Intelligent Design ruling

[Audioholics]

Some of my favorite "discoveries"

http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/piltdown.htm
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/emnh.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man

 

[mtrycrafts]

Some of my favorite "discoveries"

http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/piltdown.htm
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/emnh.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man

Yes, and science has corrected, self correcting, unlike so many others, like ID and religion

 

[Audioholics]

Well if by "corrected" you mean take something that was front-paged in all of the newspapers and magazines and running a correction some years later on page 18, section D in small print (meanwhile all of the school textbooks have been spewing the wrong information at students for over a decade) then yes, they are self-correcting.

Behe and others have also amended their positions on I.D. but that is generally seen as admission of error rather than "self-correcting" or taking into account new information.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Yes, and science has corrected, self correcting, unlike so many others, like ID and religion

...while this site is still going strong...

http://www.shroud.com/

 

[majorloser]

...while this site is still going strong...

http://www.shroud.com/

Ah, "The Shroud"...............no finer piece of religous truth is needed..........Yeah right!

 

[Johnd]

Let's not confuse religion with science, as is often done.

A wise man once told me only a child needs miracles to believe in God.

That is, the parting of the sea, the burning bush, and the Shroud of Turin, while I will not ridicule those that hold onto those things, or even need them to strengthen their faith, deep faith goes far beyond a childish belief in miracles. Additionally, those that do ridicule reek of intolerance, which is precisely the type of injustice that we eradicated in Nazi Germany, and are attempting to do in the mideast (not that this is necessarily our single agenda there). Peace and understanding.

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

Additionally, those that do ridicule reek of intolerance, which is precisely the type of injustice that we eradicated in Nazi Germany,

Well we talked about eradicating it, but we fell just a wee-bit short of our goals when all was said & done.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...while this site is still going strong...

http://www.shroud.com/

Well, some things just takes longer to correct
Homeopathy has been around 100+ years and still going strong. But, these are not science. Pseudoscience is not self correcting

 

[krabapple]

Yes, and science has corrected, self correcting, unlike so many others, like ID and religion

But creationists do that too! My favorite 'discovery' came out during the Dover trial, wherein it was revealed that creationists had
simply changed 'creation science' to 'intelligent design' in the course of 'updating' their 'textbook'.

Maybe some day they'll do a bit more self-correction and update 'intelligent design' to 'teaching Christianity in science classes'.

 

[krabapple]

Well if by "corrected" you mean take something that was front-paged in all of the newspapers and magazines and running a correction some years later on page 18, section D in small print (meanwhile all of the school textbooks have been spewing the wrong information at students for over a decade) then yes, they are self-correcting.

Really, are science textbooks still teaching that Piltdown Man was legit?
And here, I always thought it was held up a the classic example of fraud
in science...even in science books. I'm thinking Stephen Gould wrote an article or two about it too.

If 'spewing wrong information' has you up in arms, sir, you should be
utterly irate over the shenanigans of the intelligent design movment.

Behe and others have also amended their positions on I.D. but that is generally seen as admission of error rather than "self-correcting" or taking into account new information.

Behe and others haven't yet even established that *any* of their positions are scientifically tenable. Nor have they demonstrated the 'research program' that one would need to verify or falsify their claims.

 

[krabapple]

Let's not confuse religion with science, as is often done.

A wise man once told me only a child needs miracles to believe in God.

That is, the parting of the sea, the burning bush, and the Shroud of Turin, while I will not ridicule those that hold onto those things, or even need them to strengthen their faith, deep faith goes far beyond a childish belief in miracles. Additionally, those that do ridicule reek of intolerance, which is precisely the type of injustice that we eradicated in Nazi Germany, and are attempting to do in the mideast (not that this is necessarily our single agenda there). Peace and understanding.

Then again, must a belief be 'respected' simply because lots of people hold it?

 

[Johnd]

Then again, must a belief be 'respected' simply because lots of people hold it?

I'll throw the question right back at you in a manner that I deem more appropriately phrased.
"At what point do you deem it allowable to disrespect someone (or a group's belief, ideology, politics, etc.)?"

 

[krabapple]

I'll throw the question right back at you in a manner that I deem more appropriately phrased.
"At what point do you deem it allowable to disrespect someone (or a group's belief, ideology, politics, etc.)?"

When they defy reason. When they assert their truth but allow for no disproof. When the inability to prove or disprove them is touted as one of their virtues.


Do you accord *all* beliefs the same respect? If not, why?

 

[Johnd]

First understand that people have a right to believe whatever they choose to...at least in this country.

And let us not confuse religious beliefs with political, social, economic, etc. While we can argue about the latter, we should not argue about the former (other than in structured and civil engagements). Otherwise, you risk offending and alienating a whole bunch of people.

And to answer your question, no. When a political, economic or social belief impinges on the rights of others, it is undesserving of unfettered support.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Otherwise, you risk offending and alienating a whole bunch of people.

It's already been done that with the NRA, who's members vote based on one issue.

Catholics have been alienated on abortion issues. There will never be separation of Church and state. Too many politics. Too many taking sides.

 

[Johnd]

Catholics have been alienated on abortion issues. There will never be separation of Church and state. Too many politics. Too many taking sides.

Yes, and "taking sides", and affirming, even engaging in discourse about beliefs is ok. As long as we don't "alienate" those whose opinions and beliefs differ from our own. Tolerance is key.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Just came across this quote:

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." - - Stephen Roberts

Makes some sense - any comments?

 

[Johnd]

Just came across this quote:



Makes some sense - any comments?

Not to me. By defintion atheist means the nonexistence of God, (or, more accurately, the belief that no god(s) exist). Since you cannot have fewer than zero, it does not follow that one atheist could believe in fewer gods than another. It is an illogical statement.

The remainder is pure sophistry.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Not to me. By defintion atheist means the nonexistence of God, (or, more accurately, the belief that no god(s) exist). Since you cannot have fewer than zero, it does not follow that one atheist could believe in fewer gods than another. It is an illogical statement.

The remainder is pure sophistry.

What I read there is the person talking to an individual who believes in one God, not many. And one less is zero. He is not talking to another atheist, hence there is no belief in less than zero.

 

[Johnd]

What I read there is the person talking to an individual who believes in one God, not many. And one less is zero. He is not talking to another atheist, hence there is no belief in less than zero.

Yes. If read that way, the atheist is speaking not only for himself, but for the believer as well...a problem in and of itself.

I guess my problem is more forensic. I can argue (debate and converse) all day, even about religion, or in this case an atheist's non sequitor "argument" (It's really not an argument at all since he gives no reason). The atheist has hypothesized that once an explanation is given for nonbelief in all other gods, it will follow that a non belief in God is reasonable. That does not necessarily follow. It especially does not follow since he has not given any reason, he is simply trying to persuade. The atheist has made a statement, not a well developed argument.

Nevetheless, my point remains that "true faith" cannot be proven or disproven like a mathematical equation. It simply is.