Science does not equal truth, neither does religion equal truth. Enlightened individuals understand in many areas the truth is just not available. The beginnings of this world and the people within it are one of these areas.
You can write all the theories you want, who cares, it doesn’t change anything.
Now what or who would be able to design and create our whole universe but God. Here understanding there are hundreds of names for God in different languages and different cultures.
Also understanding the intelligence of humans (scientists) is nowhere near the intelligence of God.
I wonder if science is raising a bunch of people who believe they are God.
So, lekatt, I’d like to engage you in spirited debate, but first I want to make absolutely positively certain that you believe two statements to be true:
(1) anyone who believes in God also believes in ID. Bear in mind that, in general usage, ID is something which is specifically defined by people who do NOT believe in the theory of evolution, and in fact are presenting ID as an alternative to it
(2) if something is believed to be true by a majority of Americans (say, 60% of more), than it should be presented in government-funded science museums. Because, hey, it’s a democracy.
Do you agree with either or both of those statements?
The problem with your challenge is the conditions, and the endless spins that could result, simply your conditions so they are not ambiguous, or can’t be interpreted ambiguous.
There are only a very few things I know (believe, to you) about this world.
I know a Higher Intelligence (God) exists, and that life will continure after death.
I know I am not my body, nor my thoughts, nor my emotions. I know that this Higher Intelligence can be defined as Love, and is not only the Creator, but the material of all creation including us humans. I know that Love is the ultimate goal.
How all of this interacts with one another, (self), I have only a little experience and a lot of theories.
So you see, I doubt we could really debate anything so far apart we are.
I read our City Zoo will be installing a display of the Creation in the same building a display of Evolution is housed. I am surprised, but pleased. I don’t believe either one of them comes close, However it is nice to see some variety.
That’s just it: you believe. The only way you can “know” something is if it is a objectively verifiable, repeatable experience. Otherwise, it’s simply belief.
There is no way to debate anything with you because you aren’t interested in debate. There is no way to debate anything with you because the arguments you put forward are completely subjective and therefore impossible to either refute or confirm.
The site you linked to shows that the majority of people on this planet believe in some god or gods, but their chosen deities aren’t necessarily the same as one you believe in. In fact, some people you’d like to claim in your 90% would be violently opposed to your viewpoint, and they would be especially upset that you think your god encompasses theirs.
The Smithsonian completely screwed the pooch on this one, and Randi’s not helping anything. I used to respect Randi to some extent but I’ve come to think he’s a self-centered, self-promoting windbag. Frankly, rational people would probably do better without him on their side.
Again, the real problem here is that the Smithsonian is lending credibility through association. Whether they agree with it or not, whether the museum has an evolution exhibit that completely eviscerates intelligent design arguments or presents both in an equal light has really nothing to do with it. The fact that someone went to Harvard Law School, for example, gives credibility to arguments that would be ignored from someone who got their law degree from a local college, even if the latter passed the Bar exam with a much higher score than the Harvard graduate. The person who went to Harvard gets credibility by association with a respected institution.
I have a bit more faith in the intelligence of the average person than some posters seem to, but I do not think that the Smithsonian or any other institute of science or learning should associate themselves with fringe beliefs. Museums deal with what is. The whole point of a museum is to present tangible objects in an educational and hopefully entertaining setting.
I’m not particularly worried that intelligent design advocates would win a debate on the topic. Anyone who actually learns anything about evolution would find problems with their arguments in a short time. Anyone who believes what they have to say with no question in their minds would probably believe just about anything if it fit into their pre-existing biases. In cases like that, there’s nothing you could do to convince them with rational arguments anyway.
Simply presenting anything to do with crap like intelligent design is–as other posters have pointed out–implying that there is something to the argument. There is no argument. Evolution has been proved in many different ways thousands of times over. Any of the “debate” I’ve seen on the intelligent design side has boiled down to nitpicking at details that are often misunderstood by the very people doing the nitpicking. If they actually understood it, they wouldn’t have anything to pick at.
Your post is similar to other skeptic posts on the subject.
You don’t want any opposing views to be acknowledged.
Anyone who holds an opposing view has to be ignorant.
I am just glad this is America, a free country, where I have a vote in what happens.
I do know there is a Higher Intelligence through experience repeatable by me.
Yes, it is subjective, most good things are, like love, peace, happiness, etc.
Have a nice day.
I don’t think the moral conundrum rests on Randi’s shoulders. I think it rests on the Smithsonian’s. By offering money to not show the film, Randi is simply making a strategically designed statement that the Smithsonian accepted money to show the film and ignore the issue it’s validity.
The academic authority of the Smithsonian Institution is already compromised; an inclusion of an exhibit within it is certainly not logically valid evidence of veracity. The Star Trek Exhibit right beside the NASA exhibit was fairly good evidence that the Smithsonian is pretty much a Show Business concern. Entertainment, not Science is the purpose of the Smithsonian Institution, whatever their charter might say.
Politics is a far more powerful consideration in their accumulation and selection of exhibits than the rigors of scientific investigative methodology. Since it is publicly funded, it should provide what the taxpayers want. The majority of taxpayers don’t want scientific methodology. They want authoritarian affirmation of what they already believe. The Smithsonian has been providing that for a lot longer than this one incident.
Nothing is compromised. The Smithsonian is for all the people, not just scientists.
It has nothing to do with politics either. It is providing what taxpayers want. This taxpayer is pleased with the exhibit.
I can’t talk for the majority, so I don’t know if they want scientific methodology or not. I was very interested in science before they “scientized” the psychic or mind or spirit, whatever you want to call it. Then told us we were only the product of our brains, and were created by accident with no purpose or future. I never saw any real proof of this, so naturally I lost interest in science even though I was agnostic at the time.
I’m a Tulsa native, although I currently live in LA. Until recently my father was on the zoo board. He’s very unhappy about the decision to include the creationism display, as are, according to him, most of the zoo employees. He feels that it’s a black mark on a institution he worked hard to build up, and is an embarassment for Tulsa and Oklahoma in general.
Apparently one of the arguments the creationists used was that there already is an image of Ganesh at the zoo. But it’s at the elephant house, and it’s contained within a display of other elephant images such at the Republican elephant … .
I’ve got $20,000. I’d like the Smithonian to show how idiotic our drug laws, and the enforcement thereof, are. From a clinical, scientific, and sociological point of view. How far do you think that would get?
I was born here in Tulsa and will probably die here. Yes, Ganesh is there. I am going to photograph the things in the elephant house next trip. I am sorry he feels that way, but don’t sympathize. Diversity makes for strength in all things. Science has their theory and the religious have their’s, so what’s the problem. I don’t believe the Bible description is accurate any more than the theory of evolution. I would like to think most people realize the beginnings of man and the universe are unknowns and will remain unknowns. Unless, of course, we should meet someone who was present at the beginnings.
Science and religion both take themselves too seriously on this issue. There is room in world for more than one idea.
