Descartes was wrong about a lot of things.  God being one of them.

So was Aristotle, who made fundamental errors about physics--and theology.

Newton was spot-on about gravitation, not so much about Creation.

.

None of them had the benefit of having read Darwin and his successors.  Those who propose in ID Creationism aren't idiots, just dishonest.  They lie for their faith.  They don't rise to the level of pseudo-scientists, who actually *BELIEVE* in their pseudoscience.

Pete, bear in mind the important distinction:  those *PROPOSING* Intelligent Design Creationism are liars.

It's the people who *FALL* for it who are idiots. 

You who adhere to the "real" science as opposed to "pseudo-science" remind me of the Catholics, who insist that baptism must take place in infancy, and the Anabaptists, who insist that the only real way to get baptised is to be fully immersed, as an adult. 

This type of dialogue also reminds me of the line in the song, Satisfaction, where it say, "You can't be a man, cause you don't smoke the same cigarettes as me." 

Contrary to popular myth, you can be a real scientist and still believe in God. 

BLT, the Catholics insist no such thing.  Are you running down the list of approved logical fallacies?

.

Appeal to authority.

Red Herring.

Collect 'em all!

I've been around enough Catholics to know their clear preference when it comes to baptism. 

As far as the authority argument goes, you are promoting science as the "real" and ultimate authority on all matters, so what is the difference?  You treat science as if it were the one "true" religion.  You assert something dogmatically that insists on allowing for a "margin of error." 

Science is all about observation. I know because I'm a actual scientist. I love it when people try and agrue what science is and they have very little education or understanding on the subject. However, the do have a few helpful URL's which allows them to spout the same tired old arguments.

While I believe in Intelligent Design and see the evidence all around me in the complexity of life, I do not teach it as it is not part of the curriculum. If a student asks, I might spend a minute or two explaining what it means. If they added it to the state standards in the form of "alternative theories on the orgin of life" I would be happy to cover it without getting into what I, personally, believe.

But, remember, we only spend a few weeks on the origin of life, anyway. It doesn't dominate the standards. So it would be a short discussion. The students, by and large, are christians and already have their beliefs.

Nope, I'll keep on treating them like idiots. Just like anyone that tries to tell me the world is flat.

So, let me get this straight.  You will keep calling Aristotle, and Descarte, arguably the fathers of your faith, modern science, idiots because they believe God was responsible for the origin of the universe?  Or would you make an exception in their cases, considering that, without them, science would not have a leg to stand on? 

Why do we keep beating a dead horse. No one is going to change his/her mind.  Why can't we let each other have their beliefs without making it a game of one-up-man-ship.  This is one subject that no one can win on. We all just end up looking ridiculous.

If it's a matter of the mind, then I would agree, minds are hard to change.  But I believe its a matter of the heart.  Acknowledging the possibility of a God requires a humbling of the heart. 

I have no power to humble hearts, but that's where my faith in God comes in.  God can soften hearts, even when my seemingly futile attempts to change minds always ends up being a dead end. 

No, BLT.

Add "Straw Man" to the logical fallacies.  We'll get 'em all.

.

He said in effect that anyone who bought into "Intelligent Design Creationism," a peculiarly modern version of the Creation Science shell game, *TODAY* was an idiot.  Not those who lived before Darwin, in a culture soaked in the irrationality of religious control, without the benefit of the hundred years or so of science proving evolution to be a fact.  Any of the three you mention, brought up to speed on the modern world, would conclude that they'd been wrong.  But then, Descarte, Aristotle and the like strike me as honest men--not like ID proponents.

.

But you know ID Creationism and cosmogenesis are two separate questions, right?

As long as they keep lying, we'll keep telling the truth.

I was under the impression that scientists of your ilk (the true scientists), believe truth to be relative, that there is no such thing as absolute truth.  So how can somebody lie in such a world of relativity?  They cannot lie.  They cannot tell the truth.  They can only put forth a hypothesis. 

Straw man again, BLT.  You'll never get through them all if you keep repeating yourself.

.

And I was under the impression that "bearing false witness against thy neighbor" was frowned upon by Christianity.  Guess I missed the footnote that said:

*"Unless you're misrepresenting a scientific paper, or repeating an argument you know has already been proven to be fallacious, or lying about where the original idea for your textbook came from."

.

"Intelligent Design Creationism" is based on lies about existing scientific truth.  It preys upon the gullibility of the public and no more deserves to be in the science classroom than the old "gypsy switch" scam deserves to be taught on Career Day.

Contrary to popular myth, you can be a real scientist and still believe in God. 

Yes, if you take your brain out and put it on the shelf when the subject of "God" comes up.

Old West Gunfighters would have been incredibly stupid if they emptied their gun and put the bullets on the shelf before a gunfight, wouldn't you agree? Any scientist that believes in a supreme being is having temporary spells of empty-headedness.

Real scientists that believe in "God" aren't real scientists.

Real scientists that believe in "God" aren't real scientists.

To put it in Limbaughesque terms, I suppose this would mean you don't believe Aristotle or Descartes were real scientists or real founders of your faith either.  You believe they are phony scientists. 

"Intelligent Design Creationism" is based on lies about existing scientific truth. 

Would you mind providing a specific example.  Which "lies" are you referring to?  I believe "hypothesis" would be a more correct term than "lies." 

Some folks have the compartmentalization necessary to separate their working lives from their private lives. 

Some, unfortunately, don't. Remember Bill Frist's "medical diagnosis" that Terri Schiavo was not in a permanent vegetative state?

"I question it based on a review of the video footage, which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office here in the Capitol."

God reared his ugly head in that one. Fortunately, Frist didn't have the last word.

One of my favorite scientists was Dr. Steve Bouscaren, my Anthropology professor at San Diego City College. He's a former Jesuit priest who chose to walk out of the darkness. He described his opinion on the existence of a supreme being in one word: "Lunacy."

To put it in Limbaughesque terms, I suppose this would mean you don't believe Aristotle or Descartes were real scientists or real founders of your faith either.

They did their best with the tools that were available to them at the time. They happened to be off the mark ever so slightly, which, as anyone who has studied a scientific formula knows, will provide you with an incorrect answer.

They did their best with the tools that were available to them at the time. They happened to be off the mark ever so slightly, which, as anyone who has studied a scientific formula knows, will provide you with an incorrect answer.

Now you've gone from sounding Limbaughesque, with the phony scientists allusion, to sounding remarkably Clintonesque.  That's a highly smooth way of gently escorting the elephant out of the room. 

The phony scientists I am referring to are contemporary scientists, who have tools such as radiocarbon testing that Descartes and Aristotle did not have. Phonies such as Harold S. Slusher, who in 1981 claimed that he had disproven "the theory of an 'old Earth' through radiocarbon testing" by claiming that decay rates can be changed by pressure, temperature, or chemical state. Slusher's theory, at best, could account for only a one percent change, which would mean the Earth would be only 4 billion years old instead of 4.3 billion. Slusher neglected to tell the public that his claim relied on rejecting two successful theories of modern physics: Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

These phonies rely on "hidden variables." God is one that they cite quite often, which is not surprising when you consider that their ideas consistently end up trapped in a maze from which there is no exit. Bringing up baseless "occurrences" that were "caused by God" gives them a much-needed albeit imaginary "solution."

These phonies rely on "hidden variables."

I can understand that these variables would seem to be hidden, given that you've stuck your head in the sand.  

I do not claim to be an expert on any of these theories, but I've always understood ID to be slightly different from creationism; the difference being that the former attributes the beginning of life and all things to God in the Bible, and the latter is not so specific as to the source of the *supreme creator.* 

Why is there no "intelligent evolution?"  Or how did the *substance* that became the "big bang" come about?  Is that to say that we all got here by accident?  That the intricacies of activity on a cellular level all the way up to the immenseness of the universe and what may lie beyond are simply chaos?  (I can think of some people whose descriptions would fit nicely with *accidental* and *chaotic.*)

You've ushered in an interesting perspective thecolornine and you've raised some challenging and interesting questions. 

Wow, BLT I think that was your most persuasive argument to date.

Ah.....sarcasm!  The last refuge of the intellectually cornered soul, trapped in the maze of his own fallacious lines of reasoning. 

My biggest problem with ID is that it's kind of an intellectual cop out. They say the universe is so complex we can't possibly understand it, so it must have been created by a supreme being.

When you look in the mirror and see the reflection of a person standing behind you, don't you assume that there is such a person doing just that, standing right behind you? 

I don't think it's such a stretch to look at the universe, and to assume that there must be a creator behind it.  Do you?

If you got an iPhone for Christmas (I'm sorry, for the holidays), and you noticed who compex it was, wouldn't you assume that someone intelligent designed it?  I think it would be a much bigger stretch to assume that it put itself together all by itself.

BLT, in the mirror example, there is *SOMETHING* projecting that image.   Have you ever had the experience of seeing someone standing behind you in a mirror reflection, turning around, and *NO ONE* is there?*  That's religion.

Now move on to optical illusions--it's a common experience to see a mirage or optical illusion that turns out not to be there but gives that impression to the mind.  God is a non-optical delusion.

.

Hey, we're up to the "argument from design" fallacy.  Making progress.

*(Except while chanting "Bloody Mary, Bloody Mary."  Or drinking too many of them)

There are other cultures (ex. Native American and Hinduism) that believe the creator is someone/something other than God of the Bible, Pete.

Personally, I believe there could be "intelligent evolution."  I don't believe that creationism and evolution have to be mutually exclusive.  I know the hard core believers in each camp will not be open minded enough to consider it, but that's okay.

Who created the creator then? By applying your logic, if everything in the universe was created, then certainly God (the creator of the universe) must have been created by someone? Who might that be?

I'll defer that question to someone more knowledgable than you or I, namely, Aristotle.  He spoke of that which is moved, and then he spoke of the unmoved mover.  That which is unmoved doesn't need a mover.  The unmoved mover sets that which is moveable into motion and then sits back to watch it move and to marvel at its movement. 

BLT, in the mirror example, there is *SOMETHING* projecting that image.   Have you ever had the experience of seeing someone standing behind you in a mirror reflection, turning around, and *NO ONE* is there?*  That's religion.

If your heart is open to receiving God, your heart will "see" or experience God, in all of his fullness, grace, and divine mercy.  If you call out to God, God will hear you, and you will feel God's presence.  I dare you to try it. 

When you look in the mirror and see the reflection of a person standing behind you, don't you assume that there is such a person doing just that, standing right behind you?

When you're in the barbershop and there's a mirror in front of you and another behind you, do you assume there is a long skinny room behind you with hundreds of pairs of barbers and BLTs, all slightly smaller than the previous pair?

I think it's a real stretch that just our solar system, nevermind the universe, got to where it is by anything besides chance. The star that gave birth to this solar system died in a super nova explosion. Our moon was another planet that crashed into Earth at just the right angle and speed to tilt the Earth, reform and give us tides and seasons. There's no plan.  

Better yet, I double dog dare you!

I think it's a real stretch that just our solar system, nevermind the universe, got to where it is by anything besides chance.

That goes for you too robbwillis.  There's nothing about experiencing the love of God in all of its fullness, that resembles chance in any way.  Ask to receive the love of God in your heart, and you will know what its like to experience God.  God will not deny himself to you if you open your heart and honestly reach out to God.  It's not your mind that needs to find evidence.  It's your heart that needs to be humbled (my heart as well, on a daily basis).  It's your soul that needs to be quenched.  My soul as well. 

Ah.  *TWO* mirrors.  No, it's fun to fantasize about the long room of infinite repetitions, but grown-ups realize pretty quick what's going on.

.

That's the attraction of religion, BLT.  It provides the *ILLUSION* of non-randomness.  This is technically called the Aneristic Illusion.  Most people don't handle chaos very well, unlike us Discordians.

Well, finding Hendrix is the next best thing to finding Jesus.  You're one step closer on the path to enlightenment.  Better yet, I'd like you to meet...

"Freud Meets Hendrix"

http://www.newsreview.com/s...

Now that's a real trip!

Hey, you think you had it bad?  I had to smuggle in all forms of rock music into the house in the form of cassette tapes.  Then I began to break in my parents, beginning with John Denver.  Gradually I worked my way up, until finally, my dad was so numb that he was driving around town all day with a BTO 8-track in his car stereo, blasting the music, and not even realizing it was on.  That's when I knew I had "Takin' Care of Business." 

Speaking of BTO...

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Free! If I can't find a song on youtube, I'll break down and pay the 88 cents for a download. Free is better....

November 13th at 8 p.m.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nov...