does not mean that a given theological argument

is

> wrong. It's just not science. Intelligent design has no place in a course on

> biology.

>

> The problem is that sometimes the proponents of scientism take it one step

> further. They don't limit themselves to saying that, according to science,

that

> there is no proof of God. No, they go further and say, " there is no God " .

This

> is the hubris of scientism: it claims to be the final ontological word. So,

we

> must make a distinction between science and scientism.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> I really don't see that a scientist's conclusion

> that there is no god shows any more hubris than an orchestra

> conductor's similar conclusion.>>

It isn't UNLESS they claim that science proves it. In that case, they are like

the Pope when he claims that his authority issues from God.

A true scientist

> wouldn't view this conclusion as a scientific result,

> and so it is just a conclusion based on his life experience,

> same as anyone else's belief in god or not.

I agree with that. Notice, I asked that a distinction be made between science

and scientism.

This reminds me of a story I read about where Clarence Darrow, the great lawyer

and agnostic, was invited to some conference of atheists. The atheists settled

in to their chairs, thinking they had invited someone of like thinking. As it

turns out, they were disarmed when Darrow started taking them to task for being

as dogmatic as the worst religious zealots.

[Guest guest]

Alan-

Actually, ID is pseudo-science.

-

> > Teaching religion (creation " science " or " intelligent design " ) in

>

> ID is science, not religion.

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: Seay <entheogens@...>

>

>

>

>

> > I really don't see that a scientist's conclusion

> > that there is no god shows any more hubris than an orchestra

> > conductor's similar conclusion.>>

>

> It isn't UNLESS they claim that science proves it. In that case, they are

like

> the Pope when he claims that his authority issues from God.

Well, I don't know if I'd call it hubris exactly. It is entirely erroneous to

claim that the existence or non-existence of god is a scientific conclusion. So,

if it is claimed to be a scientific conclusion, it is quite beyond bad science.

I'd be surprised if there are many scientists who would claim this as a

scientific conclusion, but I don't know one way or the other.

>

>

> A true scientist

> > wouldn't view this conclusion as a scientific result,

> > and so it is just a conclusion based on his life experience,

> > same as anyone else's belief in god or not.

>

> I agree with that. Notice, I asked that a distinction be made between science

> and scientism.

>

> This reminds me of a story I read about where Clarence Darrow, the great

lawyer

> and agnostic, was invited to some conference of atheists. The atheists

settled

> in to their chairs, thinking they had invited someone of like thinking. As it

> turns out, they were disarmed when Darrow started taking them to task for

being

> as dogmatic as the worst religious zealots.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I have nothing against ID being taught in a pseudo-science class, or its

scholary papers appearing in pseudo-science journals.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: Idol <paul.idol@...>

> Alan-

>

> Actually, ID is pseudo-science.

>

> -

>

> > > Teaching religion (creation " science " or " intelligent design " ) in

> >

> > ID is science, not religion.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I do not agree to disagree with McCain supporters...

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: Debra <purple66moon@...>

> Goodness, guys, you should NOT have gone there...we're here to join together

> over good nutrition and against those who want greed over health.  It is way

> EASY to distract ourselves from this goal with politics and religion talk...

> My girlfriend and I went to the State Fair on Monday...she wore McCain sticker

> and I wore Obama.  We agree to disagree.  Needless to say, we turned a few

heads

> at the Fair for our unlikely comraderie... 

>  

> Deb in NC

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> I do not agree to disagree with McCain supporters...

>

And I AGREE to DISAGREE with McCain supporters...loudly and frequently

[Guest guest]

> I do not agree to disagree with McCain supporters...

>

And I AGREE to DISAGREE with McCain supporters...loudly and frequently

[Guest guest]

hah - I think we're both making the same joke

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: Seay <entheogens@...>

>

>

>

>

>

> > I do not agree to disagree with McCain supporters...

> >

>

> And I AGREE to DISAGREE with McCain supporters...loudly and frequently

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Deb,

> Goodness, guys, you should NOT have gone there...we're here to join together

> over good nutrition and against those who want greed over health. It is way

> EASY to distract ourselves from this goal with politics and religion talk...

> My girlfriend and I went to the State Fair on Monday...she wore McCain

> sticker and I wore Obama. We agree to disagree. Needless to say, we turned

> a few heads at the Fair for our unlikely comraderie...

I don't think this is really a political discussion and for the most

part it isn't really a religious discussion. It seems kind of

irrelevant right now, but if you look at past discussions of evolution

it is, while somewhat tangential, very related to the subject at hand.

Many theories of diets are based on evolutionary inferences.

Chris