Freedom Of Religion?

[Grabmygoblin]

but doesn't ID require a purpose for the designer to create something? if we (humans) never came into existance, wouldn't nature function the same? so what purpose did the designer have for us?

Maybe it's the same reason why we create our webcomics -- so that someone can see what we've done.

suddenly my entire life makes sense.

[Laemkral]

In response to a few things by Volkov.

All of your three main points come back to one single point. "It's really complicated, so complicated that it must come from a divine source." It's almost as if not a single proponent has ever heard the word "coincidence". Just because something is extraordinarily complex, doesn't mean it has a meaning.

Evolution is not a theory. This needs to be understood. It's not a theory in the same way math, physics, etc. are not theories. They have not been disproven. No one has ever proved the basic tenants upon which the entire mathematical system is based upon. If evolution is a theory, then so is addition. You accept it as a truth because you can not show evidence to the contrary. Living things adapt in a changing environment and they do so in the manner described by punctuated equilibrium. If you want an example of modern day adaptation, look no further than the bathroom mirror. If you were born without wisdom teeth, or with only half a set, you're "more evolved" than humans about...20 years ago. If you had wisdom teeth you're a small step away from the next species that will arise. If you have wisdom teeth and they don't crowd, you're even futher away. Centuries from now we'll be even less similar to the people who lived before us.

The problem with ID v E is Darwin. Public schools are teaching Darwin and THAT needs to stop. Get the schools some money, get some textbooks that have Stephen Gould in your biology section, and get it right. Teach Darwin as the creator of the original theory that spawn evolution, but do not teach Darwin as evolution. Any ID person can show Darwin was wrong because Darwin WAS wrong. I've challenged ID people to show Gould was wrong and I've never heard a word in retort. Get Darwin out and Gould in. Then it'll be a fair fight.

[Ahaugen]

In response to a few things by Volkov.

All of your three main points come back to one single point. "It's really complicated, so complicated that it must come from a divine source." It's almost as if not a single proponent has ever heard the word "coincidence". Just because something is extraordinarily complex, doesn't mean it has a meaning.

Evolution is not a theory. This needs to be understood. It's not a theory in the same way math, physics, etc. are not theories. They have not been disproven. No one has ever proved the basic tenants upon which the entire mathematical system is based upon. If evolution is a theory, then so is addition. You accept it as a truth because you can not show evidence to the contrary. Living things adapt in a changing environment and they do so in the manner described by punctuated equilibrium. If you want an example of modern day adaptation, look no further than the bathroom mirror. If you were born without wisdom teeth, or with only half a set, you're "more evolved" than humans about...20 years ago. If you had wisdom teeth you're a small step away from the next species that will arise. If you have wisdom teeth and they don't crowd, you're even futher away. Centuries from now we'll be even less similar to the people who lived before us.

The problem with ID v E is Darwin. Public schools are teaching Darwin and THAT needs to stop. Get the schools some money, get some textbooks that have Stephen Gould in your biology section, and get it right. Teach Darwin as the creator of the original theory that spawn evolution, but do not teach Darwin as evolution. Any ID person can show Darwin was wrong because Darwin WAS wrong. I've challenged ID people to show Gould was wrong and I've never heard a word in retort. Get Darwin out and Gould in. Then it'll be a fair fight.

**applaudes**

[Captainclover]

Here's a quandary for ya.
A G4y couple wants a service in a church, but the church refuses.
Now, can the courts force the church to allow the service, or is that religious discrimination? Is the couple being discriminated against?

the courts shouldn't force the church to. i don't think any gay people are fighting for every church to marry them. that would violate their religious rights. but the ones that support gay marriage should be allowed to.

[Nyke]

Also, there are a few screw-ups of nature that seem to point against ID. Off the top of my head, I can think of parthogenic lizards still going through mating rituals, despite all being anatomically female, male urethra going through the often-swelled prostate, some insects having nerve cords that go down the back, and back up to the wings thus wasting nerve cells and giving the insect the requirement for more food to support more cells.

Yeah, we all can say "Well, we don't know what the creator was thinking," but then, what would constitute something to falisfy ID? This forces ID to choose whether it's a scientific theory, though inherently flawed and not up to the same status of evolution, or an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

And most of the time, rather than just sitting back and thinking I can't explain how this came to be, so it must be an intelligent designer., they go out and find transitional forms. From asexual to sexual was parthogenesis. From no eye to eye was eyespots and less-advanced eyes. From non-living things to advanced cells come bacteria and viruses. Rather than arguing from incredulity, they actually see if there's a path that the organ, apendage, etc. came to be.

[Ian Moulding]

Here's a quandary for ya.
A G4y couple wants a service in a church, but the church refuses.
Now, can the courts force the church to allow the service, or is that religious discrimination? Is the couple being discriminated against?

How about this scenario: A church - Its hierarchy and congregation - decide that they will perform marriages for gay couples, but the government decides that gays aren't allowed to marry. Is the church being discriminated against?

[Wishmaster]

but doesn't ID require a purpose for the designer to create something? if we (humans) never came into existance, wouldn't nature function the same? so what purpose did the designer have for us?

I thought the idea was that God created us to worship him. He wanted pets and kicked us out once we could choose to not piss on the carpet and instead piss in His shoe.

[Jim North]

I beleive both ID and evolution should be taught and they should both be taught as theories.

Intelligent Design is not a theory. There is no substantial evidence to prove that there is an all-powerful deity. It is a hypothesis.

First: "If the whole system is not complete and functioning flawlessly, it cannot perform at all." Incorrect. If you get a cold, do you stop functioning completely? No, you do not. You are not functioning flawlessly, yet you are still performing.

Second: "life is only possible when thousands of variants [. . .] are meticulously set and balanced." Highly unlikely. Organisms evolve to suit their environment, not the other way around. If the Earth had been placed a few thousand miles closer to the sun, it's likely that all of its denizens would have evolved slightly more resistant to heat, but they still would have evolved. Just because we would not survive such an environment does not mean nothing could. There have been very strong hypotheses put forward that hydrogen-bulb based life forms could have evolved in the upper atmosphere of gas giants such as Jupiter, all without violating any known principles of biology. "Not life as we know it" does not mean "no life at all". Only human conceit makes us think that our current situation is the best possible outcome. Which it isn't, anyway.

Third: "The question becomes: 'Where did the information come from?' Answer: an intelligent designer." This doesn't follow at all. DNA is a system that took literally billions of years to develop into its current state. By no means does an intelligent designer have to be involved. Besides the fact that there is no hard proof of a creator, one of the big problems with ID is that with enough time, random chance can literally accomplish anything.

There's a site working on the "infinite monkeys, infinite time, making the works of Shakespeare" that can be found here (WARNING: it may make your browser freeze for a minute or two, but don't worry, it'll load up eventually). Their current official record is 24 letters over the past two and a half years . . . that may not sound like much, but this is only two and a half years, and they've managed to pound out that many letters! In a hundred years, in a thousand years, imagine what they might accomplish!

Now, make it billions of years. Approximately 12-15 billion years to be exact. I assure you that those monkeys would have at least a handful of Billy Shakes' work pounded out.

Further, we don't know for certain exactly what was going on before the big bang. There's the possibility of up to an infinity of other universes existing before this one . . . and the closer you come to infinity, the higher the probility becomes that our universe and life as we know it would come into existance, all through random chance.

Evolution is not a theory.

Evolution is very much a theory. The idea that it is not a theory because it has not been disproven is a fallacy, and not the definition of a theory at all. Absense of disproof is not proof!

Further, your statements (and someone else's earlier) on mathematical models shows a fundamental misunderstanding of mathematics. 2 + 2 = 4 purely because we assign these values to certain conditions. What we name these conditions does not alter the actual existence of the condition. And after the values have been defined and agreed upon, it is ridiculously easy to show that the conditions they are assigned to are true. If you take two apples and set two more apples next to them, then you obviously have four apples. 2 + 2 = 4 is thereafter an adequately proven process.

The only matter of faith that there is to the matter is that my definitions of the words "two" and "four" are the same as your definitions of the words "two" and "four". The actual quantity of apples and the process used to put them together is the same no matter what words you use to describe it.

oh, and what do you mean about the box?

[Yeahduff]

Not sure this is true. Everything I've read suggests Christianity is still steadily growing. Not nearly as rapidly as Islam, but it's in no danger of decline. In Europe, maybe in Canada, yeah, but not in the Americas or Asia or Africa.

It's hold on Western culture definitely is slipping, though.

Isn't that a contradiction of terms to say it is growing yet slipping?

Maybe we didn't define our terms very well. But while Christianity isn't as important culturally in America, being replaced by rocknroll culture and whatnot, it still is important in individual people's lives at a growing rate. This basically means that the number of Christians may be growing, but their entire lives aren't ruled by Christianity as much as they were in the 19th century.

I have yet to see a sign that it is growing rather than shrinking. What's your proof?

My proof that it is shrinking:
- Less church attendence globally
- Growth in numbers of Neo-Pagan religions
- Growth in numbers of Athiests and Agnostics
- Total loss of power of the Roman Catholic Church over the last 50 years in Quebec *

As far as I am aware of spontaneous generation doesn't exist, so hypotheticly as one religion waxes another must wane. As more and more people are born in the West there is a less likelihood that they will be Christian or even baptized. You can't really argue with this fact. That said, since more people are born non-Christian than Christian, it is easy to see that just because their actual numbers are not necessarily decreasing that their percentage amongst the total of people in the West is falling.

You mustn't forget that to cause a decline in something you don't need to actually make it fall in numbers, but only outpopulate it. By far you must agree that this is happening.

I wish I could give you sources and numbers, Van, but from various places I've read (admittedly, many Christian sources), Christianity is only being outpaced by Islam in terms of global growth. It's still the most popular religion, and Neo-Pagan/Wicca is barely registering still. Maybe my sources are wrong, but even if that's the case, it'll be a long time before there's a serious dent in the Christian following.

Y'know, people in this country talking about feeling persecuted is actually kind of stupid.
Look at China for a sec. Christians get imprisoned, d, and killed for their beliefs. They censor their media too.
People seem to forget that freedom of religion and speech still is'nt a right in many areas of the world.
Heck, the laws concerning those freedoms were only thought up about two hundred years ago.

What's your point? Everyone in China gets imprisoned and killed for their beliefs. How well do you think homosexuality goes over there? I doubt anyone here has forgotten that human rights are ignored elsewhere, and even if they did, that's not relevant to our conversation. Anyway, you were the one who came in here claiming to be persecuted.

I'm all for the free public expression of religion but that MO resolution is ridiculous! It is a true, blatant violation of the establishment clause. I'm stunned that this resolution gained a foothold. However, MO is just one state and the resolution is just one resolution. I wouldn't get too worried...yet.

Agreed. Maybe we're jumping the gun, but when we're talking civil liberties, it's best to error on the side of caution.

In commenting on things others have wrote, I read Sparrow's post that she tries to stay away from organized religion. It's disheartening, but sometimes I feel the same way. Personaly, I try to stay away from organized religion if it's not organized by God. Christianity run solely on the efforts of mortal man is worthless, both to society and to God. Relying on our own will and "feelings" is where many of us Christians go wrong. Man is falable. We need someone infallable to set our standards, not us. That is why one's personal relationship with God is so important.

How can you know it's organized by god and not by people?

On ID v E in schools: One of the problems is that evolution is taught as fact and not as a theory. I beleive both ID and evolution should be taught and they should both be taught as theories.

You're making the classic mistake of confusing "theory" with "hypothesis." A theory is time tested and lab tested and can be used to predict what happens next. A hypothesis is an educated guess of how an experiment's gonna come out. Evolution is a theory. Intelligent design is not even a hypothesis.

It seems to me that science tries to answer the question of why as well as how. If the evolutionary model is true then the question of why can't be answered in any other way than "there is no reason for our existance". It was all just random chance. (And that's a very depressing thought.) Plus it has bad social implications.

Well, science CAN'T answer why. Scientists can, but then there crossing over into philosophy, which they base off their scientific findings. Science's goal is to find out how things work and present them to us to make sense of them in regards to what life is (among other things).

And anyway, what's depressing about our lack of purpose? About random chance? Think of the many ways things could've turned out, how your line of ancestry could've died out generations ago, how you very likely could've been born a girl, the things you almost gave up on and are now living for etc. Exhilarating, isn't it? No reason to exist? Why do you want to exist? Independent of other people's assignments for you, what do you want for your life? You are your only limit, and if that's depressing, then I don't know what can be uplifting.

ID isn't purely religious. It is backed up with some scientificly studied evidence and a couple of common sense observations. Here's some pretty compelling points I found: The heart of the theory of ID, according to Nancy Pearcey, author of the landmark book Total Truth, is that design in nature can be empirically detected.

Simply put, intelligent design doesn't bother with the scientific method or anything else scientific. It's not science. It's an add-on. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to believe in, but it's not science. And really, nor does it contradict evolution. And that's what we all need to come to grips with. God could've used evolution to create different species of plant and animal etc, and it only contradicts a literal reading of the old testament, which contradicts itself, so it's allegory (like much of the old testament).

In regards to The Van's latter posts: Since God is completely perfect, man is solely responsible for any wrong doing association with Christianity. Don't blame the religion, blame the poeple who buy into Satan's deceptions and twist the religon for ther own selfish gain. They are the ones who cause war and gennocide, not the religion itself.

If god is perfect, why aren't humans perfect? Shouldn't a perfect being make a perfect creation? And why should Satan have any power in a universe created by god?

I have to disagree a bit with legostar's observation: "core values of christainity are to treat other people with respect and to be a good person." Almost correct. Actually, it's bit more than that. In the bible it says that our righteousness is like filthy rags to God. In other words, being a good person is not enough. According to Christian beleifs, it's our beleif in Jesus's sacrifice that saves us, not anything we do. We are not called to be simply good people, we are called to obey God and to follow his word, the Bible. True, we are to treat others with respect but we are not to give their sin a pass. We are not to say, "that's okay, that's just how you are." However, we are supposed to deal with them with gentleness and love; not with hate, discrimination, or violence. Untimately, only God can change a heart. We can tell others about Jesus, and our beleifs, but we have to stop short of shoving our beleifs down other people's throats and leave it up to God to change their hearts and minds. (which is more effective than you might think.) That said, it still all boils down to each person's indivudual choice. God can impress upon people, he can give them chances to come to him, but no one is ever forced. The choice is always theirs. As Christians, we are just the messangers. God is the one that changes hearts. That's the core of honest Christianity.

Isn't there an inherent contradiction between "Only God can change a heart" and "The choice is always theirs?"

I think it's more accurate to say that the core theme of Christianity from old testament to new is "Have faith in god and she'll take care of everything."

A comment on what Laemkra wrote recently: As Christians, we don't try to save people out of duty, but out of genuine love for all fellow human beings. At least that's the ideal we strive for.

I often hear this but I rarely believe it. It always seems to be showmanship and oneupmanship instead of any genuine love. I've always wondered why if Jesus or god or the holy spirit have such genuine love then why don't they save the whole charade and do their own leg work.

Captainclover, I want to apologize on behalf of those idiots that tell you you're going to hell, simply becasue of your lifestyle. It's quite ridiculous because in truth, every person on earth (including them and me) deserves hell because of our sin. Thankfully, God has provided a way out for all people; to beleive that Jesus is the son of God and that he died in our place. Salvation is a free gift open to everyone, including homosexuals. (that's the Christ-centered Christian view.)
The people that claim to be Christians and yet hate you have no right to carry 'Christ' in their name. Don't be fooled, they are frauds. Their place in heaven is far from secure themselves so they have no right to tell you you're going to hell.
A definiton of a Christian as I know it may help: One who confesses they are a sinner before God, beleives in his heart that Jesus died for his sins and the sins of all people and that Jesus rose again and is still alive today. A Christian must be willing to accept that his life is not his own, that God is lord over him, and obeys him. "If you love me you will obey what I command."- John 14:15 NIV. God never commands hatred.

The problem I have here is that nothing in the world can make you anything other than a sinner. You say that people who call Clover evil are not really Christians, but of course they are. Being a sinner doesn't mean you're not a Christian, because everyone sins. Everyone. So it seems to me that true Christian belief necessitates the belief that we all go to heaven. If Jesus is the saviour, and infinitely loving, then how can he pick and chose who's saved and who's not? He said himself that it's the sinner who needs the saving, so discriminating against all those who have never heard the Gospel, were raised in another belief, were given by god a discerning and inquisitive mind that has trouble accepting things on faith, have died before accepting Jesus, etc. seems to be hipicritical.

And nothing will ever make me believe that any human being ever deserved hell, so long as we live in a world where god exists. The idea that I should burn in hell for all eternity simply because my gaze lingered up on Halle Berry a little longer than it should have is sick and evil, and the very definition of injustice. We'd all be aghast if someone were executed for such a "crime," but god says our punishment should be worse. Infinite mercy, huh?

I'm not sure about, EvilChihuahua because I don't know him but as a Christian, I am greived by the constant insult and ridicule against me and my faith in the media and in the entertainment industry and I have often felt like crying. (rather than crying I usually choose to slam my fist down on the table over and over instead) I feel like crying for this nation and all those who are rejecting God's perfect love. I have been heartbroken over the moral decline in America. Though I admit, I can't identify with your particular sittuation.

Again, Christianity has always been in the business of judging others. Sorry, but right now you're being returned all the shit Christians have given the rest of the world for centuries. Next time someone you know refers to someone who isn't a Christian as lost, unsaved, or an unbeliever, make sure you tell her how much the media's treatment of Christianity hurts your feelings and how her genuine love of humanity should keep her from saying things like that.

As for rejecting God's perfect love, I can only reject what was offered to me.

However, according to our beleifs, the sin of homosexuality still remains, and like any sin, God can heal it; God can erase it. I say this with all the love I have within me. Some people may call me a bigot ar a fanatic for saying that, but according to the Bible, nothing is impossible for God. I know things are hard for you, Captainclover so here's at least one Christian saying: God loves you and so do I!

Getting away from defensive measures, maybe you can answer this for me. Why is homosexuality such a big deal for a lot of Christians? I mean, yeah, it's called an abomination in the bible (Ezekiel?), but other than that, the good book is pretty mum about the whole thing. Yet modern Christians are breaking their backs over the whole issue. Pride, finding other people sexually attractive, and calling people names are treated with far harsher words in the bible (a sin is a sin is a sin, yes), yet this is what they fixate upon. Why is that?

[Joel Fagin]

I don't have a serious problem with teaching ID on two conditions.

1. It's not taught as science. It may be mentioned in passing in science but it should be taught elsewhere.

2. It's not just the Christian version. It's all of them.

And although you can argue about point 1 - there are arguments to be made there - anyone who argues about point 2 is pretty much a hypocrite, I'm afraid.

- Joel Fagin

[Ahaugen]

and, with all the shit that gays have to put up with today, who would want to be gay? it's not like they woke up one day and went "I want to be treated like a second-class citizen and have the physical expression of my love compared to sex with box turtle!" it's not even one of the "deadly" sins. we need to focus more on the felonies and less on the misdemeanors

[Mercury Hat]

Also, there are a few screw-ups of nature that seem to point against ID.

Not to mention humans. Such as, despite the fact that it enabled us to use our hands and thus eventually leading to greater thought processes, bipedalism is a really inefficient way of moving around. It creates a load of unnecessary stress on our lower backs, knees, etc.

It must also be said, as Jim touched upon, that a mathematical Theorem and a scientific Theory are two different things. Theory, scientifically speaking, is that which is not yet a Law, but has so much evidence to back it up, it could be considered as one. If it doesn't have enough evidence, then it would be considered a hypothesis.

The biggest flaw ID has is the fact that it doesn't even follow the scientific method.

Evolution was put into motion thusly: Creatures specially adapted to their environment were discovered. The hypothesis was proposed that these creatures became this way due to various isolating mechanisms. More evidence of other creatures specially adapted to their own environments were discovered, and so on until it was proposed that species grow and change in response to environment. i.e. evolution. Following scientific method, it goes from hypothesis to evidence to conclusion. New evidence can be introduced which can either verify or falsify the conclusion. The conclusion has held up long enough to become a Theory. It is falsifiable, in other words if there was evidence presented to the contrary, it could draw the conclusion into question. It could eventually, given the right evidence, be proven false.

ID, however, was created this way: It is a given that a higher power, some sort of designer, exists. Evidence is then found which goes to support this already established conclusion. This is not how science works. Conclusions are made after evidence is gathered. Furthermore, this isn't even remotely falsifiable: Go on, prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that a higher power/designer/God doesn't exist.

This is why it should not be taught as a science, because it simply isn't one.

Edit to add: And I don't have a problem with someone believing in Creationism. You can believe a seven-headed bear God blew the entire world out of Its left nostril for all I care, but don't try to pass it off as science.

[MERBman]

Damn! I'm impressed. You tell 'em, YeahDuff!

Not to mention humans. Such as, despite the fact that it enabled us to use our hands and thus eventually leading to greater thought processes, bipedalism is a really inefficient way of moving around. It creates a load of unnecessary stress on our lower backs, knees, etc.

Don't forget the faulty plumbing around the prostate!
Yeah! Inherent defects! ROCK!

[Yeahduff]

I'll never tire of that.

[Wp]

Getting away from defensive measures, maybe you can answer this for me. Why is homosexuality such a big deal for a lot of Christians? I mean, yeah, it's called an abomination in the bible (Ezekiel?), but other than that, the good book is pretty mum about the whole thing. Yet modern Christians are breaking their backs over the whole issue. Pride, finding other people sexually attractive, and calling people names are treated with far harsher words in the bible (a sin is a sin is a sin, yes), yet this is what they fixate upon. Why is that?

Well, these days, I think it's an issue that can be used politically to leverage votes and supporters. Politicians have hand-crafted it into a huge issue for their gain.

[Black Sparrow]

My respect for Yeahduff just keeps growing...

Well put.

Getting away from defensive measures, maybe you can answer this for me. Why is homosexuality such a big deal for a lot of Christians? I mean, yeah, it's called an abomination in the bible (Ezekiel?), but other than that, the good book is pretty mum about the whole thing. Yet modern Christians are breaking their backs over the whole issue. Pride, finding other people sexually attractive, and calling people names are treated with far harsher words in the bible (a sin is a sin is a sin, yes), yet this is what they fixate upon. Why is that?

How on earth is anyone, Christian or not, supposed to answer that? This is a huge issue brought on by the monstrous masses, escalated beyond the point where any one individual has any effect on it anymore.

[Joel Fagin]

The biggest flaw ID has is the fact that it doesn't even follow the scientific method.

Oddly enough, neither does evolution. The scientific method requires that you can duplicate the results. Now, we can certainly repeat and verify the breeding of stronger race horse, but evolving it into a bird? Changing one animal into another? That's a teeny bit more problematic.

Oh, and I always like this little storyline from Ozy and Millie.

- Joel Fagin

[Mercury Hat]

Don't forget the faulty plumbing around the prostate!
Yeah! Inherent defects! ROCK!

What do I care what faulty bits you men have?

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go bleed for a few days. Cramps are so awesome.

[RemusShepherd]

I thought the idea was that God created us to worship him. He wanted pets and kicked us out once we could choose to not piss on the carpet and instead piss in His shoe.

A loving God would have taken us to puppy class first.

[Jim North]

The scientific method requires that you can duplicate the results. Now, we can certainly repeat and verify the breeding of stronger race horse, but evolving it into a bird? Changing one animal into another? That's a teeny bit more problematic.

We turned wolf-analogs into dogs. What more do you want from us?!

But really, it must be pointed out (again) that evolution isn't "turning one animal into another animal" . . . it's the gradual adaptation and improvement of a species. Any substantial improvement or enhanced ability to survive in its environment counts as evolution. A bigger, better, stronger breed of horse is still a horse . . . just an evolved horse.