Ben Stein "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"

[photon]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

Well, then what do you say the people who are adament to take ID out of schools are doing? Seems like they are demanding obidience to dogma of sorts.

They're not demanding obedience to a dogma, they're trying to enforce the seperation of church and state, and enforcing the standards of science requiring evidence. ID isn't science.

I'll ask my previous question to you the. Would you support the teaching that Natives are descended from Israel in schools because that's the Mormon view?

[Kipper is King]

Originally Posted by photon

Ok now you've changed the question. I was talking about evidence that the pretty galaxy had been created and had not occurred naturally, now you've shifted it to the existence of God in general.

This isn't an all or nothing proposition.

But to answer your question about the existence of God, no, because the quality of those witnesses can't be established.

For the Bible itself, if you accept the Bible as evidence for God, do you accept the Qu'ran as evidence for Allah as well?

Yes, I did change the issue at hand, because it was begging the question of the existence of God.

As for the issue of there being different gods, let me propose this: Let's ignore religious differences for the sake of this debate and simply debate wether God could have created and designed the earth- whatever one's idea of god may be.

It was a valid point you raised.

[Kipper is King]

Originally Posted by photon

They're not demanding obedience to a dogma, they're trying to enforce the seperation of church and state, and enforcing the standards of science requiring evidence. ID isn't science.

I'll ask my previous question to you the. Would you support the teaching that Natives are descended from Israel in schools because that's the Mormon view?

No. My point isn't that intelligent design or different religious beliefs should be instructd to everyone, because then we end up in situations like you described.

I think that if a student raises ID during a science class, that the discussion of ID and the existence of God (whatever one's ideas are) should be allowed to continue unhindered as long as the discussion is civilized.

[Flames89]

I believe Jesus did exist, but his existance is not proof of God.

I believe he was around, and he probably believed in his religeon, spouted it out, and had a pretty awesome following. Unfortunately for him, he was such a loud mouth, that others were threatened by his power and killed him.

Just because he talked about God makes God no more real than you or the Pope talking about God.

... and no, I don't believe that Jesus, after being dead, came alive and went to the heavens (or whatever version you believe).

The Bible? A very good book of stories. Some of them are heavily biased in order for the writer to add credence to his/her (but obviously his, because females are considered not godly enough to be able to have conversations) agendas.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

Yes, I did change the issue at hand, because it was begging the question of the existence of God.

As for the issue of there being different gods, let me propose this: Let's ignore religious differences for the sake of this debate and simply debate wether God could have created and designed the earth- whatever one's idea of god may be.

It was a valid point you raised.

I don't really think it does beg the question since God could exist AND the universe could have come into existence completely independently of God and God just took it over (he found it on his way home from school), or God could be a natural emergent property of the universe, or whatever..

But yes I am fully willing to concede that it is possible a non-specified deity created and designed the earth and the universe. But there's no evidence to support it, so the proposition that the universe was created six minutes ago by the FSM holds as much weight.

Discussing the merits of God as creator vs. FSM as a creator is a theological discussion, where the context of ID is a scientific discussion.

[Ozy_Flame]

While I am all but a converted Catholic and am growing ever tired of religion itself, I've wondered the same thing many times. like a previous poster said, I would like to think that we are here today from both God's hand and evolution.

From the Big Bang forward, evolution has dominated the development of our universe. We have evolved, the world is not 6000 years old, and there is no conventional god that will shun us if we lust after our neighbour. It's all crap. However, I truly believe some higher being, some omnipotent force that may or may not be intelligent initiated the Big Bang. How it was ever accomplished, we'll probably never know. What I do know, however, is that religion is dogma meant to conform the masses, and at some point in the future, science will inevitably have to answer the truth to intelligent design, whether it's now, or in a million years. All evidence points to scientific theory, but the Big Bang is still very much a mystery.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

Do Jesus and the Bible (for instance) not count as evidence for the existence of God?

Main Entry: 1ev·i·dence Pronunciation: \ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\ Function: noun Date: 14th century 1 a: an outward sign : indication b: something that furnishes proof : testimony; 2: one who bears witness;

They could be considered evidence for the existence of God who could have created us.

You're digging yourself into a hole here.

There will never be evidence that God exists.

Even if you have literal DNA proof that Jesus existed, that still doesn't prove that he was God.

Its all about faith.

[Kipper is King]

Originally Posted by photon

Discussing the merits of God as creator vs. FSM as a creator is a theological discussion, where the context of ID is a scientific discussion.

I agree- but it's hard to separate them all.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

I think that if a student raises ID during a science class, that the discussion of ID and the existence of God (whatever one's ideas are) should be allowed to continue unhindered as long as the discussion is civilized.

Sure, just like any time other things are brought up in class; discussion is fine as long as things are kept in the proper context and within the bounds of the class. If I was a teacher and ID was brought up, I'd deal with it honestly and use it to illustrate how science works, that if ID was a science and had any merit it would propose things and follow the path that any other scientific theory took, but so far it hasn't done anything of the sort. If someone brings up God in science class though I'd tell them to bring it up in a more appropriate class.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

I agree- but it's hard to separate them all.

Most things worth doing are hard

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Flames89

I believe Jesus did exist, but his existance is not proof of God.

I believe he was around, and he probably believed in his religeon, spouted it out, and had a pretty awesome following. Unfortunately for him, he was such a loud mouth, that others were threatened by his power and killed him.

I will definitely agree. I think back in those times, it was easy to construe myths, coincidences, and random events that didn't happen regularly. Technology wasn't advanced, and as such, people came to rash conclusions about alot of aspects in life that 99% could be explained scientifically. They weren't as mentally advanced as people are today, and eased their anxieties with stories of grandure and delusion.

I think about stories like the Kraken, or the Loch Ness Monster, where people stretch stories that gain legendary status the more they exist. Jesus, to me, falls in the same boat.

[Kipper is King]

Originally Posted by Azure

Its all about faith.

You hit the nail on the head. Even in the Catholic university I go to, the point is made in philosophy classes that there is a difference between knowledge and faith.

That's what makes debates like this so difficult.

[Kipper is King]

Getting back to the root of this flower of a debate- I think ID and the possible existence of God should be tolerated in schools.

I also will see that movie. I am curious to see how it is presented.

But alas, I must now go write a term paper. I enjoyed this debate, however!

[photon]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

Getting back to the root of this flower of a debate- I think ID and the possible existence of God should be tolerated in schools.

Possible existence of God, sure, in the proper class, not science. ID, no, because ID says it is a science to be taught in science class, but it isn't science any more than Natives being descended from Israel is history.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

Getting back to the root of this flower of a debate- I think ID and the possible existence of God should be tolerated in schools.

Schools never teach that God doesn't exist.

[Bobblehead]

I think Textcritic was bored and wanted to stir up CP, perhaps draw Cheese out of hiding.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

I can`t imagine anyone debating that this is a masterpiece, created by a being.

So why is so hard to state that this is also a masterpiece, created by someone?

That's an interesting point, but I think you have it backwards -- people who believe in some form of creator-god (of any religion) vastly outnumber atheists and non-believers worldwide. So the question should be phrased in reverse: why is it so hard for believers to admit that perhaps the universe wasn't created by a supreme being, given that there isn't a shred of empirical evidence to support that claim?

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

You hit the nail on the head. Even in the Catholic university I go to, the point is made in philosophy classes that there is a difference between knowledge and faith.

That's what makes debates like this so difficult.

Good luck on your paper

Just a question though, if you had not been taught religion from childhood and been in a catholic school system, do you think you'd be as religious today?

Also if you had been born in another country, say India, you'd be a Hindu.

So I mean faith is important, but by chance and upbringing you are what you are today.

Its hard to step out of dogma that has been taught since childhood.

I was fortune enough to be brought up in a big family where half of us were skeptical at a young age and evolved into atheists, while the others stuck to religious beliefs. The debates we had growing up were awesome, we'd talk about the origins of the universe, creationism, evolution, etc.

I just think personally that if you are born into a set religion, taught it as a child and continue to expose yourself to separate schooling such as catholic schools; that you will miss out on a lot.

Since its important to see the world not just from a very specific point of view but to see the world in the light of many eyes to get a better perspective yourself.

I think thats why you have a hard time with us not having faith when I'm sure you have a great deal of conviction behind yours. Its a matter of happenstance that you are catholic based on where you were born and the matter of how you are raised.

I mean atheists often are pigeonholed as narrow minded people, but the vast majority of us were either brought up in religious households or at least had a ton of exposure to religion and its teachings.

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by photon

Of course, that's why we learn about them so we can see them in ourselves and each other to improve our ability to reason.

What I don't understand is why this is such a huge issue. People today don't have a problem leaving other ancient traditions such as inequality of women, slavary, a flat earth or geocentric universe behind, why is evolution such a sticking point?

because it goes against the first book, the first chapter, the first verse of the Bible. So if Genesis is incorrect, then what does it say about the other 65 books of the Bible? 2.1 Billion citizens of the world might have to reconsider their way of thinking; at the very least, not have a literal interpretation of the Bible. Accept that it is a parable

[Sparks]

^^
No, not necessarily, unless you believe that the bible is completely literal.