|
On January 17 2011 18:15 Azzur wrote:
I believe schools should be given the right to teach intelligent design just as evolution is allowed to be taught in schools provided that clarity is given to students on what they are learning. I believe that people should be free to express what their religion is, and even talk to people about it. I don't understand the part where religion is viewed as a taboo subject.
Please explain to me how intelligent design is science. Also, could you clarify whether or not you believe evolution is a real phenomenon?
|
On January 17 2011 18:15 Azzur wrote:
I believe in God and Jesus as personal Saviour. I also believe in separation of Church and State. I'm not an American so I can't really comment, but I do think that the pledge of allegiance should in some way omit the "under God" for those that don't want to say it. In Australia, during the citizenship ceremony swear-in, we were given 2 options on what to say - one included God and the other doesn't.
I believe schools should be given the right to teach intelligent design just as evolution is allowed to be taught in schools provided that clarity is given to students on what they are learning. I believe that people should be free to express what their religion is, and even talk to people about it. I don't understand the part where religion is viewed as a taboo subject.
What I don't accept is that for those that wish to omit the "under God" part is somehow considered unpatriotic, etc.
In America anyway;
Absolutely not. Intelligent design is not a science, it is religion disguised under a disgusting term, thats all it is. And thats against our rights as Americans to have that forced down our throat in schools, even as an "option". Even if the students are told that what they are learning is religion, it still wouldn't work.
|
A lot of scientists believe in some form of intelligent design but I would say many believe in evolution as well. Note that some of the scientists who believe in intelligent design do not necessarily believe in a Christian God, but rather some supreme being.
I believe students have the right to learn about intelligent design, just as they have the right to learn about evolution. The intelligent design unit can be provided as an option so they would have to choose to participate in the unit. This is not forcing anything on anyone, people should have the free will to decide what they want to learn.
As for the pledge of allegiance, I'm a bit surprised that it hasn't been modified to omit the "under God" yet.
|
On January 17 2011 05:21 Kalingingsong wrote:
a side comment to help noob atheists out there:
trying to reason people out of religion is like trying to reason a person out of their fear of spiders.
you really should try a different approach: aka wear a spider suit until they start to think spiders are stupid instead of scary.
You shouldn't be reasoning anybody... I'm tired of both Atheists and Religious nut jobs preaching... how bout we all stfu?
|
On January 17 2011 20:07 Azzur wrote:
A lot of scientists believe in some form of intelligent design but I would say many believe in evolution as well. Note that some of the scientists who believe in intelligent design do not necessarily believe in a Christian God, but rather some supreme being.
I believe students have the right to learn about intelligent design, just as they have the right to learn about evolution. The intelligent design unit can be provided as an option so they would have to choose to participate in the unit. This is not forcing anything on anyone, people should have the free will to decide what they want to learn.
As for the pledge of allegiance, I'm a bit surprised that it hasn't been modified to omit the "under God" yet.
no legitimate biologists believe in intelligent design
why do students have a right to learn about intelligent design? theres no support for it, its just an attempt to stick god into a concept that has no need for him.
|
On January 17 2011 20:51 Alexson wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 05:21 Kalingingsong wrote:
a side comment to help noob atheists out there:
trying to reason people out of religion is like trying to reason a person out of their fear of spiders.
you really should try a different approach: aka wear a spider suit until they start to think spiders are stupid instead of scary. You shouldn't be reasoning anybody... I'm tired of both Atheists and Religious nut jobs preaching... how bout we all stfu?
I do agree that there are certainly a lot of obnoxious religious people out there. But if I may use a TL example, the majority of posters are pretty decent but a few bad apples can ruin the experience for a lot of people. This analogy applies to many things, including religion. My point is that religion is viewed as a taboo subject. For instance, talking about God is nowhere as socially acceptable as talking about your favourite sports team, for instance. I'm saying that this shouldn't be the case; but the religious people do need to be sensitive when approaching this subject.
Saying that "I went to church yesterday" as part of a conversation I think it's a non-invasive topic (but some ppl still feel that this is a bit taboo?), but unwanted preaching crosses the line.
|
On January 17 2011 21:08 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 20:07 Azzur wrote:
A lot of scientists believe in some form of intelligent design but I would say many believe in evolution as well. Note that some of the scientists who believe in intelligent design do not necessarily believe in a Christian God, but rather some supreme being.
I believe students have the right to learn about intelligent design, just as they have the right to learn about evolution. The intelligent design unit can be provided as an option so they would have to choose to participate in the unit. This is not forcing anything on anyone, people should have the free will to decide what they want to learn.
As for the pledge of allegiance, I'm a bit surprised that it hasn't been modified to omit the "under God" yet. no legitimate biologists believe in intelligent design why do students have a right to learn about intelligent design? theres no support for it, its just an attempt to stick god into a concept that has no need for him.
I won't argue too much about the specifics of creation and intelligent design because this will drag the post off-topic. But in a free country, people should be free to be able to do and learn what they want (provided of course it doesn't break the law). Many people, for instance, are not atheists, but rather agnostic (i.e. don't know what to believe). Shouldn't they be allow to freely explore and take in information and then make up their own minds?
A lot of the world has not been discovered yet. For instance, it is now known that Einstein's theory is now incomplete (because of quantum physics).
|
you wanna offer a class on religion or paranormal beliefs you can talk about intelligent design all you want. but its not science, it has no place being taught alongside evolution. and evolution is in no way related to atheism.
also children are built to be impressionable, its irresponsible to teach them everything and hope they figure out whats right. if there are opposing view points that both have merit then yes, both should be taught. but mentioning intelligent design in the same breath as evolution is laughable.
|
I do agree that intelligent design shouldn't be forced upon the kids. Thus, I believe that it should be an optional unit to take. However, if a school does decide to do something like this, I'm sure a lot of people will take offense to it.
Also, right now, kids are being taught evolution as fact and only presented with the arguments for it. There is no mention of the weaknesses of the theory.
But to address the OP, I do feel that the facebook post is over the top because it implies that they are deliberately making the facebook post because they "don't care about offending people". A deeper implication is also perhaps that anyone who is offended is possibly unpatriotic? This is where I believe it crosses the line.
Instead, if the facebook poster posted the pledge of allegiance and said I'm a proud American (without the offend part), then it's probably ok. Religious people need to be aware that some of their actions may be construed as obnoxious.
|
On January 17 2011 21:44 Azzur wrote:
I do agree that intelligent design shouldn't be forced upon the kids. Thus, I believe that it should be an optional unit to take. However, if a school does decide to do something like this, I'm sure a lot of people will take offense to it.
Also, right now, kids are being taught evolution as fact and only presented with the arguments for it. There is no mention of the weaknesses of the theory.
"weaknesses" in the theory tend to be holes that have yet to be filled, not evidence that the whole theory is possibly wrong. People advocating intelligent design seem to advocate the latter idea, which is completely wrong.
It's like gravity: even though physicists have quantum mechanics understood to over 12 significant digits, the gravitational constant has only been measured down to 4 or 5, and the whole theory of gravity seems to be incomplete as of this moment. That does not undermine the entire idea nor cast a shadow upon what we already know: bodies with mass attract, for the most part, by a very well understood mathematical equation. Weaknesses are not suggestions that the whole thing is wrong, they are just slight adjustments that we've yet to find how to make.
|
On January 17 2011 20:07 Azzur wrote:
I believe students have the right to learn about intelligent design, just as they have the right to learn about evolution. The intelligent design unit can be provided as an option so they would have to choose to participate in the unit. This is not forcing anything on anyone, people should have the free will to decide what they want to learn.
Should we teach geocentrism alongside astronomy too while we're at it?
|
On January 17 2011 18:15 Azzur wrote:
I believe in God and Jesus as personal Saviour. I also believe in separation of Church and State. I'm not an American so I can't really comment, but I do think that the pledge of allegiance should in some way omit the "under God" for those that don't want to say it. In Australia, during the citizenship ceremony swear-in, we were given 2 options on what to say - one included God and the other doesn't.
I believe schools should be given the right to teach intelligent design just as evolution is allowed to be taught in schools provided that clarity is given to students on what they are learning. I believe that people should be free to express what their religion is, and even talk to people about it. I don't understand the part where religion is viewed as a taboo subject.
What I don't accept is that for those that wish to omit the "under God" part is somehow considered unpatriotic, etc.
Do you think that intelligent design should be taught in a theology class or in a science class? That's where the debate actually is. See, intelligent design isn't scientific. All the "research" that the intelligent design proponents have claimed to have done, has either been God of the Gaps fallacious arguments that have been debunked thoroughly by scientific evidence, or just claims to the idea that maybe a god could have done it. Not all opinions are as informed as each other. Evolution is, by now, a fact. You have DNA evidence, fossil evidence, multiple types of radiometric dating, that all meet up and confirm the same thing. They do not contradict each other. How everything evolved may be in some debate with people, but the fact of evolution itself is not any kind of controversial subject among the scientific community, it's an established fact. It's as established as gravity, light, time, etc...
Also people are free to express what their religion is, but teaching things to children require those things to be factual, when it comes to science. I'm all for a theology class teaching the idea of intelligent design, but I also want them to equally teach of ancient religions, modern religions, pagan religions. I want them to teach the archaeological evidence of the polytheistic ancient hebrews from the old testament, the linguistic evidence, the historical evidence that the bible was written and rewritten. That at times the hebrews worshipped Baal, Ashtoreth, Yahweh, Elohim (many gods, it's the plural word for lord). I would like them to thoroughly teach everything we know from history of all of the religions. We currently do not teach an equal picture that would give a grand perspective of all the religions. You are right, religion is a taboo subject, because if they actually taught religion in an academic light, like any other class, schools would turn into atheist machines.
On January 17 2011 20:07 Azzur wrote:
A lot of scientists believe in some form of intelligent design but I would say many believe in evolution as well. Note that some of the scientists who believe in intelligent design do not necessarily believe in a Christian God, but rather some supreme being.
I believe students have the right to learn about intelligent design, just as they have the right to learn about evolution. The intelligent design unit can be provided as an option so they would have to choose to participate in the unit. This is not forcing anything on anyone, people should have the free will to decide what they want to learn.
As for the pledge of allegiance, I'm a bit surprised that it hasn't been modified to omit the "under God" yet.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
That doesn't sound like a lot of scientists to me. It sounds like the minority. Also there have been studies on religiosity versus level of education. All of these studies showed that on average, the more education people received from college, the less religious they were.
People are free to learn what they want, but intelligent design isn't science, it should be taught in theology class.
Intelligent designs claims can be debunked, and what it proposes, that a supernatural being is pulling the strings, is not falsifiable. Science by definition, the theories, must be falsifiable. A giant teapot in the sky could be pulling the strings, but that theory is not falsifiable so it has no place in the science class.
On January 17 2011 21:44 Azzur wrote:
I do agree that intelligent design shouldn't be forced upon the kids. Thus, I believe that it should be an optional unit to take. However, if a school does decide to do something like this, I'm sure a lot of people will take offense to it.
Also, right now, kids are being taught evolution as fact and only presented with the arguments for it. There is no mention of the weaknesses of the theory.
But to address the OP, I do feel that the facebook post is over the top because it implies that they are deliberately making the facebook post because they "don't care about offending people". A deeper implication is also perhaps that anyone who is offended is possibly unpatriotic? This is where I believe it crosses the line.
Instead, if the facebook poster posted the pledge of allegiance and said I'm a proud American (without the offend part), then it's probably ok. Religious people need to be aware that some of their actions may be construed as obnoxious.
The optional unit should be a theology class. Where every supernatural "theory" is taught as equal, including the theory of zeus, apollo, the theory of fairies, and the theory of titan carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders. Flat earth theory should be taught as well.
Where is the weakness of the theory of evolution, please indulge us. Maybe you are misinterpreting why it is called a theory. The word theory in this context is the equivalent of a mathematical theorum. Meaning there is overwhelming evidence backing up the model of evolution. A scientific theory is a model that the evidence pieces fit into. Evolution has not contradicted itself. The claims that many intelligent design proponents make to it being weak, have either been debunked (the eye, the bacterial flagellum), or been explained (piltdown man).
Well my argument is that the facebook poster was simply historically ignorant.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 17 2011 16:39 Aberu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2011 17:33 stormtemplar wrote:On January 16 2011 16:57 Impervious wrote:http://godisimaginary.com/i28.htmThe following quote from Stephen F. Roberts sums up the situation very nicely:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." The link goes into more detail. Out of many "proofs" that are available (which are technically not actual "proofs", since they rely on an assumption that "god exists" so that it can be disproven, when there is actually no "proof" that "god exists" to begin with..... well, at least nothing that doesn't fall apart when put up to logical scrutiny), this is the one that I find to be most convincing. Counter argument is that there is no conclusive proof that god DOESN'T exist and thus the fact that some atheists ridicule people of faith for lack of proof and blind faith is hypocritical. I have rarely met an Atheist that asserts that god DOESN'T exist. They just say they have no belief in any gods because there is no evidence to believe in those things. It's not quite agnosticism, it's just a requirement of evidence to believe something. And for some requests of responses. I got this from a hawaiian friend of hers: Show nested quote + I think the argument is a little convoluted. Facts and opinions are often jaded when it comes to the founding of a nation. The structure of our government and the individual states take on a much different purpose. As the colonies did have their own distinct charters and rules about religion some being strict and others allowing free practice.
But if you look at in a modern perspective its more a matter of personal ideology. I don't know where the lines are drawn but as a christian, and someone who enjoys saying one nation under god in the pledge, i find it just as offensive that I should be persecuted for saying it. I'm going to say it my way why cant other people just not include "under god" when they say it? I responded to that with: Show nested quote + Well the debate isn't whether you want to personally say under god or not, it's whether the government should endorse a religion or not. Our government is bound by the constitution, without that, they could take advantage of us.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Making a law, putting "under god" into the pledge is unconstitutional. Is it fair for 1 child in a class of 30 to be isolated for not believing in your god? Children that have been raised by their parents who are muslims, buddhists, atheists, are put into a completely unfair social situation, that is endorsed and sponsored by the government.
Also it's the government saying this nation (meaning the people in it) are under god (meaning worshipping him/her/whatever it is). I'm an atheist, I don't worship a god, so I'm not being equally represented, and my constitutional rights are being violated. and Show nested quote +The treaty of tripoli is my favorite bit of evidence. It was our proclamation towards the muslim nations at the time that we were not going to commit crusades in the name of religion towards them.
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." Then the girl who is a good friend of mine posted back on hers finally: Show nested quote + wow alrigghty now kevin haha i didnt need an essay on here hahaha...im glad we all have our different opinions but im just saying I hate this politically correct crap and people are a bunch or babies nowadays...who cares if it hasnt been in there as long as "man" has been here but its been in there for way longer then we've been alive so we should jsut leave it at that and respect it. I love my country and support it....i understand your atheist..but this country was founded by the church in the first place...soo with that being said just say it ..or dont say it dang it hahah but everyone needs to respect everyone else's opinons...ho k thank ha And then my response: Show nested quote + Oh yeah I respect your opinions. I just have a lot to say about the issue. It isn't about political correctness, it is about the government upholding the constitution and treating people of different faiths (or lack of faiths) equally. I'm sure you agree that the government should treat everyone as if they were "created" equal don't you? That's all we want.
And well the how long it has been there comment was to show that it has only been there a short time when you take the whole history of America being there into account. And it was only 56 years ago hehe.
The claim that this country was founded by the church can be academically proven wrong, and many historians will disagree. You can ask any US History teacher at any college. A vast majority of them will tell you, it was founded on secularism because the majority of the founding fathers were always opposed to organized religion.
That's not to say religion is bad or anything. It serves it's purpose, makes a lot of people happy, just in cases like this, it tends to put itself ahead of the equality of others. Same with the rights of homosexuals. And many christian churches were behind the anger over desegregation of blacks, and many churches were against woman's suffrage. Historically the churches and religious have, time and time again, been on the wrong side of ethical evolution of mankind. and This was the hawaiian guy's response to that: Show nested quote +Well your talking about a treaty which John Adams signed to do a few things. The first was an attempt to buy off pirates until we could build our Navy up, to secure the release of Americans being held, and proclaim peace and amity.
To the best of my knowledge the treaty lasted only 3 years until Thomas Jefferson authorized our navy to step in and we fought the first Barbary war. The pirates demanded nearly 20% of national budget and still kept on attacking American vessels. Kinda messed up. But the treaty did include the article 11 clause which does site the separation of church and state. Its context however was to state that this is two sovereign powers not religious states attempting to find a compromise. The Arabic version of the text is also up for debate. The founding fathers were crafty paraphrasing many of the articles including or possibly excluding article 11 entirely. I find that a little strange myself but i guess I cant know for sure unless I learn Arabic.
All in all our opinions matter little in the respect that society will simply have to follow the lead of those in power. How do they interpret the constitution in this respect? It is something that changes and I would expect to keep changing for many years to come. To which I replied: Show nested quote +The idea that you always have to follow the lead of those in power is rather resigned. We have a constitution that restricts those powers, and we have laws and checks and balances that attribute we, the people, power in most things. It has been stripped away a great deal, over the years, and it has been strengthened in some areas as well. Honestly there is little way to interpret the constitution so incorrectly as to assume that "Under God" should be in our pledge or on our money. How offensive would it be to the religious if the money said "In No God We Trust". Everyone would be up in arms and talk about sacrilege and how offensive it is, especially those calling this debate out on being about political correctness. She then replied on her post: Show nested quote + oh boy haha you guys all write so much! haha lets just settle this..okay settled ;p Overall the girl who posted it basically had showed that, whatever I wasn't expecting anyone to actually debate what I posted, just expected everyone to like it and agree with me. Kind of short-sighted.
I'm going to say it outright: that girl's beyond hope for both 1. understanding politics and 2. understanding why her religion can be so damaging. I've met numerous people like her, none of them have changed no matter how much I've cited evidence and discussed the stuff you've discussed at length. These people just don't change, they've been trained at a very young age to not question the authorities that have given them the answers, where they should have been given questions.
I hope for your sake I'm wrong, and you should give starting a dialogue with her another shot, but don't waste enormous energy on people like her, there's better discussions to be had.
|
On January 18 2011 01:58 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 17 2011 16:39 Aberu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2011 17:33 stormtemplar wrote:On January 16 2011 16:57 Impervious wrote:http://godisimaginary.com/i28.htmThe following quote from Stephen F. Roberts sums up the situation very nicely:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." The link goes into more detail. Out of many "proofs" that are available (which are technically not actual "proofs", since they rely on an assumption that "god exists" so that it can be disproven, when there is actually no "proof" that "god exists" to begin with..... well, at least nothing that doesn't fall apart when put up to logical scrutiny), this is the one that I find to be most convincing. Counter argument is that there is no conclusive proof that god DOESN'T exist and thus the fact that some atheists ridicule people of faith for lack of proof and blind faith is hypocritical. I have rarely met an Atheist that asserts that god DOESN'T exist. They just say they have no belief in any gods because there is no evidence to believe in those things. It's not quite agnosticism, it's just a requirement of evidence to believe something. And for some requests of responses. I got this from a hawaiian friend of hers: Show nested quote + I think the argument is a little convoluted. Facts and opinions are often jaded when it comes to the founding of a nation. The structure of our government and the individual states take on a much different purpose. As the colonies did have their own distinct charters and rules about religion some being strict and others allowing free practice.
But if you look at in a modern perspective its more a matter of personal ideology. I don't know where the lines are drawn but as a christian, and someone who enjoys saying one nation under god in the pledge, i find it just as offensive that I should be persecuted for saying it. I'm going to say it my way why cant other people just not include "under god" when they say it? I responded to that with: Show nested quote + Well the debate isn't whether you want to personally say under god or not, it's whether the government should endorse a religion or not. Our government is bound by the constitution, without that, they could take advantage of us.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Making a law, putting "under god" into the pledge is unconstitutional. Is it fair for 1 child in a class of 30 to be isolated for not believing in your god? Children that have been raised by their parents who are muslims, buddhists, atheists, are put into a completely unfair social situation, that is endorsed and sponsored by the government.
Also it's the government saying this nation (meaning the people in it) are under god (meaning worshipping him/her/whatever it is). I'm an atheist, I don't worship a god, so I'm not being equally represented, and my constitutional rights are being violated. and Show nested quote +The treaty of tripoli is my favorite bit of evidence. It was our proclamation towards the muslim nations at the time that we were not going to commit crusades in the name of religion towards them.
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." Then the girl who is a good friend of mine posted back on hers finally: Show nested quote + wow alrigghty now kevin haha i didnt need an essay on here hahaha...im glad we all have our different opinions but im just saying I hate this politically correct crap and people are a bunch or babies nowadays...who cares if it hasnt been in there as long as "man" has been here but its been in there for way longer then we've been alive so we should jsut leave it at that and respect it. I love my country and support it....i understand your atheist..but this country was founded by the church in the first place...soo with that being said just say it ..or dont say it dang it hahah but everyone needs to respect everyone else's opinons...ho k thank ha And then my response: Show nested quote + Oh yeah I respect your opinions. I just have a lot to say about the issue. It isn't about political correctness, it is about the government upholding the constitution and treating people of different faiths (or lack of faiths) equally. I'm sure you agree that the government should treat everyone as if they were "created" equal don't you? That's all we want.
And well the how long it has been there comment was to show that it has only been there a short time when you take the whole history of America being there into account. And it was only 56 years ago hehe.
The claim that this country was founded by the church can be academically proven wrong, and many historians will disagree. You can ask any US History teacher at any college. A vast majority of them will tell you, it was founded on secularism because the majority of the founding fathers were always opposed to organized religion.
That's not to say religion is bad or anything. It serves it's purpose, makes a lot of people happy, just in cases like this, it tends to put itself ahead of the equality of others. Same with the rights of homosexuals. And many christian churches were behind the anger over desegregation of blacks, and many churches were against woman's suffrage. Historically the churches and religious have, time and time again, been on the wrong side of ethical evolution of mankind. and This was the hawaiian guy's response to that: Show nested quote +Well your talking about a treaty which John Adams signed to do a few things. The first was an attempt to buy off pirates until we could build our Navy up, to secure the release of Americans being held, and proclaim peace and amity.
To the best of my knowledge the treaty lasted only 3 years until Thomas Jefferson authorized our navy to step in and we fought the first Barbary war. The pirates demanded nearly 20% of national budget and still kept on attacking American vessels. Kinda messed up. But the treaty did include the article 11 clause which does site the separation of church and state. Its context however was to state that this is two sovereign powers not religious states attempting to find a compromise. The Arabic version of the text is also up for debate. The founding fathers were crafty paraphrasing many of the articles including or possibly excluding article 11 entirely. I find that a little strange myself but i guess I cant know for sure unless I learn Arabic.
All in all our opinions matter little in the respect that society will simply have to follow the lead of those in power. How do they interpret the constitution in this respect? It is something that changes and I would expect to keep changing for many years to come. To which I replied: Show nested quote +The idea that you always have to follow the lead of those in power is rather resigned. We have a constitution that restricts those powers, and we have laws and checks and balances that attribute we, the people, power in most things. It has been stripped away a great deal, over the years, and it has been strengthened in some areas as well. Honestly there is little way to interpret the constitution so incorrectly as to assume that "Under God" should be in our pledge or on our money. How offensive would it be to the religious if the money said "In No God We Trust". Everyone would be up in arms and talk about sacrilege and how offensive it is, especially those calling this debate out on being about political correctness. She then replied on her post: Show nested quote + oh boy haha you guys all write so much! haha lets just settle this..okay settled ;p Overall the girl who posted it basically had showed that, whatever I wasn't expecting anyone to actually debate what I posted, just expected everyone to like it and agree with me. Kind of short-sighted. I'm going to say it outright: that girl's beyond hope for both 1. understanding politics and 2. understanding why her religion can be so damaging. I've met numerous people like her, none of them have changed no matter how much I've cited evidence and discussed the stuff you've discussed at length. These people just don't change, they've been trained at a very young age to not question the authorities that have given them the answers, where they should have been given questions. I hope for your sake I'm wrong, and you should give starting a dialogue with her another shot, but don't waste enormous energy on people like her, there's better discussions to be had.
I'm from QC and my gf is from TX, originally she was very very religious (christian), and I kinda turned her into more of a deist or something. It's a good upgrade as her point of view is approaching sanity.,
|
Btw, I attended a Catholic High School (lol) and I actually did take a religious class that taught me the theory of intelligent design. Even in freshmen year of high school, I could tell it was utter bs. The main proof that the teacher kept using was that in order to create life there have to have like ~32 conditions met and with all the planets that are known to us, it is statistically impossible for an "Earth" to happen again in the universe unless it was done by a higher being.
But yeah, what scientists where you talking about Azzo that support intelligent design?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_societies_explicitly_rejecting_intelligent_design
|
On January 18 2011 03:26 Wyred wrote:Btw, I attended a Catholic High School (lol) and I actually did take a religious class that taught me the theory of intelligent design. Even in freshmen year of high school, I could tell it was utter bs. The main proof that the teacher kept using was that in order to create life there have to have like ~32 conditions met and with all the planets that are known to us, it is statistically impossible for an "Earth" to happen again in the universe unless it was done by a higher being. But yeah, what scientists where you talking about Azzo that support intelligent design? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_societies_explicitly_rejecting_intelligent_design
I attended a Catholic school from elementary to high school and intelligent design was never ever taught. I guess it's different per school board.
|
On January 18 2011 04:20 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2011 03:26 Wyred wrote:Btw, I attended a Catholic High School (lol) and I actually did take a religious class that taught me the theory of intelligent design. Even in freshmen year of high school, I could tell it was utter bs. The main proof that the teacher kept using was that in order to create life there have to have like ~32 conditions met and with all the planets that are known to us, it is statistically impossible for an "Earth" to happen again in the universe unless it was done by a higher being. But yeah, what scientists where you talking about Azzo that support intelligent design? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_societies_explicitly_rejecting_intelligent_design I attended a Catholic school from elementary to high school and intelligent design was never ever taught. I guess it's different per school board.
Intelligent design is a more reasonable alternative to adam and eve, and magic talking snakes. I'm sure that's what the catholic church would rather have you learn than intelligent design, which doesn't show any affiliation with any specific god.
On January 17 2011 21:29 IdrA wrote:
you wanna offer a class on religion or paranormal beliefs you can talk about intelligent design all you want. but its not science, it has no place being taught alongside evolution. and evolution is in no way related to atheism.
also children are built to be impressionable, its irresponsible to teach them everything and hope they figure out whats right. if there are opposing view points that both have merit then yes, both should be taught. but mentioning intelligent design in the same breath as evolution is laughable.
What IdrA said. It's simply not science. And the children being built to be impressionable is demonstrable through the evolutionary explanation by observing many different species of mammals and their behavior as children. BTW IdrA commented on my blog yay. Glad to see my favorite zerg is on the same page as me on this subject.
|
Maybe you have the right to learn whatever you want but at least where i live you do not have the right to teach made up bullshit like intelligent design thats not proven in any way at university or a school. If you want to learn about intelligent design and stuff go an watch some youtube videos or conspiracy homepages
![[image loading]](http://i1194.photobucket.com/albums/aa372/nyrves/1278835850337.jpg)
|
What peaple dont understand is, that the principle of the survival of the fittest in an ever changing envoirment is really literally intelligent design.
Anybody who would make all that 1.25 million complex animal life forms and all the plants and microscopic lifeforms by itself is pretty dumb.
|
On January 17 2011 21:44 Azzur wrote:
Also, right now, kids are being taught evolution as fact and only presented with the arguments for it. There is no mention of the weaknesses of the theory.
Thats because it IS a fact.
Intelligent design is merely a cloaked religion under as I said, disgusting terms. It tries to sound "intelligent" but falls off quickly.
"What peaple dont understand is, that the principle of the survival of the fittest in an ever changing envoirment is really literally intelligent design."
No, horribly wrong.
Intelligent design implies design, nothing here was "designed" sorry. It's called adaptation, not intelligent design.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
