Intelligent Design is a hybrid creationist theory embraced by deists who believe the only explanation for the world's creation must be God.

The existence of God is accepted purely on faith, as is the creationist theory.

Proponents of ID have an unshakable belief that will not be swayed by any sort or amount of scientific evidence or logical argument.

Arguing against Intelligent Design is tantamount to denying the existence of god and therefore a futile endeavor.

Quite an exhaustive argument and a convincing one. Don't expect it to change alot of minds. Some people cannot accept the reality of contrary argument no matter how logical it is. (For example, when I look in the mirror I don't see gray hair--it's platinum blond streaks bleached out by the sun.) I expect your "poor journalist" will find another line of argument for her conviction of intelligent design.

If you weren't so skeptical, you probably wouldn't be so grumpy.  The idea of the universe having no ultimate purpose is a depressing thought. 

A humble heart will guide us to all truth.  Whenever I've humbled my heart, it's opened my mind up to the possibility of God.  Whenever I've hardened my heart and allowed pride to sit on the throne of my life, I've trusted in myself and my own mortal mind.  That's consistently been a big mistake for me.  The mind is a wonderful creation, but unless it is guided by a humble heart, it can easily lead any of us astray.   

Gee, BLT, to me it means the Universe is wide-open and *I* get to decide my ultimate purpose.  What a liberating thought! 

Regarding his grumpiness, I'll bet Cassandra was grumpy too.

BLT...

The heart pumps blood throughout the human body which serves multiple biological functions.  The heart does minimal cognitive or affective or emotional processing.  The heart serves in this capacity in very many animals, including all vertebrates, molluscs, annelids, and arthropods.   No plants or bacteria or cnidarians, however, have hearts.

The Bible makes the same error that the ancient Egyptians and other peoples of the times made in considering the heart to be the seat of thought, soul, and emotion.  Back then, folks thought the brain was just a way to cool blood...  We can understand that blunder when made by ancient physicians and thinkers like Aristotle: they didn't know enough biology or anatomy.  It is a confusing mystery, however, why that blunder would appear, again and again, in a work that is supposedly inspired by an omniscient entity who designed and created all things.  One would think that IT would know why IT designed the heart and brain...

But you, a modern, use the phrase "humble my heart" in a different metaphorical way than the Bible uses the phrase.  All you mean is... well... what, exactly?  As best as I can tell, it means "be gullible":  instead of thinking about it, instead of requiring evidence and reasons, just... BELIEVE!  This is lousy advice.  Using this advice, a lot of people have come to believe the silliest things because they have made themselves easy prey for even talentless conmen.

You already know this.  Your heart has not received the TRUTH of:  Thor, Nepthys, Hotei, Olorun, Yarilo, Kwatee, Kinich-Ahau, Apocatequil, or even Huitzilopochtli.  And your heart has not been humbled for Huitzilopochtli even though Huitzilopochtli demanded many sacrifices of human hearts.  As many as 70,000 human heart sacrifices were performed by the Aztec to Huitzilopochtli...

Now, these are all deities actually worshipped by from tens of thousands to millions of people.  Anyone wishing to research these non-existent deities can start at Godchecker ( http://www.godchecker.com/g... ).  Your heart has not been humbled to the truth of thousands and thousands of Gods, BLT...  Why are you relying on your arrogant andprideful and stubborn mind to exclude them?

You are shutting out an even longer list of nonexistent Gods from your heart, though.  All of the above deities have been worshipped by from tens of thousands to millions of people.  There is an open-ended list of deities yet to be worshipped by anyone, including Pepsicoketab the secondary creator of tiny bubbles, Yahwesusllah the tripartite deity of fused monotheism, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Well, that last one may be worshipped already.  The Pastafarians of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and their ubiquitous pirate-fish logo are the fastest growing church on Earth.  ( http://www.venganza.org/ ).  BLT, allow HIS noodly appendages into your aorta!!

One final comment here.  BLT... doesn't it bother you that the God that has found ITS way into your humbled heart is the one from the culture in which you participate?   You know, rather than Anata-Thewi, the consort of Phra-sao, she who compensates for his ill manners by spreading good fortune?  Because the obvious explanation to anyone willing to think it through... is that none of them really exist... they are all stories by hustlers and grifters taking advantage of the gullible.

BLT...

The heart pumps blood throughout the human body which serves multiple biological functions.  The heart does minimal cognitive or affective or emotional processing.  The heart serves in this capacity in very many animals, including all vertebrates, molluscs, annelids, and arthropods.   No plants or bacteria or cnidarians, however, have hearts.

I was using the heart as a metaphor.  I guess I've been listening to too much country music :)

The Bible makes the same error that the ancient Egyptians and other peoples of the times made in considering the heart to be the seat of thought, soul, and emotion.  Back then, folks thought the brain was just a way to cool blood...  We can understand that blunder when made by ancient physicians and thinkers like Aristotle: they didn't know enough biology or anatomy.  It is a confusing mystery, however, why that blunder would appear, again and again, in a work that is supposedly inspired by an omniscient entity who designed and created all things.  One would think that IT would know why IT designed the heart and brain...

Well, no matter how flawed the association is in terms of linguistic evolution, it means what it means today.  And if you were to try to get rid of the present metaphorical meaning, you would piss off an aweful lot of country singers out there, not to mention musicians in virtually every genre of music. 

But you, a modern, use the phrase "humble my heart" in a different metaphorical way than the Bible uses the phrase.  All you mean is... well... what, exactly?  As best as I can tell, it means "be gullible":  instead of thinking about it, instead of requiring evidence and reasons, just... BELIEVE!  This is lousy advice.  Using this advice, a lot of people have come to believe the silliest things because they have made themselves easy prey for even talentless conmen.

I think the "heart" word is really throwing you off, so let's just focus on the humbling part.  I find that when I humble myself, I am more open to the idea of God, and to the influence of God.  In my own mind, I want to be my own God.  I want to master my own world.  This is pride.  When I let go of the pride, it's not that I'm leaving my brain at the door, it's just that I'm opening my mind to other possibilities besides my own limited understanding of things. 

Your heart has not been humbled to the truth of thousands and thousands of Gods, BLT...  Why are you relying on your arrogant andprideful and stubborn mind to exclude them?

I only need one God in my life.  Too many gods is like having too many cooks in the kitchen. 

One final comment here.  BLT... doesn't it bother you that the God that has found ITS way into your humbled heart is the one from the culture in which you participate?  

No, that's how I was brought up, and that's how I believe.  But that's my journey, it's based on my roots, and my experience.  I don't insist that you travel my path and accept everything that I accept as truth. 

I knew what you meant, and you said it very well.

BLT, many of us have taken that one last step:  instead of excluding all but one of the gods, we just disbelieve in one more than you do.

Thank you, ApolloDawn. 

And, random, you have that right, and I'm not here to try to take it away from you.  

Your side's lying about me in large letters at the courthouse and schoolhouse.

.

Or have they changed it to "In God Some Of Us Trust"?

If they are lying, then show them that even a non-believer has access to the power and the grace to forgive. 

This film has been kicked around the blogs for what seems like years now~ rightfully so.Bad film,bad idea behind it. Allow people their beliefs,in school teach what is scientifically accepted,in Church teach what you want. Neither group needs to "put down" the other,IMHO it helps no one to do so.

Forgiveness will be given upon contrition.

.

When the signs come down, I won't complain anymore.

Have you heard about Carl Roger's theory of unconditional positive regard?  He borrowed the concept of "grace" from his years in a theological seminary before turning to the study of psychology.  Is conditional forgiveness really forgiveness at all? 

Yes.  It applies to the therapist-patient relationship.   In game theory a better strategy is proposed as "tit for tat *WITH* forgiveness."  That "forgiveness" is withdrawn if not reciprocated.

.

Jesus said "turn the other cheek," but he never said you had to let them hit it repeatedly.  Are you saying they'd take the signs down if I forgave them?  I doubt they'd do any such thing--but then, I'm generally a better Christian than those who erected the signs, I suspect.

Then I suggest making your own sign (like in the song, Signs).  Don't let anybody speak for you.  You've got your own voice. 

These blog entries, in part, *ARE* my "sign."  

No, they don't speak for me, they just presume to. 

The heart as used in scripture is a inadequate translation of the Greek word "Nous" which means the spiritual nature of man, the core of his being, the part of him that is the image of God, that is capable of speaking to God.  Sorry Publican ,but you based your entire long argument on your linguistic ignorance.  

See, I was perfectly willing to let BLT go his way, despite his obvious inability to address a basic issue about his religious beliefs.  Then Wayfarer jumped in with a typically silly response.  My use of "heart" had little to do with my main argument - it was largely play.  Wayfarere is typically just wrong that any part of my post is based on a mistranslation but both he and BLT make NO attempt to answer the main argument of my post.  

That is important and is on a par with someone serving on a jury who refuses to listen to argument or evidence and insists that the defendant is guilty because they dislike the color of their skin.  That argument is crystal clear to many atheists and the inability of the religious to attempt an adequate answer marks them as mainlining irrationality.  It is not an argument to ignore or put out of mind: if you can't answer it then you might as well believe that you are a 700-foot tall Pelican named Stella.  here, let me repeat it:

"You already know this.  Your heart has not received the TRUTH of:  Thor, Nepthys, Hotei, Olorun, Yarilo, Kwatee, Kinich-Ahau, Apocatequil, or even Huitzilopochtli.  And your heart has not been humbled for Huitzilopochtli even though Huitzilopochtli demanded many sacrifices of human hearts.  As many as 70,000 human heart sacrifices were performed by the Aztec to Huitzilopochtli...

Now, these are all deities actually worshipped by from tens of thousands to millions of people.  Anyone wishing to research these non-existent deities can start at Godchecker ( http://www.godchecker.com/g... ).  Your heart has not been humbled to the truth of thousands and thousands of Gods, BLT...  Why are you relying on your arrogant andprideful and stubborn mind to exclude them?

You are shutting out an even longer list of nonexistent Gods from your heart, though.  All of the above deities have been worshipped by from tens of thousands to millions of people.  There is an open-ended list of deities yet to be worshipped by anyone, including Pepsicoketab the secondary creator of tiny bubbles, Yahwesusllah the tripartite deity of fused monotheism, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Well, that last one may be worshipped already.  The Pastafarians of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and their ubiquitous pirate-fish logo are the fastest growing church on Earth.  ( http://www.venganza.org/ ).  BLT, allow HIS noodly appendages into your aorta!!"

And RF provided the obvious conclusion:  we all have a very long list of thousands of Gods that we do not believe in - atheists just add one more to that list, the imaginary magical buddy you believe in. 

In long-form the argument is:  what evidence or reasons can you present for the existence of your God which is better than the evidence that you yourself find insufficient for the existence of the tens of thousands of Gods you don't believe in?

One more time, since BLT just pretended he didn't read the argument and Wayfarer tried to disappear it with some nonsense about mistranslation of "nous."  Answer the uniqueness argument or admit that you are part of the problem.

Wayfarer is just wrong about mistranslations.  Both the Old and New Testaments refer to the heart:  Lebab in the Hebrew and Kardios in the Greek.  The Greek word "nous" means "mind" not heart.  But don;t take either my or Wayfarer's word for it.  John Chryssavgis wrote at the beginning of chapter 3, Kardia, the Heart of his 2004 book John Climacus:

 "In the Old Testament, too, the term heart (leb, lebab) is normally used in an all-embracing sense.  It signifies not only the emotions, the feelings and affections, but also the spiritual center of the human person.  It is even the seat of thought and reason.  The New Testament reflects the Semitic rather than the Platonist approach.  After the incarnation, for example, Mary is said to have kept everything in her heart like a treasure.  Moreover, even thoughts arise from the heart which is seen as the moral center of the human person, the determinant of action.  Furthermore, as the inner person, the heart signifies the center of the spiritual life."

This is a really easy answer Publican.  Because God is the great "I am". 

Sojourner...

Not an answer worth making.  It is as bad as the folowing answers:

"Because The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the greater "I is".

"Because Thor is the greatest "I am that I am".

"Because Lemminkainen is the really good "I am".

I do not mean to be a punk here...  I really just do not get how you find that answer in any way adequate.  You can substitute nearly any entity with any properties as the subject of that sentence:  it asserts nothing more about the subject than "great" existence.  Tens of thousands have thought that Adrammalech, Byelobog, Batara-Kala, or Abeguwo had great existence.  Although no one has asserted that about Yahwesusllah besides myself and now...

"Because Yahwesusllah is the great "I am."

And none of them even exists, much less exists great.

I went to a Catholic University.  Even in such a religious institution, my degree in biology was based on true science. Intelligent design has no footing in reality.  I don't understand the need of evangelicals to demand that their philosophy be accepted as a science.  When you define ID, you must be careful because you are attempting to define God.  Do we really wish to insist that people like Kent Hovind and CSE (Creation Science Evangelism) are defining God's power?  I don't.  I love God.  I worship and celebrate the Word because it fills me with unmeasurable joy and peace.  ID proponents need to see that promoting false science doesn't draw any believer closer to God and it drives unbelievers farther away. 

Hey Possum;) 

Cold      opposite  of        ;    Heat        according to your Big Bang Theory     Heat      was created by electrons and protrons and Atoms and alot of little thingy's hitting each other

But COLD  where did it come from    what made space so cold between Galaxy     do we asume      cold was alway here

Ron, where was the hole before you started digging?   If man created money, where did debt come from?  (I know, the Republicans invented it.) 

Actually, there *WAS* no cold before the Universe existed.

Space before the Atheist Big Bang Theory    was it here 1st     or was it created after your big bang

Was a little piece of energy   floating around in a no space place     and by the way where did that piece of energy start

Fools that believe the big bang   are the same fools that have no faith in Creation=      Atheist

They give out a ridiculous theory    and call them selfs scientist

There has to be something to dig before you can dig

By the way most science believe the universe is 17 billion years old    but the earth is about 4/7 billion   How is that

The big Bang should have made every thing the same age      no you claim the earth 4 billion

This is a really easy answer Publican.  Because God is the great "I am".

Buff   God also said    There is no other God that I know of

Allred

You really should check out a book by Carl Sagan (Cosmos, or any book on astronomy) which explains how the universe was created.  It took billions of years for the residue of the big bang to coalesce into galaxies, stars, and planets. 

I've always felt that the magnitude of the big bang is much more majestic and awe inspiring than the dry,  unsatisfying tale of creation in the Bible. 

You may also want to look into a book titled "Your God is Too Small".  That says it all.

Does it really matter HOW we came to be?  We are here, let's just make the best of it!!!!!!

It matters a lot of some people, wp.  That's why they came up with the Intelligent Design flavor of creationism.

.

Ron, how old are you?  I'm younger than you are.  Shouldn't we be the same age?

.

To answer your question--no, space wasn't "here" before the Big Bang, nor time (probably--I'm not up on the membrane hypothesis which says they can go back before the singularity.)

.

Granted there has to be dirt before you can dig.  But where'd the *HOLE* come from?  Did it exist before you started digging?

Well 1st let me answer Witter       She writes does it really matter

Witter just like black and white      or day and night     How long is the life expecting of Man/Women      you are here for a very short period of time

But after your little travel though this life  and death comes and it comes to all of us    where are you then   on the opposite side of life 

I know some believe death is final and some believe   life is just starting     I happen to believe the latter

If you are right death is final     if you are wrong

Ron       &nbs p;         ;         and nice to talk to you again

By the way, the *REASON* the earth is younger than the universe is a fascinating story, Ron.  Carl Sagan's books are a great way to read about it.

Allred, you mention "death" alot, reason?

Random I've never looked into ID     I have no idea what it teaches or says      but I have a better idea what Atheist and science teache in schools

I believe in Creation by a Surpeme Being

There has to be something       for something to start      I believe that something was a created place by a God of Creation

BTW Ron

Cold is an absence of  "electrons and protrons and Atoms and alot of little thingy's hitting each other"

So is dark for that matter.

Maggie life and death   like I said black/white  night/day      they go together

What some believe of death is being final       &n bsp;   I ask if not final     what then for you and others that believe it

"am"  I trying to save you from a Hellous life after death     &nb sp;  NO       I'm just saying    wouldn't it be better for you if someone tells you different and they might be right  

I believe in Creation by a Surpeme Being 

So does the ID crowd.  They just lie about it so they don't have to admit that in court.

Audrey   in the mind of us mortals your answer seems reasonable   but cold had to be created  Heat had to be created       that spark had to be created       that space for the spark had to be created

Nothing HAD to be created, by intelligent design.  That's the whole point of this discussion.  

Carl Sagan taught alot of his views when he was living  and many of his views have been dis proven    I bet he knows now the Truth

Grumpy    thanks for the space    I'll quit now    sorry about useing your blog to    as some will say     Preach

Ron

I liked Carl when I was growing up...if anything that he taught us, was to think ' outside the box '...and we've have in many ways..

OK

I want specifics.  What "view" of his has been disproven? 

Sagan doesn't know anything anymore, he's dead.

Which, by the way, disproves the old "no atheists in a foxhole theory".   Sagan didn't run to or cling to a fantasy when he was dying.

Audrey, Ron's claiming that Sagan knows better now, suffering the eternal fires of Hell.    Of course, he's really helping with the prep work for the *NEXT* Big Bang, but don't tell Ron that...

allRED:  I guess my take on this whole discussion is that it doesn't matter HOW we got here, just that we make the most of our time while here. Nobody gets off this planet alive!!

Although, what IS 'dead"?  The body may be gone, but what about the "soul" "spirit"?  IMO, we never really leave! There will be those who say gone is gone, but really? How do we know since we are still "alive" - so to speak! Is there "reasoning" behind those who have physically left us? Other then to make room for others to take that "space". Why have more then 100 thousand people physically "left" this place if not to make room on our overpopulated earth for newbies?  Why are there disasters that take many to the "other side"?  Why do some see, hear others from the "other side"  and others do not?  I don't believe ANY of these questions can logically be answered! Until WE cross over!

They *ALWAYS* claim deathbed conversions.  Darwin got the same treatment at the hand of those people his theories irritated. 

AllRED:  it was nice meeting you at the BBQ :-)  Thanks for the ice & soda.  Maybe you can stay longer for the next get together :-)

Jason:  ditto!!!!!  Your daughter is A-DOR-ABLE!!!!  What a cutie :-)