The evidence for Intelligent Design follows the “old watch found in the desert routine.” Main stream religious people feel that is sufficient. I agree the order found in this world points to intelligence.
Scientists must have known declaring the brain as the creator of man would not go well with the majority of people, but they did it anyway. They did it with no real evidence to back it up. Today there is still no solid proof consciousness is a product of the brain. You can’t see consciousness in the brain, so scientists fall back on more esoteric theories. The big “I”, computer programs, electro-magnetism, electro-chemical storage, gaps, etc. None of which is proof. so I think science will bare some of the cupability in the pending showdown. I see science and religion as water from the same well, just different names. Neither willing to look at the issues of the other side. Both intollerant of the others opinions.
I am glad I belong to neither side, or any side for that matter. Yes, I am a creationist, I got there by observation and thinking it through, not listening to the Christians.
I cannot think of any two statements that have less in common than your example. Besides, if science is trying to destroy religion, how do you account for all the scientists that also believe in God? Do you really think the majority are atheists?
No one said there wasn’t bullies. Look around you. Talk shows are talking about the bullies, action groups have been formed, lecturers are going from school to school to talk about bullying, it is on the news. One shown recently on TV shows a big kid beating the hell out of a little kid on the bus. Now don’t tell me this was common when you went to school. In my youth the bus driver would have called the police and the big kid’s parents would have picked him up at the police station. They could have faced a heavy fine.
The most polite response to this claim is: bullshit.
In the good old days, kids were supposed to tough it out, stick up for themselves, and fight back. Those who couldn’t were just considered too weak to bother with.
I cannot recall more than one or two bullies being taken to task for their actions and I never ever heard of a policeman being called, even when a bully actually inflicted bruises or drew blood. Certainly none of my parents’ stories of bullies from the 1920s and 1930s ever included a reference to police or fines. Most such narratives ended with either successful or unsuccessful escapes from bullies or, rarely, successful defenses against them.
I suppose that it is possible that you grew up in some wonderful enclave of civility where bullies were not accepted by society. I rather believe, however, that your story is on a par with your claims for science–you are simply making it up as you go along. Just as nothing in scientific activity resembles the odd tales you invent to describe it, so your claims of how society used to be are nothing more than your invention.
My fondest childhood memory was nailing the neighborhood bully (in kindergarten) on the nose and having him run home, crying, to mama. I’m not sure if that had anything to do with his being the first boy at our high school to take Home Economics but I’ve taken credit for turning him gay for thirty five years.
I am talking about the real world, not some supposed macho, macho world where all people stick up for themselves. The Colubine shooters were made fun of by their classmates and bullied. Most of the shooters have been bullied. Some kids just commit suicide rather than go back to school where they are beat up on a regulas basis. Most of these bullying sessions are two or three kids on one, or a big kid on a small one. Bullies are cowards at heart. This is the real world my friend. Didn’t intend to talk about bullies anyway, they are not the topic here.
Won’t say anymore on this subject. Back to the OP.
No, you were talking about your imaginary world where you pretended that teachers and parents and police intervened to put a stop to bullying–a world that has never existed.
Actually, this common received wisdom (which I was told many times in my childhood) is repeatedly being shown false. Bullies don’t act the way they do because they’re really afraid deep down. They act the way they do because they’re overconfident and believe that they’re entitled to have what they want simply by virtue of their ability to take it.
Of course, but I see you didn’t understand. Science says there is no such thing as spirit, soul, God, we know this is all hallucinations and delusions. How many times have I read that attitude posted on this board – hundreds. Now I am not concerned science will really destroy religion, they don’t have the votes. But the religious people could use their votes to get rid of the offending teachings in public schools, and seat more conservative judges. The question is how far is Science willing to push their theories of “man is meat,” onto the public.
It’s hardly a unique definition. In fact, it’s the #2 definition in my huge Un-abridged “A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural…”. In fact, I’d say outside of the scientific community, it’s likely the most common definition.
There are many types of creationism outside the “evolution is a lie, the world was created in 6 days” sects. Those are a small minority.
In fact, those that beleive in “theistic evolution” or “Intelligent design” have my respect. Even Science don’t have a coherant and solid answer of where Life originated. By the above, I mean those that belive the Earth is as old as Geologists say it is, that evolution does happen, and that that the Fossil record does show evidence of evolution and earlier creatures- BUT that Life originated with a ‘spark’ from a Divine being, Evolution was given an occasional “Guiding hand” and that Man was “created” when Man was given a Soul, alone of all the creatures.
Y’know, this is why it is frustrating to have you keep interruptiong these threads. The comment I have quoted is a lie. It is not an error. It is not a mistake. It is a lie.
No scientific paper has ever made any claim that spirit, soul, or god are hallucinations or delusions. That is the sort of lie invented byt Jack Chick that is simply not a part of science. It certainly has never appeared in a scientific peer-reviewed journal, so it does not come from scientists practicing their profession. For that matter, take the collected writings of scientists who actually are/were atheists and examine them. I have never seen a claim that science has proven that a god does not exist. Some of those writers have been more open about their personal lack of belief, but none that I have read have ever claimed that science has proven that their beliefs are fact. (And, of course, their beliefs can be balanced by all the scientists who continue to believe in spirit, soul, god or God, and continue to practice their scientific professions.)
Like Jack Chick, you have created an imaginary world where scientists say things that no scientist has ever said simply so that you can rail against them.
On the other hand, I suppose you are, in this thread, surely answering the OP by demonstrating the irrational behavior (and willful ignorance) that is a hallmark of many (by no means all) people who oppose evolutionary theory on the grounds of false beliefs.
I’d like you to give cites for science saying this, or for anyone on this board claiming science says this. Even Richard Dawkins, who is proudly atheistic, says no such thing. tomndebb is quite correct, you are lying.
And while you are at it, please let us know the titles of any science book on evolution which you have read while making your decision to be a creationist. Let’s see if your decision is based on data, or ignorance.
It isn’t a theory. Do you think we are made of marshmallows?
Its fundamentalist religion tht is trying to destroy science. As usual, the fundies twist their own actions around and try to say the ‘other guys’ are doing all these things when in fac they themselves are doing it.
Perhaps I should have said: Science says spiritual experiences are only hallucinations, etc. They can all be explained by physical means. Implying there is no God.
This guy is more direct, and I suggest you review your own posts. There are full of insults to religious people.
Personally, I don’t think ANY of that can be laid at the feet of school, TV or video games. Those are just excuses, easy targets for those who want to complain and pretend that there’s a singular cause for social ills, and if that cause is removed, everything will be peachy keen once more.
I find this mistrust of human intelligence, strength and character to be disturbing. Are we really so pathetic that watching a TV show, or playing Grand Theft Auto or not saying the Lord’s Prayer before class starts can ruin us? If it is, then we sincerely deserve it.
I know it’s ever so much simpler to blame social ills on an easily identifiable external source than actually examining the myraid causes, but it sets you up for dissapointment once that a change to the “source” is made and the problems don’t magically dissapear.
Wow. I was not aware that school was the primary source of religious training in the past! In my humble ignorance, I had thought that the home was where moral, ethical and spiritual teachings originated in most people.
So, let me get this straight: you think kids put more faith in their textbooks than they do in what their parents and peer groups have drilled into them their entire lives? That if exposed to something which does not emphasize religion they will instantly toss out their faith?
If your child’s faith is that paltry and fragile, it is not the school you should blame.
My goodness! Who have you been talking to? Your world outlook is extremely bleak, and does not in any way correspond to the outlook of most of the people I know, whether they be religious or not.
Kids today have just as much expectation and hope for the future as ever. (The grunge period is over. It seems like being cheerful is cool again.) They’re hopeful, energetic and enthusiastic. They know, more than any generation before them, what the signs of depression are and that help is readily available. They also know that the stigma of getting help for depression has greatly declined from what it was a few generations ago. They know there are support groups for almost every kind of problem in which they’ll find sympathy and support by the boatload. They know they can talk to their pastors, too.
I’ll lay money that it will end up the same as it always has.
People have been saying that the world’s going to hell in a handbasket for thousands of years.
And you can prove the opposite? Oh, wait, that’s faith, right?
This argument is a very dead horse that I wish to God someone would give a decent burial.
Sure there is. Remove your brain and you are no more. Get a brain injury, and your personality may drastically change.
Maybe. We’re learning more about the brain every day. Just because we don’t have all the parts figured out quite yet doesn’t mean there’s not a biological process at work.
It’s fine that you think so, but do you really think that religious opinion has any place in science? That we should just chalk it all up to “spirit” and stop bothering to research?
Of course not. I go get a book and read about how telephones work. Personally, I’d rather do some research than shrug and say, “God did it.” That’s intellectual laziness.
Please stop. Please. This is the worst argument I know of, and it’s so old and tiresome.
Science depends on research and evidence.
Religion depends on faith.
You’re gonna be waiting a very, very long time.
Perhaps you’ll get lucky and nuclear war will reduce us back to the Dark Ages when the Church had answers for everything and those who disagreed were properly burned alive. But I wouldn’t count on it.
Science will just keep refining itself, getting more and better answers. Knowledge will continue to grow by leaps and bounds. I’m so excited by what we may know tomorrow.
I provide this link to these publically-available quotes from River Out of Eden.
I think Dawkins has said about as much as he can on the subject to the effect that science has disproven (at the very least) the common notion of a purposeful and concerned God without spelling it out precisely in those words. He is not alone among public exponents of science in this point of view. Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan, and Steven Weinberg are a few others who I can think of offhand who have written fairly clearly that their take on the lessons of science is that the notion of a worshipful God has been effectively debunked. Weinberg, for example, states further (in the chapter “What About God” from his Dreams of A Final Theory), that alternate views of God, equating God with “energy” or “nature” render the concept not so much wrong as vacuous and essentially unimportant.
I don’t think any of them lay claim to absolute certainty in the non-existance of a Higher Being, just a degree of scepticism about the concept of God (as we commonly understand Him, a worshipful creator and designer) that leaves them absolutely no belief in Him. They appear to consider God to be disproven to the extent that anything can be disproven by human investigation.
You can, along with some of the above, find a bunch of other Dawkins gems here
My personal favorite:
I imagine a few creationists would have a major beef with that.
You really need to get it straight that SCIENCE doesn’t say anything. Yes, there are studies showing many spiritual experiences can be explained physically. Not that this is new - what do you think peyote is all about? I doubt that scientific papers, which are famously wishy-washy, ever have claimed to prove all such experiences are based on any physical causes. But if they all can be explained as such, I can’t imagine why we’d look for other causes.
As for some godless immoral scientists insulting religion - I can’t imagine why anyone would be driven to such lengths. Scientists are allowed to lose their tempers also. The lies about atheism from many of the religious (not around here much) and lies about evolution that you have seen in any creationist started thread are enough to make even the most even-tempered hot under the collar.
Scientists are allowed to lose their tempers also. The lies about atheism from many of the religious (not around here much) and lies about evolution that you have seen in any creationist started thread are enough to make even the most even-tempered hot under the collar.