Inteligent Design

Post by **MichelleH** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 5:04 pm

Jean Marie

You are done here. I have asked, nicely, that topic be adhered to. You seem incapable of doing so and are starting discussions that have nothing to do with the nature of this board.

I’ve asked for the personal attacks of other members to stop. In your feeble attempt to appear superior, you have accomplished the opposite.

Do not post here again. Your posted will be deleted. Current posts will be culled and anything not on topic will be removed.

MichelleH
Moderator/Administrator

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:58 am

http://www.etruth.com/News/Content.aspx?ID=361212&page=

Pretty succinct little article.

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Nov 23, 2005 9:43 am

Even Charles Krauthammer....as big a right-wing jerk off as there is...can't buy creationism.

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/prin ... 69,00.html

How many times do we have to rerun the Scopes "monkey trial"? There are gaps in science everywhere. Are we to fill them all with divinity? There were gaps in Newton's universe. They were ultimately filled by Einstein's revisions. There are gaps in Einstein's universe, great chasms between it and quantum theory. Perhaps they are filled by God. Perhaps not. But it is certainly not science to merely declare it so.

To teach faith as science is to undermine the very idea of science, which is the acquisition of new knowledge through hypothesis, experimentation and evidence. To teach it as science is to encourage the supercilious caricature of America as a nation in the thrall of religious authority. To teach it as science is to discredit the welcome recent advances in permitting the public expression of religion. Faith can and should be proclaimed from every mountaintop and city square. But it has no place in science class. To impose it on the teaching of evolution is not just to invite ridicule but to earn it.

Post by **MichelleH** » Wed Nov 23, 2005 1:10 pm

It appears that the Vatican is even backing the 'not science' angle on ID

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/ap ... tican.html

fossiltrader · Post by **fossiltrader** » Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:32 pm

I am not sure if it included in the post i put up but what bothered the archaeological community here was the fact that 1000 cd's where being sent to the N>S>W school system which i believe to be at least a little invasive if not absolutely rude.

Indiana_George · Post by **Indiana_George** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 7:11 am

I support Intelligent Design.

It's a very important part of my religion.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:03 am

To each his/her own. As long as it isn't called science or taught as such in schools, I have no problem with people's beliefs.

Leona Conner · Post by **Leona Conner** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:21 pm

I'm a newbee here and love putting in my two cents worth. Having lived in the heart of the "Bible Belt" for the past several years, I have had this argument with several people. My question is how can they call "creationism" science? Any intelligent person know that in order for something to be science you have to be able to pick it apart, look at it under a microscope (so to speak), put it back together so I can then be picked apart again. If you even question the Bible, your in deep crap. Yet they want us to teach our children science, but not true science I guess.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:27 pm

Hi wellcome aboard what i was always warned about at uni was when the words faith and belief are used in a sentence beware! I have no argument with those having beliefs or faiths i believe however neither of those two can be classed as science.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 9:41 pm

My question is how can they call "creationism" science?

When you live in a world where a war hero gets crucified while a REMF gets a free pass for hiding out in Texas, anything is possible.

Welcome aboard.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 2:01 pm

it was the british that "invented" intelligent design, flakey fred hoyle and arthur c. clarkes/kubricks 2001 didn't help--dont blame us!

Kemet · Post by **Kemet** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:35 am

Its funny when they talk about evolution as not existing they never question the evolving of Viruses and bacteria. They still line up like the rest and get their flu shot and watch of for the new thing… mutated bird flu. There is nothing humanly “intelligent” about the design of the universe. It’s like an amoeba trying to write in English a quantum physics problem.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 10:14 am

Good point....as shown in yesterday's Doonesbury.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 12:36 pm

Man, that is just perfect for this thread. LMAO!!

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 12:37 pm

This is when I miss J/M.

Sorry, Michelle.

I have to go post that on the "Political Forum" of a message board where I'm a moderator. BRB.

Archaeologica.org

Inteligent Design

Jean Marie

This is the last thing I'm adding to this.

A final two cents