By the way, (first off, sorry I got so angry in my last post... ) would it make any difference to you if Intelligent Design passed the much revered "peer review?" (Which, by the way, is not really all that much of a scientific meter... it still reflects any innate beliefs/prejudices inherent in the 'peers,' and isn't much of an objective standard. But once again, I digress...)

"Proceedings of the Biological Society of
Washington" recently published a peer reviewed paper by Stephen Meyer, advocating Intelligent Design. Not a Creationist endorsement by a long shot, but based on the controversy it's raised, evidence that not ALL scientists are in agreement about the origins of life.

BTW- perhaps we should have a thread debating why 90% of our discussions turn into Creation vs. Evolution?


As for this thread... I don't know. Can you really have a politicaly correct joke? It seems to me that any punchline might be potentialy 'offensive.' (Heck, I bet there's some nutjob out there that considers laughter 'offensive' :-) )

"Proceedings of the Biological Society of
Washington" recently published a peer reviewed paper by Stephen Meyer, advocating Intelligent Design. Not a Creationist endorsement by a long shot, but based on the controversy it's raised, evidence that not ALL scientists are in agreement about the origins of life.

Except that it's already been given a round drubbing by many people who actually know what they're talking about: http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000430.html

In the thread of comments below, a number of people make the point that introducing "intelligent design" into legitimate scientific debate would be the quickest way to its demise. I completely agree. Bring it on.

Note the apparent irregularities in how the article got into the (relatively minor) journal:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/ZZ/331_id_paper_continues_to_attract__9_10_2004.asp

Zarm: not ALL scientists are in agreement about the origins of life.

You see? This fits in right with my quote from the Shermer book. Evolution deniers use honest debate between Evolution scientists (they all agree THAT it happened, just not HOW or WHY) to debunk the whole thing.

You've just proven Shermer's (and by extension, my) point.

Perhaps enrolling at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University would change your mind Brian. Your mind would be filled with wonderful ideas: creationism and why you must vote for George Bush. Perhaps, at the Liberty U.'s media center, you could watch "The Clinton Chronicles" (of which Falwell was a big backer) which shows that Clinton was a murderer.

No, the agreement again is that on some level evolution does take place. Darwins Natural selection does occur. However, the question of origins is very much a heated debate topic.

Are you not a fan of our subtle brand of humor, Scott?

I guess Creationists might just stop and only consider the question posed on the cover of this month's National Geographic; "Was Darwin Wrong?" Of course they would have no need to open the magazine and read the article. They already know the answer.

On C-Span Sunday, a right-winger named Horowitz (plugging his piece of garbage book which claims the American left is allied with fundamentalist Muslim terrorists) mentioned Molly Ivans as being allied with Radical Islamists. Molly Ivans for Christ's sake! If that wasn't a joke, what is?

"Zarm: not ALL scientists are in agreement about the origins of life.

You see? This fits in right with my quote from the Shermer book. Evolution deniers use honest debate between Evolution scientists (they all agree THAT it happened, just not HOW or WHY) to debunk the whole thing.

You've just proven Shermer's (and by extension, my) point." -Brian Webber


What?!?!? All I did was state the facts: not all scientists are in agreement with the theory of Evolution.
And I'm sorry, but you're the one in denial if you think that that isn't true.


""Proceedings of the Biological Society of
Washington" recently published a peer reviewed paper by Stephen Meyer, advocating Intelligent Design. Not a Creationist endorsement by a long shot, but based on the controversy it's raised, evidence that not ALL scientists are in agreement about the origins of life.

Except that it's already been given a round drubbing by many people who actually know what they're talking about:" -Jgould


Well, isn't this a nice turn of events: Whine and whine and whine and whine about how Creationism hasn't even undergone peer review... then when it does, try to discredit the scientist.

Look, peer review is your stoopid qualification, not mine. And I don't think it lends credence to either theory. But the fact is, Intelligent Design has been peer-reviewed and approved, and there are obviously some scientists with enough vision to see the gaping holes in Evolution.
In fact, I'm not even using this to 'debunk' evolution... that's your Straw Man. I was meerly stating that Intelligent Design has undergone peer review. How is that a denial?

I'll say it again: If you think that all scientists are in agreement over this issue, then you're the ones in denial.


"Of course they would have no need to open the magazine and read the article. They already know the answer." -Rona


Yep. because we've done the RESEARCH. (Just out of curiosity, though... what was that article about?)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6470259/

How about something for this?

The board including some discussion of the Pennsylvania situation, as well as the Wisconsin, Delaware, and Georgia situations can be found here.

I'd love to hear your commentary on some of the posts that discussion generated.

Guys, for future reference, please put posts on the appropriate boards. There's nothing about these particular links by CC or Tom that merit their own boards apart from the ones (on both PM and RM, mind you) that are already up.

One of the main things I did when I cleaning up the clutter, in fact, was to remove or merge redundant boards. (Both LM and PM, for example, each had a board on Taxes, there were two separate boards in different parts of PM for Political Humor, etc.) In doing this with PM, I put almost all the topics on the PM main page, and of the 24 topics currently listed, only SIX are further subdivided by diversity of topic (as opposed to length of discussion with second and third boards), so looking for a particular board that already exists should be EASY.

For further details on the cleanup, see the "Changes I've Made" post on the main PM page. Thanks.

Luigi-

I was not suggesting a new board. I was amplifying on Scott's comment that RM already had an appropriate board. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Sorry I missed that link, Tom. I was actually referring to Hannah's request for a new board for that link, and thought that your link was one to another article.

(Man,that's twice you've caught me not paying enough attention! )

Zarm Rkeeg: would it make any difference to you if Intelligent Design passed the much revered "peer review?"
Luigi Novi: Sure.

Zarm Rkeeg: (Which, by the way, is not really all that much of a scientific meter... it still reflects any innate beliefs/prejudices inherent in the 'peers,' and isn't much of an objective standard.
Luigi Novi: It is most certainly an objective standard by its very nature, and it does not reflect beliefs or prejudices precisely for this reason. When someone publishes a paper detailing an experiment with important results, other scientists then try to replicate the experiment to see if they get the same results. An example:

When Georg Bednorz and Karl Mueller discovered high-temperature superconductivity in 1987, they submitted every detail of their work to a peer-reviewed journal, and after the journal published their work, others tried to replicate their experiments.

When Stanely Pons and Martin Fleischman announced they had discovered room temperature cold fusion two years later, other scientists replicated their experiments using the same materials and procedures.

The former got results. The latter did not. Within weeks of the publication of Bednorz and Mueller’s work, everyone who tried replicating it got the same result. Even junior high school science classes were using it to successfully create high-temperature superconductors. By contrast, when the Pons-Fleischman work was replicated, the fusion of deuterium nuclei did not take place, nor any of the other reactions that would take place during such a process (the ejection of neutrons at high speeds, the conversion of the deuterium into helium-3, the creation of by-products such as tritium and gamma rays, etc.)

Because neutrons have no charge, and can escape the walls of the test tube, they can be detected with the right equipment. (They weren’t.) So too can superconductivity be detected. (It was.) One person out of all those independent groups of people could have been biased, schizophrenic or otherwise had impaired “perceptions,” as you call them. But not all of them. Indeed, there were some initial “anomalous results” and “partial confirmations” from some groups replicating the Pons-Fleischman work, but in the end, the vast majority of the groups reported no evidence of cold fusion. The multiplicity of the scientific process transcends the human failings of individual scientists. Because you have so many different people trying to replicate an experiment, bias and prejudices is filtered out, because there’s no way that all the people involved in these independent experiments are going to have the same biases and prejudices. If anything, the PRP will expose biases on the part of the researchers making the claim if it should appear they were motivated by any, and that’s what happened with Pons and Fleischman.

Again, when you make statements like this, you show that you obviously have no idea of what the peer review process is, and are possibly parroting these statements from creationist sources. By attacking the PRP, you are indeed attacking science itself, a notion about which someone expressed skepticism some time ago on these boards (or perhaps the ones on PM). I wonder, Zarm, do you really know what the Peer Review Process is? Can you give examples of it? Where did you learn about it? Did you read about it? If so, from what sources? How can you complain about being told that you are ignorant of evolution when you make comments such as this? The Peer Review process is now not a valid part of the Scientific Method? Oh really? So what exactly would you replace it with? Ouija boards? Crystal balls? Majority rule? Please, tell us how you would structure the scientific process in order to distinguish between scientific and pseudoscientific ideas. Would it be so unreasonable to try educating yourself about this subject from a proper source on it that does not argue the issue on an a priori basis?

Zarm Rkeeg: "Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington" recently published a peer reviewed paper by Stephen Meyer, advocating Intelligent Design.
Luigi Novi: My first response when reading this would be to ask what this paper was, who published it, and whether its experiments or data were replicated, etc. but Josh already did that above. The PRP isn’t just writing an article. It’s also what the response to it is.

Zarm Rkeeg: Not a Creationist endorsement by a long shot, but based on the controversy it's raised, evidence that not ALL scientists are in agreement about the origins of life.
Luigi Novi: What controversy has it raised? And in what way does a paper by a creationist pertain to scientists as a whole? As I and others have recently pointed out over on Peter David’s blog when someone there repeated this commonly made creationist fallacy, the debate among scientists regarding evolution is on the exact nature of the mechanism of natural selection, with scientists such as Daniel Dennet and Richard Dawkins advocating gradualism vs. Niles Eldredge, Stephen Jay Gould, etc. pushing punctuated equilibrium. The debate is not over whether evolution itself actually occurs. The notion that it is is simply a creationist lie.

Incidentally, someone posted a link to this meter over on Peter David’s blog that was started in response to this particular fallacy. It’s explained here.

Zarm Rkeeg: Well, isn't this a nice turn of events: Whine and whine and whine and whine about how Creationism hasn't even undergone peer review... then when it does, try to discredit the scientist.
Luigi Novi: This is just another example of your anti-intellectual contempt for the Peer Review Process, and is irrelevant to the discussion. First, Josh didn’t discredit the scientist, and I challenge you to show where he did. Failing in this, this response of yours is just a Straw Man. What he did was show that the paper was discredited, and rightfully so.

Second, what exactly do you think is supposed to happen in peer review? Do you think if you publish an article, you are somehow guaranteed scientific confirmation? That’s not the way it works. If the data is found to be correct, then it will be confirmed. If not, it will be discredited. The article Josh linked to explained in detail why the paper was flawed (it argued its case with the same logical fallacies, mistakes and distortions that creationists always do, and offered nothing new for the debate). The paper was discredited because it wasn’t credible, so yes, papers are discredited when it is warranted. Period. Your comment implies that this is somehow unreasonable or unfair, or something. Your refrain about “whining,” which is not the first time you’ve responded thus (you once made a comment about aspects of evolution is “convenient”), is irrelevant. Science is not emotionalism and complaints. It’s about facts and evidence. If you can show why the article Josh linked to is wrong, then please explaint to us how. Otherwise, this “nice turn of events” comment is just rhetorical.

I just don't think intelligent design can be scientifically replicated and peer reviewed, at least in the context you're presenting. I'm not saying that makes you right or Zarm right, but I think ultimately intelligent design (or any equivalent belief) rests on faith. If it was possible to scientifically "prove" the existence of God, it would not be faith.

Thus, I am not overly disturbed by the failure of the peer review test.

The problem with this response, Mike, is that Intelligent Design is purported to be scientific. ID is creationism dressed up with scientific language, made to appear to be science. But if ID is a "belief," and rests on faith, then it isn't science, as people like Zarm are trying to insist.

No, it wouldn't be faith. But the problem is that its proponents insist that it's not just faith, but science, and when you insist that something is empirical or scientific, then you stray onto the turf of science, and you are bound to play by the rules of science.

Agreed if you are going to push somethign as a scientific theory then expect it to be able to be held to the same standards as other scientific theories. Just because I publish a paper that says the giant space hamster is responsible for meteor showers and have faith in it does not make it truely scientific until it has been confirmed by my peers.

Whoa. Waitaminute. R, are you saying that the giant space hamster hasn't been confirmed as the cause of the meteor showers???

Oh god, I better go call my bookie....

No it has not been confirmed yet, although there is a possibility the giant mutant space hamster is involved somehow. (10 geek points to any who know what I am talking about)

No, it's not a giant mutant space hamster, it's a giant mutant space gerbil. At least that's what my theory tells me...

I'll buy this, but let me rephrase myself as I think I'm misrepresenting my viewpoint. I do not believe in a neatly compartmentalized viewpoint of creationism in which God and Creation can be scientifically proven. That is not faith. So I agree with those that say intelligent design is and cannot be a proven scientific theory. However, this also means that any arguments about Creationism are flawed; people who demand verifiable proof of God are disappointed. I cannot scientifically prove that. In fact, I should not be able to scientifically prove that. This is a matter of faith.

Well, the "space hamster" has nothing to do with meteor showers. It has been proven that the Megacricetus rotans is responsible for any space object's rotation! Read the (google-translated) scientific essay here and have a look at the only existing picture of this truly amazing creature.


It's an old recurring joke from the usenet in Germany.

Part of your post appears to have been cut off, Mike.

---

Quote:

However, this also means that any arguments about Creationism are flawed; people who demand verifiable proof of God are disappointed. I cannot scientifically prove that. In fact, I should not be able to scientifically prove that. This is a matter of faith.

---

Dumped three messages (one ad hom and two replies, because they referenced it).

In doing some research on the article by Stephen Meyer that was published by Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, which Zarm mentioned, here is the statement by that journal, in which they disown the article.

Georgia judge rules against "Evolution stickers".

"...as for me, give me liberty or give me death."

Wow that must have been tough for him to do. But at least good to see intelligence and truth coming out.

One of the teachers who testified in that trial was a teacher who I had in HS, Wes McCoy, probably the best science teacher I had.

McCoy, eh? I wonder if his testimony went, "Darn it, Judge, I'm a science teacher, not a minister!"

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Actually he was a trek fan too. I think he may be Dr. McCoy now, he was a grad student when I had him back in 1997.

Since Dr Leonard's roots go back to Georgia, they just may include Dr Wes.

(Moderator's note: This post, which begins the subsequent thread, was made in response to a claim by Mike Brill on the What if a Scientist were Elected President? board.)

Mike, you made the same claim for Berg three years ago on an earlier board of this thread. At that time Luigi contacted him directly to verify this claim.
This is the exchange from that time:

I was once a Theistic Evolutionist, believing in BOTH the process of evolution AND the existence of God, until I met a scientist named Otto Berg. Otto has 2 EARNED Ph.D.'s, one in Astronomy and one in Physics; he did some of the work on the captured German V-2 rockets; he designed one of the experiments the Apollo 14 astronauts took to the Moon; he continued to work at Goddard Space Flight Center until he was forced into retirement by Clinton-era budget cuts; AND HE'S A SCIENTIFIC CREATIONIST. Furthermore, according to Dr. D. James Kennedy, THE Sir Frederick Hoyle once told him that he (Dr. Hoyle) stopped being an atheist BECAUSE he once calculated the odds for and against one single simple cell EVER evolving, due to random chance, during the entire existence of the universe. THEREFORE, evolution remains a theory, not a fact. Scientific Creationism DOES NOT begin and end with "religious grounds", it's based on people saying, "What about such-and-such?" in SCIENTIFIC discussions.

There DO exist, REAL SCIENTISTS who do NOT believe in evolution. I'm sure that Otto Berg and Sir Frederick Hoyle know what science is.

I've already posted material about Hoyle. As for Berg, I contacted him, and told him what you said, Mike. He responded that he holds no controversial opinions on evolution, and cannot imagine how anyone interpreted anything he has ever said to mean that he does not believe in it. He authorized me to post this statement by him here.


That's odd, Luigi, because I first met Otto in 1989, in Braddock Heights, MD., at which time he was doing a presentation, about scientific flaws in the theory of evolution, at one of the local churches. Are you sure you're thinking of the same person? I'm going to have to call him one of these days and see how he's doing.

Mike, just because he spoke of scientific flaws (and are you sure he phrase it that way?) doesn't mean he doesn't believe in evolution. There is continuing debate over the mechanism of evolution, the theory of punctuated equilibrium, etc. That doesn't mean those who debate these points doubt evolution as a whole.

I'm pretty sure it was him, Mike. I did a search, found his email address at a website about him (are there two scientists named Otto Bergs involved in evolution?), and contacted him.

Apparently, however, Luigi did find a different Otto Berg, mainly because he was looking for someone knowledgeable in biological sciences (and therefore able to offer an "expert opinion" in evolution), and your Otto Berg's expertise is in space engineering, not biology.

Most scientists in any field, knowing the details of peer review and other processes that weed out bad ideas tend to accept the findings of scientists in other fields a little more easily than laymen, thus we get the idea that a monolithic "Science" says certain things (unanimously).

But each individual scientist is a unique, fallible person, and like any person can have blind spots and be illogical and wrong, especially on subjects outside his field of expertise. If Berg is not a biological scientist, his opinion on the subject has no more weight than yours, or mine, or Luigi's.

You are right:

Just because a man is a scientist doesn't mean that all of his philosophies agree with those of the monolithic "Science." And even if they do, there may be political considerations that prevent him from making the political decisions that seem to the "best" to further "Science."

Um, not necessarily. I happen to know a retired NASA scientist, Otto E. Berg, who lives in Maryland. He has 2 earned PhDs, one in physics and one in astronomy. He did some of the research with captured German V-2 rockets that were brought back to the USA. He designed one of the experiments that the Apollo astronauts took to the moon.

AND HE IS BOTH A CHRISTIAN AND A CREATIONIST.

I have been unable to verify any of this, except that there is an Otto E. Berg listed among "creation scientists" on ICR with this c.v.. Notably, he has a B.A. in Physics and Chemistry, and did work for NASA, but only on their "Meteroid Environment Panel" and earlier at the Goddard Space Flight Center as head of the "Cosmic Dust Section."

Exactly what is his expertise in matters of biology or evolution more specifically? Simply because someone is a scientist does not mean their views about creationism are anywhere more credible than, say, mine. This is simply a fallacious argument from authority or one based on specious "credentials."

And the term "scientific creationist" is simply a contradiction in terms. Creationism, be it Intelligent Design or Young Earth, is neither scientific nor logically sound.

So if someone has a model of the solar system in his room, YOU SAY that it's not logically sound to say that that model of the solar system did not create itself, by means of a series of accidents. Yeah, right.

I'm not even sure what you mean by that. But in any case, Josh never said anything even resembling that.

Luigi, I think Mike Brill is attempting to argue intelligent design, but I don't think this is the correct board for that...

So if someone has a model of the solar system in his room, YOU SAY that it's not logically sound to say that that model of the solar system did not create itself, by means of a series of accidents. Yeah, right.

No, I'd say it's not logically sound to claim that God created it.

As for your comment about a series of "accidents," you evidently don't have the slightest idea about the nature of probabilistic processes. But that's a discussion for another board.

Yes, Nick, I know it's not the right board, but after discussing the matter with Tom and others, I decided to move misplaced threads to the appropriate boards only after they've died down, because some who do not use the Last Day page to monitor ongoing discussions have stated that they have trouble finding them when I move them.

Luigi, I was more hoping Mike would pick up the hint and go to the Evolution vs Creationism board where Intelligent Design has been given a good thrashing... at least, I think that's the board...

Harvey: Most people with a college education have the ability to think critically (or should have the ability, but since this is an debate on the ideal), especially lawyers. The only major advantage of a natural Scientist is an skill in quantitative thinking (ie math and numbers), which most liberal arts majors have problems with.

For an example of quantitative thinking, Bush's SAT score's were higher than 90% of the population. ;)

Josh Gould: It's one of the trade-offs of a democracy. Power in one becomes base, and is reduced to either political, legal or financial, and whoever has the right combination of popularity, and money is allowed to impose their viewpoint upon the rest of us. What we need is a viable aristocracy, not the upper middle class of plutocrats that substitutes for one. Of course, that's the ideal, and will never materialize. But I think that's the point of this discussion.

First of all, I wanted to point out, among other things, that a scientist is not necessarily an atheist.
Luigi: I was questioning the "logical soundness" of Josh's assertion. Since the MODEL of the solar system, IMO, had to have been made by some person, then how is it "logically sound" to insist that the ACTUAL solar system had to have "just happened"?
Harvey: A while back, a prominent anti-nuclear-power activist used to proudly proclaim that the only physics he ever took was Ex-Lax.
NSetzer: OK, everything that anyone ever thought was produced by you, just happened by itself, and you have never designed anything!

I would say not at all, Mike, since the two are not analagous. One can examine a model and clearly see evidence of artificiality. No one, however, has ever found conclusive, peer-reviewed evidence of design in the actual solar system. Indeed, it's been pointed out by (by Richard Dawkins, I think) that the universe conforms to all the aspects that one would expect to find in a natural universe.

Luigi: "Natural" need not be synonymous with "accidental". Also: In our solar system, all of the gas-giant planets are outer planets, but astronomers researching extrasolar planets have found that many such star systems have truly massive INNER planets, thereby making an Earth-sized planet at the right distance impossible in those star systems. Is our solar system different by accident, or by Somebody's choice? Can we ever be CERTAIN, without falling back on, "Because I said so!" . . . ?

First of all, I wanted to point out, among other things, that a scientist is not necessarily an atheist.

That's not a big revelation, but having religious beliefs is not synonymous to believing in biblical creationism!

Luigi: I was questioning the "logical soundness" of Josh's assertion. Since the MODEL of the solar system, IMO, had to have been made by some person, then how is it "logically sound" to insist that the ACTUAL solar system had to have "just happened"?

First of all, the phrase "just happened" is a loaded term. The solar system didn't "just happen" - it is the result of billions of years of stellar evolution, from the formation of the sun to the emergence of the planets. Second, your two points are entirely different. Of course someone had to make the model of the solar system, because by definition that's what a model is - a representation or approximation of the characteristics of something else. Your argument does not work at all.

Luigi: "Natural" need not be synonymous with "accidental". Also: In our solar system, all of the gas-giant planets are outer planets, but astronomers researching extrasolar planets have found that many such star systems have truly massive INNER planets, thereby making an Earth-sized planet at the right distance impossible in those star systems. Is our solar system different by accident, or by Somebody's choice? Can we ever be CERTAIN, without falling back on, "Because I said so!" . . . ?

It may just be that solar systems like ours are incredibly rare. Or it may be that we just haven't explored enough solar systems yet, which we haven't. It is a far bigger leap to say "God did it," a completely invalid conclusion for any supposedly scientific argument.

Mike Brill: "Natural" need not be synonymous with "accidental".
Luigi Novi: I didn't say it was. "Accidental" was your word, not mine. My point is that an artificial model contains evidence of its artificiality, evidence that will withstand the Peer Review Process. The universe has not yielded any to date.

Mike Brill: Also: In our solar system, all of the gas-giant planets are outer planets, but astronomers researching extrasolar planets have found that many such star systems have truly massive INNER planets, thereby making an Earth-sized planet at the right distance impossible in those star systems.
Luigi Novi: That doesn't mean all solar systems are like that. The Milky Way contains 200-400 billion stars. We haven't even begun to approach having studied 1% of that yet.

Mike Brill: Is our solar system different by accident, or by Somebody's choice? Can we ever be CERTAIN, without falling back on, "Because I said so!" . . . ?
Luigi Novi: I don't know if we can ever be certain, since the existence of a God is untestable, but no one in the scientific community, to my knowledge uses "Because I said so" argument, which is simply the Bold Statement Fallacy. That tends to be an argument of the creationists.

The topic of discussion of Intelligent Design's validity should really be moved to another, more appropriate, board; however, I did a key word search for subjects with "Intelligent Design" and didn't receive any hits. I don't think it belongs in the Evolution v. Creationism board since it really can be discussed all on its own. I have therefore created a topic here and you will find my response there.

I don't think it should discussed on its own. It's a significant part of the EvC debate.

Luigi, you moved the thread about half an hour too soon. Both NSetzer and I responded on the other thread while you were in the process of moving.

Well, I disagree since it exists on its own, but I guess that's now up to the Moderator of RM or Phil.

I agree. As it is usually argued, the Evolution vs Creationism debate is integral.

Although it is possible to accept the core elements of both the scientific aspects of Evolution and the philosophical/religious aspects of Intelligent Design, such a position simply collapses into either an admittedly unprovable theory of Guided Evolution or into classic Deism.

Since NSetzer created the new board on RM, I'll integrate it into the EvC boards there in a little while.

NSetzer: Well, I disagree since it exists on its own
Luigi Novi: How does it exist on its own? ID is the oft-cited argument by creationists in the EvC debate.

Just because it's used to argue against evolution, doesn't mean it requires evolution to exist, does it? If you're not convinced, I could easily turn your statement around and say that evolution doesn't exist on its own because it's the oft-cited counter to the creationists... but I'd say that my previous statement was absurd.

So, in case there is confusion about what I mean, Intelligent Design is a philosophical entity in and of itself, which can be flawed with or without the existence of evolution.

But without the evolution controversy, ID is a theory with no purpose. It is irrelevant to the other two philosophies that (can) embrace it. See my remark of 2:43

Evolution, as a topic of debate, doesn't exist on its own. The debate over it only exists as part of the EvC controversy.

ID is not a philosophical entity in and of itself. It was conceived entirely as a new form of creationism distinguished only by the scientific-sounding jargon and euphemistic name with which it was dressed up by the creationists. ID isn't even a philosophy. It's simply creationism, which is one aspect of a philosophy.

That's not quite true. Argument to Design (the Teleological Argument) is one of the classic attempts to prove the existance of God. Thomas Aquinas argued it centuries before Darwin. But it was no more than an intellectual exercise before Science clashed with Religion, most notably in EvC.

Evolution, as a topic of debate, doesn't exist on its own

That's not quite true either: any scientific theory is quite open to debate about its individual validity without the requirement of having a competitor. Now I grant you that we are in a position where it is scientific fact that evolution does occur, but that doesn't mean it wasn't debated and still isn't (not validity of course, but details).

Evolution, as a topic of debate, doesn't exist on its own

"Evolution" was probably a typo on Luigi's part. He almost certainly meant "Intelligent Design." The next sentence: "The debate over it only exists as part of the EvC controversy," is likely not meant to say that Evolution can only be discussed in the context of the opposition of Creationism. More likely he meant to claim that ID only exists in the context of EvC. At least that is the assumption I made in my reply.

Nsetzer: That's not quite true either: any scientific theory is quite open to debate about its individual validity without the requirement of having a competitor.
Luigi Novi: We’re not talking about whether it’s open to debate. We’re talking about whether it is being debated in any context other than the EvC one. Debated and Debatable are two different things.

Nsetzer: Now I grant you that we are in a position where it is scientific fact that evolution does occur, but that doesn't mean it wasn't debated and still isn't (not validity of course, but details).
Luigi Novi: Precisely my point. Evolution’s validity as a whole is only debated in the EvC schism. The only other context in which aspects of it are debated is in the gradualism-punctuated equilibrium schism.

TomM: "Evolution" was probably a typo on Luigi's part. He almost certainly meant "Intelligent Design." The next sentence: "The debate over it only exists as part of the EvC controversy," is likely not meant to say that Evolution can only be discussed in the context of the opposition of Creationism. More likely he meant to claim that ID only exists in the context of EvC. At least that is the assumption I made in my reply.
Luigi Novi: No, I meant what I said. The precipitating point to this thread was Nick’s assertion that ID deserves its own board because as a debate topic, it exists apart from EvC. I said it does not, as no one is really doing so. He said he could turn my statement around and say that evolution doesn’t exist on its own apart from EvC as a debate topic, and here I affirm, and no, it doesn’t. (See above.) I’m talking about the typical contexts in which the subjects are discussed for the purposes of deciding whether ID deserves its own board, since boards should be somewhat encompassing, and any discussion of ID will inevitably lead to the EvC debate as a whole. Not whether it “can” be discussed.

OK, I see now. I had to read all three parts of your post several times to get your point. You are not arguing to the points, you are wearing your moderator's hat and declaring that there is only the one purpose in arguing any of these subjects here in RM/PM. I agree.

Ironically, as we debate Intelligent Design, Pennsylvania teaches it...

We’re not talking about whether it’s open to debate. We’re talking about whether it is being debated in any context other than the EvC one

Maybe you are doing as such, but I certainly was not. I wanted to debate the validity of Intelligent Design on its own merit. Mike Brill's comment was that anything I created happened by chance, I wished to show that there is a distinction between what I've created and the Universe; that the ideas of Intelligent Design themselves have a fundamental flaw.

Luigi Novi: No, I meant what I said. The precipitating point to this thread was Nick’s assertion that ID deserves its own board because as a debate topic, it exists apart from EvC. I said it does not, as no one is really doing so

'No one' maybe currently doing so, but does that mean that I can't? I mean, must I decide what I wish to debate based on popular opinion? And in any event, as TomM has pointed out, it was debated many years before evolution came along.

If you are indeed doing as TomM states, I did not get that at all, and I still disagree; although I may need to concede that it will lead to an EvC debate given the post by Anonymous (identical to the one above by Anonymous #228). I, however, did not intend to mention evolution at all.

Nsetzer: Maybe you are doing as such, but I certainly was not.
Luigi Novi: No, we both were. Again, you were saying that ID needed on its own board, and I was saying that it did not. That was the disagreement from which this thread stemmed.

Nsetzer: I wanted to debate the validity of Intelligent Design on its own merit.
Luigi Novi: “On its own merits” is not the same thing as “on its own board.” You can discuss the merits of ID on the EvC boards because that’s what those boards are for. The ID argument is simply one creationist argument or approach out of many, such as “Evolution leads to eugenics,” “Evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics,” or “There are no transitional fossils.” It belongs on the same board where all those other tactics are discussed.

Nsetzer: Mike Brill's comment was that anything I created happened by chance, I wished to show that there is a distinction between what I've created and the Universe; that the ideas of Intelligent Design themselves have a fundamental flaw.
Luigi Novi: Right. And that belongs on the EvC boards.

Nsetzer: 'No one' maybe currently doing so, but does that mean that I can't?
Luigi Novi: The fact that no one is doing so is precisely why there is no need to create a separate board for it. Again, you’re discussing an issue that exists as part of the EvC debate. You said it’s separate. I pointed out that it’s not. If it’s not separate, what does it need a separate board for? It’s not a question of “can’t.” It’s a question of whether there is a point in doing so vis a vis the need for categorization of topics.

It’s like wanting to a separate board for Bush’s inauguration, or his flashing that “Devil’s Head” sign on a separate board, when such flaps clearly belong on the George W. Bush and his Presidency board. Arguing whether you “can’t” discuss those flaps separate from the pre-existing topic under whose umbrella they would logically belong misses the point. The point is that those flaps are not distinct from the overall topic, and that it makes no sense to give them their separate boards.

Perhaps a more accurate example would be the Condi Rice confirmation. Such a topic certainly might generate a distinct discussion, and it’s even possible for it not to veer onto Bush in general. But because that topic is so clearly an aspect of his Presidency, it is simply good sense to keep on the board devoted to it, because that’s what that board is for. In addition, the confirmation is a flap that will eventually pass, giving it its own board would raise the question of when an individual flap needs to be given its own board, and what then, is the whole point of having a Presidency board.

Nsetzer: I mean, must I decide what I wish to debate based on popular opinion?
Luigi Novi: We’re not talking about what you wish to debate! We’re talking about where the board for that debate is.

Nsetzer: And in any event, as TomM has pointed out, it was debated many years before evolution came along.
Luigi Novi: First of all, that’s not true. The essence of it may be, but its current name “Intelligent Design” is a recent development, one which was devised for the EvC debate.

Second, what does the fact that it came along before evolution have to do with it? The point is that ID is today discussed as part of the EvC debate, and indeed, it’s been discussed on those boards to date. Why now create separate boards for it, particularly when threads regarding it will likely veer either towards EvC in general, or towards other aspects of it, as threads tend to do, and when there are such boards for it on both PM and RM? Many other aspects of the EvC debate may have predated Darwin and Russell’s publication of natural selection. Does that mean we should give them their own board too?

Boards need to strike a balance between generalization and specificity of topic. As an example, if Nitcentral were brand new, and were composed of say, five or six visitors, who visited it every so often, then a single “Presidents” board might be enough to contain all their discussions. But as time passes and the number of visitors and frequency of visits increase, it then becomes necessary to subdivide the topic into individual administrations. So too does it work with ID. If people tended to discuss ID in a manner that was qualitatively distinct from EvC, and if enough visitors did so, then its own board would be justified. Right now, it’s not.

Maybe you are doing as such, but I certainly was not.

No, we both were. Again, you were saying that ID needed on its own board, and I was saying that it did not. That was the disagreement from which this thread stemmed.

Luigi, That may have been what you were doing, and what you thought NSetzer was doing, but if he says he was doing the other, you should accept that you misunderstood him, just as I accepted that I'd misunderstood you on the same point earlier.

I wanted to debate the validity of Intelligent Design on its own merit.

“On its own merits” is not the same thing as “on its own board.” You can discuss the merits of ID on the EvC boards because that’s what those boards are for. The ID argument is simply one creationist argument or approach out of many, such as “Evolution leads to eugenics,” “Evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics,” or “There are no transitional fossils.” It belongs on the same board where all those other tactics are discussed.

....

The fact that no one is doing so is precisely why there is no need to create a separate board for it. Again, you’re discussing an issue that exists as part of the EvC debate. You said it’s separate. I pointed out that it’s not. If it’s not separate, what does it need a separate board for? It’s not a question of “can’t.” It’s a question of whether there is a point in doing so vis a vis the need for categorization of topics.

But he wasn't asking you to open a separate board on PM. Instead, he opened one on RM. On RM it can be discussed separately from EvC, because strictly speaking (despite the attempts of Creationists to press it into service) ID does not argue special Creation, but merely the existence of God.

Still, it is not completely independent. That is why I moved it under the Apologetics board. Where all the "proofs" of God belong.

Since NSetzer has moved the substantive portion of the discussion to that new board, and we are all finally agreed that the "debate" here has mostly been about moderating the topic rather than the issue itself, I suspect that this will close this discussion here for now (with the possible exception of any comments you have about this post).

IMAX films that reference evolution banned by certain theaters. I first read the story here, and Roger Ebert's commentary on it here.

I agree that this is very silly. I would like to make a point though. It seems that in creationism/evolution arguments, two things get conflated:

1. Evolution, by itself, does not disprove the existence of God. Some Christians apparently feel the need to explain things for God as if He needs a "way out." Nonsense. Some evolutionists, the more radical ones, seem to feel that evolution as a way to explain the earth's origins disproves that God exists. Also nonsense. Both sides need to realize this.

I'm not sure why I said I had two points and why I numbered my only point. Fear and surprise and an almost ruthless...

Moderator, it looks like the E.vs.C Board 3 (as seen on Last Day) is conflicting with Politically Correct Jokes Board 3.

MikeC: Some evolutionists, the more radical ones, seem to feel that evolution as a way to explain the earth's origins disproves that God exists. Also nonsense. Both sides need to realize this.
Luigi Novi: Mike, I don't think any significant number of advocates of evolution believe this. By contrast, a far greater percentage of creationists assume that the two are incompatible.

ScottN: Moderator, it looks like the E.vs.C Board 3 (as seen on Last Day) is conflicting with Politically Correct Jokes Board 3.
Luigi Novi: As far as I can see, there is no Politically Correct Jokes Board anymore. The board now is EvC. (For some reason, after retitling the boards, the new names show up on the list of subtopics, but their old subtitles remain on those boards in question.)

From what I can figure Ihave to agree with Luigi that more creationists can't seem to accept the possibility of evolution being real than evolutionists accepting creation.

I am a firm evolutionist but if given sufficient evidence i could acept that a creation force set the rules of evolution up and then took a hands off to everything. Sort of like how I create a game world when playing RPG. I set all the rules up and then watch how things go from there.

R, that's a Deist philosopy. I actually tend to that theory myself (I call it the "G-d the Watchmaker" theory).

I could believe in God using evolution, but I cannot believe in God-the-Watchmaker because that would remove all central tenets of Christianity.

I'm not sure what philosophy I could call it. But I do not believe that there is a manifest destiny or plan for thigns in the world. Stuff happens because there is a definate definable cause that does not require supernatural influence.

As you believe. I myself have faith that th ere is a divine plan in the world.

Here's a good idea.

Cute.

I would change one phrase: "not supported by [scientific] evidence."

That's the only type of evidence that really is evidence.

From your point of view. Spiritual evidence is convincing for me.

But how is that relevant to a science text?

I still fail to see how spiritual evidence demands taking Genesis literally. My faith has no problem believing in Genesis as a mythical account of why and accepting evolution as to the how.

Besides, Mike, if spiritual evidence is enough, what about all the other creation stories - asian ones, where the earth is created from the body of a god? The norse one, where the world is made of ice, and the asen make a god, which licks the ice to reveal the first man? (Can we teach diskworld in the classroom, too? I find it very close to real life... )

I would have to agree in a science book the blue sticker would have to be required if they put the green one in it. Of course if my kid's teacher tried to force religious dogma on them in a science class as fact I would yank them out of there so fast their shadows would have to run to catch up.

And Mike I have to ask this in all seriousness. After Noah loaded a ship with only 2 of every animal on the planet (even those animals from areas where the jews had not been) they went out and repopulated the planet? With a genetic base of only 2 animals you are looking for trouble. Believe me I live on a farm and know that you have to have a bit of freash blood every so often to keep the breed from going all funny on you. Inbreed your animals too much and bad things happen.

That goes for humans as well.

It isn't relevant to a science text. Creationism as a whole isn't relevant to a science text because there is no scientific evidence. I just objected to the phrase "no evidence." That implies there is no reason to believe what I believe. Which is not true. Others may have perhaps legitimate reasons to not take Genesis literally; I do.

R, well, the planet started from two people in the beginning--certainly divine intervention played a hand.

That implies there is no reason to believe what I believe. Which is not true.

I don't get this argument. Are you saying there's a logical way to prove faith? Otherwise, what reason do you have? Faith comes from belief. It's the very definition of it. You don't need to believe in gravity, because you can prove it by dropping a penny. You don't need a reason to believe that 2+2=4.
You choose to believe (or not to believe) in Goodness, Love, Hope, a Future (hopefull, a better), a Soul, An Afterlife of some kind or another... and (a) God(s/Goddess/es).
Can you prove a reason to believe in Love? You can cite experiences till the cows come home; but someone who doesn't believe can explain them away and counter with his stories till the cows come home.
Likewise, you can tell stories of what you experienced as God in your life, and a muslim, or hindu, or non-believer can tell you their stories of their deities working in their lifes, or not working.
So where's a reason for your faith? You have your own personal story, and your own belief comes from that. That's not a reason valid for anybody else.

Ok. Well all 5 billion or so humans on the planet all came from only 2 people? Including all of the various ethnic/cosmetic divisions?

Also if all people where created from just adam and eve then who where the others that cain went to live with? (The children of men? i think they where called I don't have a bible so I'd have to run over to mother's to look something up or find one online.) Or what about all of the anthropological and archaeological evidence about human development from primate like creatures?

What about how human development since the middle ages has increased the average height (and weight sadly) of people.

What about the various other creation stories like constanze pointed out? Would not the christian god (as he is a jealous god) not allow the people he created to have other stories if the christian story is the only one? Or is it that each region of humanity developed their own creation stories to go with their cultural development.

I have no problem with teaching the creation stories in a historical or cultural understanding setting as humanity invented the stories (and religion in general) to understand the world around them.

Even in the Bible people worship other gods. God doesn't force people to worship Him. And I don't know about the scientific details of it all; as I've said, divine interference is likely. This is an omnipotent god we're talking about here; I think He can control the laws of science. And yes, this does mean that it isn't a scientifically proven theory. Never said it was.

Cain went to live with, probably, relatives. Adam and Eve were having other children at this time and Cain probably married a relative (not a big deal at this point in history). I can't say for certain because I wasn't there.

Constanze, maybe it's a semantic thing we're hung up on. I don't know if it's a logical reason or not, but I do have a reason. My faith, the impact on my life, what I have seen God's Spirit do are all reasons.

Ok I just got back from mother's (right across the yard) and looked up (The online bibles are too much of a pain) what i was talking about.

The son's of god where what the giants where called. Which is what has always puzzled me. I mean where did cain, abel and seth get their wives? It couldn't have been their sisters.

This is one of the things I had a problem with in religion. The inconsitencies, contradictions and outright poor editing the humans who wrote and compiled the various stories and oral traditions that had been going on since the birth of civilization did.

I will accept the bible as a story book, an allegorical tale of the history of humanity as written by humans. But as a totally true and unflawed work from a supreme being scares me as i don't think the universe is that messed up. Or at least I hope it isn't.

Personally i find it much more beuatiful, awe inspiring, and spiritually fulfilling to look at the universe without the blinders, filters and misperceptions and misconceptions religion brings to the table.

Sorry Mike but the way I read things it went like this. Adam + eve then eve birthed abel and cain. Then abel got married to someone, and cain killed abel then went to live with the folks in nod (while being marked and afraid that all those who see the mark will kill him) and as far as i can tell the only other kid the adam+eve duo had was seth. (I sorta tune out when they start getting to all the begatting)

Whats funny is the reason i walked away from religion was the negative impact it was having on my life and what i had seen and experienced when dealing with it. And as for not forcing people to worship the christian god (to differentiate it from all the other deities) there are a few people i know who would argue with you about that and want to pass mandatory church going laws (namely my wife's family, a preacher i remember interviewing to see if their church was one i wanted to attend back when i was still with religion)

A few notes:

1. Abel is not said to have married anyone.
2. Seth is never said to be the only other child of Adam and Eve.
3. Genesis 5 specifically says there were other children of Adam and Eve and is vague as to when they were born. In fact, Seth's birth is rather vague--it takes place after Cain's murder, but how long after?
4. Cain goes to the land of Nod; there is no clear indication that there are people there of any sort. Genesis sort of suggests that Cain may already have a wife before he leaves--probably, a relative.

Thus, it doesn't take that much gyrating to reconcile these facts. In fact, God could have made wives for Cain and Abel the same way he made Eve--from a rib.

Is there anything in the Bible that rules out God creating other humans besides only Adam + Eve? The Bible may say we're all descendants of Adam (I'm not sure) but since Noah's family were the only flood survivors and he was descended from Adam, that would still be true.

Hmmm, 'll have to take your word on things as i am a bit rusty on my bible stories.

But as to this relative marriage thing what sort of relative would that be? At that point in the story all the second generation people are creations of a deity directly, or they are brothers and sisters. Which is not a good thing to be when developing a marriage or children.

Maybe those particular facets of the story can be reconciled with a bit of gyrating but if the christian bible is supposed to be the one true word of the one true deity then why the need to gyrate anything anyhow?

Plus there is overlap between the various creation myths suhc as a universal flood. But one must recall that in the cradle of civilization where the bible's authors lived the river's flooding could be construed as a universal flood or exagerated when the oral tales finally got put down on papyrus.

No I'm sorry but there is no way to reconcile the bible as anythign other than a storybook, and an allegorical history of a small cultural grouping. At least for me.

I don't think incest was an issue at the time. Also, why must we assume the Bible to be easy to understand just because it is divine?

Its not just the taboo/ickyness factor of marrying your sister but the genetics of recessive genes in the children that would be the issue. Or would the laws of genetics be able to be violated back then and not now?

I would continue for now but must go to dinner before the wife sends me on a trip.

God doesn't force people to worship Him.

Oh? What's the point of the Second Commandment then?

Ok back. Unfortunately I lost most of the train of thought i had before supper. But since i didn't want to have my own last supper (or be wearing it, the wife is rather strict about dinnertime)

So I'll catch a bus. Now I know there is a passage in there where peter or paul (or ringo maybe) asked jesus why he didn't ever give a straight answer and he said that it teaches better. (yes i translated that into modern) So there is precedent for that. But here is where if I was a god I would want to make things explicity clear. Huamns have a nasty tendency to when in the absnece of clear and explicit rules to interpret them in the most self-serving way possible. (insert personal interpretation) And since the concept of religion is a human invention to try and understand the universe around themselves, to set down rules to control their people, and to help organize the oral histories and traditions that had already been developed. This is why the christian bible is such a mishmash of poorly worded and written passages that taken as a whole do not convey coherent "rulebook for life" but more of a guidebook if you will. (end personal interpretation)

Josh the second commandment (protestant/hebraic)is about the graven images or idolatry which can be interpreted to not mean you have to worship the christian god just not to make any images and worship them instead. It does identify that the christian god is a jealous god (a very human sin) and will punish not only the person who did wrong but the children of the person who did wrong.

The second commandment (catholic) is about taking the lord's name in vain.

The closet thing to forcing worship in the commandments could be the 4th (P/H) or 3rd (C) which is about keeping the sabbath day. (which is not posted in the bible)

Matthew 13:10-14 describes Jesus speaking in parables, which are hard to understand. God is difficult to understand--sometimes intentionally so. However, I believe he is very clear on what He wants us to know.

God COMMANDS us to worship Him; he does not force us to do so.

MikeC it's hardly a choice when you're alledgedly faced with eternal damnation for not doing so.

MikeC, I'd like to address your comment "That implies there is no reason to believe what I believe. Which is not true. Others may have perhaps legitimate reasons to not take Genesis literally; I do. "

Actually it is true that you have no reason to believe what you believe. Faith is not rational, reason is. Faith is belief in something inspite of evidence for or against. I want to make it perfectly clear that it doesn't matter which way the evidence is, faith doesn't care. This is irrational. Completely and totally irrational.

Now, once you have your faith, you may interprete the world to support your belief, but that is not a reason to believe what you believe: that is accepting as fundamental what you desire to be true, and then forcing the evidence to fit that. There is no reason there

If you don't give me your money, I'll shoot you several times. I'll make sure not to kill you, but you will be in pain the rest of your life. But hey, I'm giving you a free choice in the matter. Running away is not one of the choices. I may or may not actually have a gun; no, I won't show it to you because that would infringe on your freedom. Oh, and inaction will be considered a choice to be shot.

Hey, I didn't say it was a difficult choice!

Actually, I never used the word "choice" at all. I said force. A good analogy would be in the United States. We are not brainwashed to obey the law. We are "free" to break the law; however, we will be punished if we do so. That would be my analogy regarding God. We have the free will to disobey God, but we will be punished. Is it an easy choice to digest in our human minds? No. But that is the "choice" offered, like it or not.

And Nick, you are absolutely correct; faith stems from one principle and works out from that. I have faith that there is a God and interpret the evidence from that assumption. You are correct in that regard and by our scientific standards, that is lacking in reason. I apologize for being unclear.

OK so being commanded to do something or you will be hurt and condemned. yeah ok that is a kind loving and benevolent deity. I mean I am a supervisor at work and if I give a command my subordinates are required to obey them (as long as they are lawfully given ones) otherwise i could fire them (being at will employees). It is still forcing someone if it is force through direct action or indirect threat of punishment.

I would say more but I managed to drive 200 miles today for work and Nove and Nseltzer have made good points already.

Does that make you an unkind, hurtful, and bad boss to make people obey rules?

Only when you burn them eternally for disobeying (DISCLAIMER: according to some versions of Christianity; not all Christians believe in this concept). Anyway, if that is how God operates, "bad boss" is a gross understatement.

Nove, even on an earthly scale, punishment happens for disobedience. When someone disobeys rules, they get reprimanded/fired. God is no different, except He offers us a way out.

And, actually, "disobedience" does not cause someone to be separated from God. No person perfectly obeys. Rejecting God causes someone to be separated from God.

Well, you said "obey rules." That's why I said "disobeying." I was referring to disobeying God's edict to accept him or else. Maybe I should have clarified.

I'm not objecting to the concept of punishment. Of course punishment is a necessary and natural part of existence. I'm objecting to the extreme degree of punishment (unless you don't believe in that, which you haven't said); eternal punishment in a lake of fire, which Hitler could never dream of approaching in the level of atrocities.

I believe in the biblical explanation of hell, yes.

It makes me a bad unkind and hurtful boss if I cloud my rules in obscure parables, write a rulebook that is filled with contradictions, incoherency and expect the employees to be loyal to just me and my copmany otherwise we torture them for the rest of eternity. And I have heard "christians" say that merely disobedience to the rules of the bible can get you sent to hell not just rejecting god.

But to continue with the christianity as a company (rather apt) parable. Say I am the ceo of the company (god) I have a set of rules i want to give my employees (followers) so I have my managers (prophets/priests) write down my rules. But i don't give them straight out plain make sense english. I send them memmos or my vp down to them and give lessens or parables about what the company rules are. This lets the managers interpret my rules in their own way so each department (denomination) winds up having a basic understanding of everythign but their own way of doing things. Meanwhile the common employee is having to guess which department to work in and which rules are the right rules that the ceo wants followed and how they shoudl be followed. The failure to do so is not only having bad thigns happen at work (life) but to have your entire retirement (afterlife) ruined and sent to the basement coalpile (hell) forever instead of joining the ceo on the golf course (heaven). Now the employees can choose to be disobedient totally or jump around between the departments but since only i or my vp truely know the rules no one knows if they are doing the right thing or not. No matter how much they may think so or are told by their managers.


But one of the christian god's rules is obey me and worship me and only me as i am a jealous god. (from the ten commandments exodus 20) Visiting his iniquity upon the fathers and the children for the next four generations. So basically a person is guilty no matter what in that regards and if your father disobeyed (or even grandfather) then you are in trouble too.

And like Nove said the concpet of punishment is a natural part of life. I punish people at work (not enough according to my supervisor, they say i am too laid back about things) if they do something stupid but not for minor infractions. The universe on the other hand does not grade on a curve for cause and effect. You do somethign stupid like doing drugs, for example. If the law doesn't catch you, a fellow druggie mess you up then eventually the drugs themselves will get you. The universe in action.

But on the theme of punishment the bible is filled with excessive degrees of punishment.

He who woships another god shall be put to death Exodus 22:20

Blasphemers shall be put to death Leviticus 24:16

Work on the sabbath be put to death Exodus 31:15

Cure your parents be put to death Exodus 21:17

Do adultery both you and the girlfriend will be put to death Leviticus 20:10

Do we sense a theme here? I know the culture and level of civilization when the bible was written was rather harsh but humanity has grown up quite a bit since then.

If disobedience to the rules sent you to Hell, then we'd all be going there. Lusted? Lied? Used violence? Swore? Whoops, there I go...

You are also correct in that guilt transcends generations; that is why we are born with original sin and all of us require salvation.

The rules you quote applied to the Israelites and were harsh intentionally because the Israelites were God's people. The Israelites did not obey the rules anyway.

The analogy you give has a problem: It assumes the rules are the major concern of God. The law was never meant to save man; it was only meant to show the weakness of man. It is impossible for the "employees" to totally follow all of the rules. According to the Bible, man is saved through the simple acceptance of Jesus Christ, which would have to be worked into your analogy at some point.

Well by worshiping the vice president of the company (jesus) instead of the ceo (god) you are still not much better off (leaving out the debate and doubt I and others have over the divine nature of jesus of aramathea)because he doesnt know how to give straight answers to questions either. But if an employee simply goes ok I accept the vp as my one true master then why do we need managers (priests)? If the person has a personal jesus (a good song BTW) and deals with him the manager is not needed. Or is he?

Why would you be harsher with your chosen people than the enemies of your chosen? That is like the ceo saying that this department is mine so i'll beat them and turn the ac off and the muzak up in their cubicles so they'll love me more. Not exactly good logic there. Besides the laws of hammurabi, mohammed and the christian sects of the time as well as the hebrews where all abbout the same degree of harshness. Live in a harsh land have harsh rules.
I was told by a preacher man that the rason jesus died was to forgive us of original sin and that anything else was our own problems.

I will give you that the universe may not care about you following arbitraily set rules concerning behavior and morals. The rules the universe sets are very strictly and immediately enforced and are very unarbitrary. But human religions place a great deal of importance on following the rules to the point of absurdity in some cases (muslim requirements for women to be covered from head to toe, no beef on friday, no pork products whatsoever, circumcision (That must be a great welcome to the world party), preachers can't be married)

I agree that religions go too far regarding laws and regulations. So did Jesus. Jesus, for example, healed a person on the Sabbath and picked food on the Sabbath, which was illegal under the religious law of the day (and is illegal in the Old Testament). Jesus accused the religious leaders of caring more about laws than about actually helping people. God is not a beancounting god.

My interpretation of the Bible is that we are all "managers" (priests). The idea that there are people godlier and "more special" than the rest of us under the new covenant is faulty. There are pastors that lead us in an organized setting, but I don't believe you need "managers." My mother went to a church for many years that had no pastor; people just spoke as they felt led.

I'm not sure what the comment about original sin means. Jesus died to forgive us of ALL sin--past, present, and future.

I was kind of vague about God being harsher with his chosen people. God was so "harsh" because, well, as He says himself, He's a jealous God; He wants His people to worship Him and Him alone. That's why He was so strict, but also why He was so loving and why He blessed the people so much.

Ok I think I see where you are goign with the harsher treatment thing. But the whole special people attitude leads to trouble too. By saying that this person or group of people is more special, or chosen, or whatever is part of the rason the middle east (among other places and peoples) are having so much trouble getting along. Sort of like saying my daddy told me i'm special so i deserve this childish attitude.

And speaking of other childish and children related items is anyone else following the Kansas Evolution trial? For those unaware the State board of education is allowing creationists to attack the science of evolution and try to put a positive spin on intelligent design so that it can be taught on equal terms with evolutionin science classes. It doesnt look good as many of the board members are conservatives who are receptive to weakening the science classes.

If R's employees don't accept him as boss, he fires them. He doesn't throw them in a fire.

So God gave the Jews all these rules (many with the death penalty attached) and Jesus comes along and says, "You're following them too much." They must have been confused; no wonder they didn't believe he was for real.

The people were worshiping the rules and not God. Example: The Pharisees took the concept of the Sabbath and said that because you shouldn't do work, you shouldn't heal anyone or help anyone. While this could be argued on a technical basis, it is clearly not what God had in mind in establishing the Sabbath, and Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for doing so.

Actually, using the work analogy (which is becoming increasingly strained), God does "fire" his employees; it's just that there is nowhere else for them to go. It's not like they can transfer to another company at that point.

But an employee could transfer. By converting to islam, buddism, tao, or one of the many other religions an employee can transfer to another company christianity is not the only game in town. They are all equally valid.

And before a person says no they arn't relaize that that is coming from the narrow perspective of an adherent of christianity inc. Ask a jew, a muslim or a buddist if their religion is more, less or equal to christianity and you are likely to have some very interesting reactions.

Religion has been the number two cause of conflict, strife and suffering throughout history. The only thing that has caused more trouble is the struggle for resources.

I'm sorry, but my faith is useless if I consider other religions "equally valid." It is equally denigrating to a Jew or a Muslim to consider that.

In my faith (which the analogy, I believe, was mean to represent), I believe Jesus, who said that He was the only way to the Father. Thus, "transferring" serves no purpose.

That doesn't mean I must kill or repress people who do not share my religious purposes; it just means that we have completely different perspectives.

ANd yet many people ,of any faith, consider that difference of perspective worthy enough of a reason to kill, maim, destroy or otherwise denigrate those who do not share their perspective. Is everyone with religion like that. Not necesarily to the taliban level but more or less I have seen it in churches where one goes we are better than them because we are this and they are not.

(Note I am not being specific for two reasons one i feel this statement is already flirting with irritating people and 2 the reference i am making isnt specific to any one particular church or organization so you can pick and choose who you want in that statement.)

And yes your faith is useless to a follower of islam because jesus was only a mere prophet to them and not the one true prophet mohammed. So following jesus or believing in jesus means nothign to them. (means nothign to me either but thats a whole nuther discussion)

Speaking as an outsider to organized religion the basic facts and rules of the game are the same no matter what team you are playing for just change the colors on the shirts and which symbols you pray to. All religions want their followers to behave like good decent people. Harm as little as possible and help as much as possible. Whats funny is that can also be said of people without religion.

I could take four people. One christian, one jew one muslim, and an aethiest. And physically looking at them (as long as they had their pants on) you couldn't tell them apart most likely. Watchign how they behave, as long as they met the standards of a good person and harmed as little as possible and helped as much as possible, you couldn't tell the difference. So what is the big deal?

And yes my business model was set up to imitate christianity inc. Which sad to say is how too many churches seem to operate.

No, it is not Christian to kill, repress, dehumanize, etc. non-Christians.

I HOPE you could tell the difference between a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, and an aethist apart. Perhaps not in their actions, per se, assuming you have an earnest member of all three religions and an aethist that subscribes to the same basic morality as these three. But their motivations are exceedingly different; their meaning of life is completely different. For example, the Muslim strives to do good to please Allah and ultimately obtain a reward; the Christian works to glorify his God; the aethist works because of his moral philosophy, etc.

That is the big difference between religions. The point of a religion, at least Christianity, is not to simply have people do good, be decent, and not harm people. I don't need religion to do that. The point is to glorify, worship, and serve God.

Then if it is not christian to do so why is it and has it been done in the name of your lord jesus christ? The crusades, the rape and pillaging of the native americans, the current dehumanization of homosexuals as well as Bush's scary commetns on islam and the war on terror. Just to give some examples spaced out over several hundred years to show it is not something new. But more of a dogma dating back hundreds of years (which is one thing I have against religion, i mean it took what 400 years for the pope to finally apologize to Gallileo and admit he was right?)

And what I meant was just by looking at someone or their actions you cannot tell the difference. And unless they told you why it is that they are doing somehtign (assuming as you said they all had similar enough moral and ethical behaviors) you still would not be able to tell. And christians work to get a reward too (not being burned for eternity apparently not just a big enough motivator for some)

"There is no cause so noble you cannot find fools following it."

-Niven's law

A truly religious person would probably tell you why he or she is doing something: to glorify his or her god.

And there have been awful things done in the name of all kinds of stuff. Christianity is no exception. The Crusades were wrong. The killing of American Indians was wrong. I object to a great deal of the current treatment of homosexuals. Just because some people behave wrongly does not mean the actual cause is wrong.

Since the discussion about hell seems to have ended, I posted some thoughts about it in a more appropriate thread because somebody would probably jump on me for derailing this one. I'm not sure how to do a link for another board on the site, but it's here:

Religious Musings: Specific Debate Topics: Personal Decision Topics: Spiritual Journeys: How I Lost (or Found) My Religion.

Here's the link.

Thanks, Tom. I know how to post a link, but my address bar simply said something like, "nitcentral.com/discus." It seemed like there should be something more so I didn't think it would work.

No but if the dogma of that belief is what is the reason for the behavior in the first place then either the people should abandon the dogma or the dogma should change.

One of the reasons I left the church and all behind was the blind intolerant attitudes toward science and behavior among too many in power. A slavish adherence to dogma that was old when this country was new.

I would say more but i am at work and they are closing so i'll do more later from home.

Writing at work? Naughty, naughty...

And I don't quite buy the argument that if dogma is responsible for behavior, then the dogma is at fault. Let's say I'm a feminist and because I'm a feminist, I go around killing men (like SCUM). But wait! Isn't that a perversion of feminist doctrine? Yes. Should we abandon feminism as a whole? No. The dogma is not at fault; we are at fault. Does that mean that the extremist forms of said dogma should be taken care of? Absolutely. But people have done negative actions in the name of all kinds of things. That does not necessarily make the belief system at fault, but the believers.

Ok first I'll address what I should have said about the dogma. When the dogma of a religion not only tolerates but encourages a behavior such as discrimination and hatred or at least putting down somethign or someone different than themselves.

Feminisim does not encourage the killing of men. However there are pasages in the bible espousing violence or at least hatred of groups not approved by the christian god (or at least the very human authors of the bible)

I am not sure how much good this discussion is doing considering how far off topic the thread has been dragged. Not to mention that you and I seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum in regards to faith in religion.

I mean you appear quite firm in your faith while I am quite firm in my acceptance of relgion being a human invention and nothing divine or useful about it at all. I see relgion more as a drug. I do appreciate that this thread hasnt degenerated down into a I'm right you're wrong shouting match though. I have had that happen too much (most noteably my exfriends I mentioned on the how i lost my religion thread)

And I work at a car dealership as a detailer so I sometimes have downtime between activities.

Certainly we are at different ends; I find the discussion helpful as it allows me to understand your perspective and perhaps paradoxically, helps me to understand what and why I believe what I what believe. Do I think I am going to convince you to become a Christian by typing a few words on the Internet? No, not really. I do hope I got you to think, as you did me, though, perhaps providing a different perspective on Christianity than what you knew.

As for the passages in the Bible, that would be off topic indeed, perhaps we can talk about that further in RM?

Thanks, Tom. I know how to post a link, but my address bar simply said something like, "nitcentral.com/discus." It seemed like there should be something more so I didn't think it would work.

"http://nitcentral.com/discus/" is the url of the left frame. To get the url of the right frame, you have to break out of frames. I do it by right-clicking on the link in the "Next Day" or "Topics" frame and opening the link in a new window (as opposed to just left-clicking which only opens in the right frame.

LOL. More funny but appropriate stickers in this PDF file.

For the record:

1. I was taught creationism and I did just fine on my college application, thank you very much.
2. I was taught evolution and my morals were not corrupted as well.

Is it really that painful to learn evolution in school?

No it is not that painful to learn evolution in school. What was painful was when the teacher started to branch into creationism and all the science club tore him and his presentations to pieces. Figuratively of course the science club was about as physically vicious as a pack of rabid hamsters.

The AAPT speaks.

A reasonable statement. I have no objection to children learning evolution in school as long as they are permitted to learn and consider alternative theories outside of it.

MikeC, really? Because the statement we do not endorse teaching the “evidence against evolution,” because currently no such scientific evidence exists. seems to strongly indicate that the AAPT would permit no alternative theories to be taught (assuming that they had the power to permit and forbid, which they don't).

Note: MikeC specifically said "learn and consider alternative theories outside of it" (it = school, emphasis mine).

Outside of school it is the parents responsibility to teach whatever they feel to be correct. In school, in science class, only science should be taught.

Organizations may recommend or suggest but just like a person does not ahve to teach creationism because a relgious group promots it relgious people do not have to teach science unless they want their children to fail at school, jobs and generally be behind the rest of human civilization.

Remember it only took over 400 years for the catholic church to finally accept the copernican description of the solar system.

I think students should learn evolution. The doom and gloom theory you are proposing doesn't hold water with me though. As I've said, I believe in Creation and I think I'm doing pretty fine in school. Of course, I did learn evolution, so I guess that could be the reason why.

Because the statement we do not endorse teaching the “evidence against evolution,” because currently no such scientific evidence exists. seems to strongly indicate that the AAPT would permit no alternative theories to be taught

Well that's because all of the "evidence" against it is either "I believe it because the bible said it" (which has no place in a science class) or doesn't even come close to following the scientific method for how we create theories and get evidence. That's like saying that when we teach about the moon landing we should also teach the alternate theory that we didn't really land on the moon, just because some conspericy theorists think that we didn't and don't have any reliable proof. Or teach the hollocost (sp) and the "theories" that the whole thing was a hoax or was exagerated by history.

The National Geographic channel ran a program on those moon landing conspiracy nuts last week. They're mostly a bunch of lunatics living in trailors. They don't pose a real threat as do the intelligent design people . It's just so tremendously sad that so many Americans have so little respect for science in the 21st century. There just has to be a respectful way to try and convince them of the validity of evolution. People find a lot of comfort in religion for various reasons. For believers, I think too many evolution backers come across as hateful religion bashers. It's important that science remain science in schools. Supernatural beliefs aren't part of science. Politics shouldn't effect science education either. It just seems that efforts to get creationism into schools are more about politics than religion.

Last night, Bill Maher's HBO program ran a spoof on a school that teaches "anti-thinking". This "school" taught creationism and the idea that condoms don't prevent AIDS. It sounds like Bush's dream school!

But Brian, it would be appropriate to perhaps teach WHY there is a Holocaust denial school to be able to understand that. I realize that such a thing would be inappropriate in a science class, but I think in a civics/history of science atmosphere, a good discussion on the Creation vs. Evolution debate might help each side to understand the other better.

Civics and history, yes, since the Creation vs. Evolution controversey is a political one rather than a scientific one, so I agree.

Just chiming in to remind what i ahve always said is in agreement with Luigi. Science in science class creationism can be taught in civics, history or english lit.

Science redefined.

THAT IS NOT SCIENCE! Science is the search for the truth! For what is true and real and not the pursuit of swamp gas and dragons hiding behind bushes. Although I know one bush that will be happy to relax educational standards, maybe then he'll look intelligent by contrast.

I know the standards of science are being relaxed way too much but fortunately my local school has resisted and iss till teaching science in their science classes. But the broad whitewashing definition the creationists and their backers are trying to push would open the door for all kinds of BS too be able to be taught as acceptable facts in a science course. Stuff that would be better relegated to the creative arts department down the hall.

And yes I do continue to fight and pester my local and state boards of education to teach true science.

Er, science may be the search for the truth, R, but don't mistake it for the search for The Truth. Science is best understood as methodological naturalism, while Truth is never going to be agreed on.

Here's an example: I can point at a rock and you can point at a rock and we can all agree that it's a rock. You and I can also figure out what happens when that rock is thrown in a puddle. The scientific mindset would seek a naturalistic explanation (fluid goddamics, for example). No mystic gnomes in the water pushing things around with their spellcasting...

The article at CNN points to the correct problem: leave out naturalism and you don't really have science; you have whatever.

As an aside: Discussions of Evolution vs. Creationism at Nitcentral are always interesting, as they generally sidetrack into personal beliefs of various people, particularly MikeC's. Mike you're a nice guy so don't take it wrong when I say that your point of view is...irrelevant? Offtopic? By that I mean, you are not attempting to force your personal religious beliefs into the classroom.

The issue always remains those who think (apparently often correctly) that if they use the words of science to tart up their religious beliefs, it'll confuse enough people to set us back a couple of centuries as a civilization.

Merely offered as an observation. After years of participaing in discussions of this topic I have finally seen a trend other than "NO YOU ARE WRONG AND YOU SMELL BAD!"

Sorry. I got a bit excited. (Not in a good way either) You are correct in that by leaving out the natural description of events it opens up more mystical explanations.

You and I can both look at a rock. We can identify that rock as granite and describe its physical condition, status, location etc... We can also make statemetns considering how it has been weathered, where it came from and how it came to be where it is. We can describe the flight path as we throw it into the puddle and how the water reacts to the impact of the rock. These thigns are all truths as i see it. They cannot be held to be anything but what they are. We can call a granite rock a piece of chocolate but it'll break your teeth to try and eat it. That is what i am calling a truth.

Science is irrelevent to a person's personal viewpoint. I may not like it that i can't walk on water or fly but that's too bad. Science says that the molecular density of water is such that it can't support the weight of a human (Lake Eerie in Cleveland aside) so no human can walk on water. But its not just science saying that it is the universe itself all science does is reveal the writing on the pages for all to see. Science itself is merely the investigation and discovery of the physical characteristics of the universe at large and small.

And I know it is sad that there are those who would see an advanced society destroyed and sent back to a superstitious dark ages where anythign scientific is questioned or suspicious. And suposedly these are intelligent, educated people wanting this. If a society does not know science and does not practice science it falls by the wayside and is replaced by another society that is willing to give up its superstitions and actually learn about the world around them.

It's often been said that creationists want to blur the line between science and non-science, and that's a perfect example. The definition proposed in that story is not science, and even if some school board were dumb enough to adopt it, the scientific community would most certainly not.

Science is irrelevent to a person's personal viewpoint.

Considering that this is a nitpickers site, I have to say that that statement is incorrect (or at best, imprecise). While the phrase "a person's personal viewpoint" can mean a person's (not always well founded) opinions and beliefs, as you seem to have intended, but it can also refer to the physical frame of reference, and that is not irrelevent to Science, because in Special Relativity the frame of reference affects the equations.

Mark, do you mean that because I believe in creationism but do not particularly care if it is teached in schools, discussions tend to revolve more around personal beliefs, which are not really the issue? I'd agree with that.

The banana has a point. I did get rather general when using the words "personal viewpoint". From a nonscientific personal standing that does not indicate or include the physical frame of reference of the observing individual.

With this kind of science in our classrooms and people wonder why so many tech companies are outsourcing development jobs and importing workers from overseas.

To save money?

Seriously, the U.S., as a whole, has weaker education standards than a lot of other countries. It's not just science.

Brian, the more proper term is "offshoring". I am being picky because my rent is paid by a company outsourcing their work to my company...right here in the US.

Mike, that's a cogent restatement of my point, yes.

Tulsa Zoo to Add a Creationism Display.

The new Kansas Science Textbook (King James Version).

Please, we're not barbarians. It's the NIV!

I thought only KJV contains the truth, because the other translations have been "falsified" (according to Chick ) or "watered down because of the fear of policitcal correctness" (as some fundies say) ?

But others reject the AV because King James was a homosexual. Instead they (like Mike -- though I think in his case it is only because the modern language is clearer, not because of King James' sexual orientation) go with the NIV. As I recall, the preferred order of the modern translations is NIV, NASB, Amplified (as a study bible, but not for memorization), RSV (although the NRSV may be replacing it), and the NJB.

AV = Authorized Version = King James Bible
NIV = New International Version
NASB = New American Standard Bible
RSV = Revised Standard version
NRSV = New Revised Standard Version
NJB = New Jerusalem Bible

I enjoy all the different translations as I think they all bring something different to the party. BTW, Kenneth Taylor, the author of "The Living Bible," died earlier this week.

Also Kind James didn't really have much, if anything to do with the nuts and bolts of the King James version. He was the guy who said "I want you guys to translate the bible into English" and left it to them to do the work.

Some now oppose Newton.

()

I'm not sure, but I think you've been "Onioned" (if I may coin a phrase). That is, unless that the smiley means that you thought of that possibility already.

Yes, that's what it meant, Tom.

The Administration's policy on Gravity

Tulsa Zoo reverses itself.

"received so much flak from around the country and around the world"
Now, on to world peace.

Oh, and as for teaching evolution or creationism, shouldn't that be left up to the discretion of the teacher? Telling teachers to put aside (or worse yet, refute) their own beliefs is a violation of the First Ammendment's freedom of religion.
I honestly don't have a problem with teachers who believe in evolution teaching evolution. I also don't have a problem with teachers who believe in creationism teaching creationism. That way, children can get a broad education from both (or more) viewpoints so they can choose for themselves which view to believe.

Ok luigi you are right about that. Shouting fire without there being a fire. I didnt specifically specify that. This is one of those times where you are being a grumpy old man nitpicker ;-)

Now as for teaching creationism or evolution being left to the individual teacher. that would not help as the students who are taught the scientifically accurate truthful description of how the world works by evolution would have a leg up on the students who are taught the fantastical flase story of creationism. Not to mention it would violate sepocs as well as not be able to meet state standards. Creationism does not fit within the scientific principles nor does it have the ability to meeet the criteria of the scientific method. It is a question of faith. Either you believe in the story of creationism and religion and accept it without question or you do not. Evolution is scientific truth of how the world works weather you believe in it or not. It still goes on and does it itself with or without you.

Oh and to answer your question: In public schools teachers should not be permitted to teach creationism in science class under penalty of firing and that does not violate their freedom of religion as they are not being stopped from believing in whatever they believe just not recruiting or brainwashing impressionable children into it.

And if a public school i attended or my children attended had a religious image on the wall i would kindly ask the teacher to remove it and go over their head if they didn't. Depending on what the image was, why it was there and what the image was about as well as if it was age appropriate.

Children are not in science class to get a education in viewpoints that is social studies class down the hall. science class is to learn how the world works, the process by which things begin, develop or otherwise continue to exist and then cease to exist. Personal belief has very little to do with oh say how a fire burns, what happens if you dunk pure sodium in water etc....... That is science class. Debating on if a mystical being came down and sneezed on a pile of dirt and created a living creature is not science that is social studies or english lit fantasy section.

"Evolution is scientific truth of how the world works weather you believe in it or not. It still goes on and does it itself with or without you."

On the contrary, R, I believe that God created the heaven and earth and HE determines how the world works whether or not YOU believe it. God still goes on and does it Himself with or without you.

I agree that letting the teacher decide for himself or herself is probably not a good idea. But you can teach evolution without denigrating creationism as a "fantastical false story."

Secondly, religious images in schools are okay if:

1. It's on a locker or a bag or something which is a student's personal space.

2. The image serves a point. For instance, a world history classroom could have pictures of Jesus, or of Mohammad or Buddha or whatever on the wall, if that's what the kids are studying. They could even have the Ten Commandments or the Bhagavad-Gita on the wall if they're studying that. So Da Vinci's The Last Supper (an image in many public school textbooks) would be acceptable.

3. The image is not being used in a prosletyzing or worshipful manner.

So you don't think religion should be promoted by schools? Fine, that's your belief. (FTR, one of my PUBLIC college classrooms had a large picture of the Hindu god Ganesh on the wall, and nobody that I know of complained about it. I wonder if it had been a picture of Jesus, students would have it taken down...)

What kind of class was this?

And if you didn't want it, or thought they should have some christian symbol why didn't you say anything?

WIT: So you don't think religion should be promoted by schools?
Luigi Novi: Not public schools funded by taxpayer money.

WIT: Fine, that's your belief.
Luigi Novi: Sure. But it’s one that’s in line with Separation of Church and State. The idea that public schools should promote religion is not.

WIT: Now, as for what exactly religious promotion is is a debatable subject within itself. What about a picture of Michelangelo's David on the classroom wall? (forgive my spelling) What about a picture of Da Vinci's The Last Supper? Wouldn't that be promoting Judeo-Christian beliefs?
Luigi Novi: Not necessarily. It would depend on many factors, such as where they were placed, the intent behind their display, etc. If put in an art classroom, they’d come off quite obviously as promoting painting and sculpture rather than religion. Also, if they were placed in one’s private area, like their desk or locker, I do not feel it would violate SoCaS. Placing something large on a public wall, however, might be seen as a SoCaS violation, depending on the aforementioned circumstances, so the question would be whether The Last Supper would be seen as religious promotion. In my view, because the work has immense standing in areas other than religion, putting up would not need be seen as religious promotion.

WIT: Oh, and as for teaching evolution or creationism, shouldn't that be left up to the discretion of the teacher?
Luigi Novi: No. It should consistently reflect the Separation of Church and State, and as far as science classes are concerned, it should be left up to whether the material in question is scientific. Creationism is not science, so it has no business in a public school’s science class.

It is ridiculous to argue that whether a teacher should teach religion in a science classroom should be left up to the teacher, since doing this will blur the definition of science, and be detrimental to the children’s education. The only thing that belong in science classrooms is science. Leaving it up to the teach is like asking if we should leave it up to the teacher to teach Home Ec in Algebra class, or Literature in Woodshop.

WIT: Telling teachers to put aside (or worse yet, refute) their own beliefs is a violation of the First Ammendment's freedom of religion.
Luigi Novi: If a teacher wishes to teach science, then he or she must do so. If he/she feels evolution is against their religious beliefs, then they shouldn’t take it upon themselves to teach science to public schoolchildren.

To argue that requiring a science teacher to teach evolution violates their First Amendment rights requires us to broaden the interpretation of that Amendment to the point where it becomes meaningless. Consider this: If said teacher teaches creationism in their science classroom, doesn’t that mean that what he or she says may be on a test? Doesn’t that mean that I, if I’m a student in that class, would have to accept what that teacher says and make sure I indicate that on a test that touches upon that area? If I don’t, then I’ll get those questions on the test wrong. Won’t that violate my First Amendment rights to freedom of religion if that teacher’s religion is not my own?

And this is aside from the fact that evolution doesn’t require one to put aside their religious beliefs, much less refute them, since there is nothing in evolution, to my knowledge, that goes against any religion’s official dogma. Even Pope John Paul II accepted evolution as a fact of nature. It only contradicts the Bible if you’re a Biblical literalist, and Biblical literalism is not, as far as I know, the official dogma of any religion.

And if we teach religion in science classrooms, then which one do we teach? There are other creation stories from religions other than Christianity, after all. Why should Judeo-Christian creationism be the one that gets time?

WIT: I honestly don't have a problem with teachers who believe in evolution teaching evolution. I also don't have a problem with teachers who believe in creationism teaching creationism. That way, children can get a broad education from both (or more) viewpoints so they can choose for themselves which view to believe.
Luigi Novi: Which is fine so long as those two viewpoints are part of a curriculum to which they are both relevant, like sociology, social studies, or religious studies. They are not both relevant, however, to science. If you want to teach alternate viewpoints in science classrooms, they must be alternate scientific viewpoints, not religious ones.

R: Evolution is scientific truth of how the world works weather you believe in it or not. It still goes on and does it itself with or without you."

WIT: On the contrary, R, I believe that God created the heaven and earth and HE determines how the world works whether or not YOU believe it. God still goes on and does it Himself with or without you.
Luigi Novi: Doesn’t matter. That’s not science. And thus, it has no business in a science classroom. The only thing that belongs in science classes is science. Since evolution is a scientific truth that has been confirmed, it belongs there.

Also, in what way does is that “contrary” to what R said? Nothing in those two statements have to contradict one another. Your belief that God created heaven and Earth does not contradict that fact that evolution is scientific fact, and that this is an external idea that exists independently of whether one recognizes it or not. The same does not hold true for your belief in God.

Since I have a feeling the discussion might take off again (which I'm usually wrong, hence, the vast number of "part II's" in the old RM section that only have three posts), could we have a new board, please?

Thank you Luigi once again you have beaten me to a posting and probably said what i was thinking only in a bit more refined way. So to sum up What Luigi Just said :-)

So I'll just post this: Science for science religion for religion. The two are seperate thigns with seperate goals and purposes. Science tells us how the world operates and what happens if you do something such as step off a building. Religion deals with the hearts and minds of people and how they behave and what motivates people.

And WIT I do not believe in a god, goddess or any deities. I have not done so for going on 12 years now. The earth has been around 4.5 billion years while the concept of your god has only been around for about 2000 years. Various other deities have come and gone and someday yours will too. But the earth will still be here goign around the sun as the rules of science have shown, do show and will show.

...while the concept of your god has only been around for about 2000 years. - R

That's only partly true, R. The concept of Jesus the Christ is roughly 2,000 years old. The concept of the Judeo-Christian God (God the Father), on the other hand, is much older than that.

"But as for me, give me liberty or give me death."

Christians believe that the earth goes around the sun. That is equivalent to saying: "Your evolutionary belief will be gone someday. And people will still be breathing oxygen." The two statements are not related.