Re: The Fuhrer Principle

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:53:10 -0700, "Chas" <chasclements@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>> Oh please. Find me a reference to these non-Christian ID'ists.
>
>It's in every discription of the concept- it's the entire reason that it's
>not called Christian Creationism and Proselytising.

The reason is that they got spanked in the courts last time, and are
trying the exact same thing under a different name... for which they
quite rightly got spanked again.

Again and again, ID's proponents have said it is creationism. Taking
a book about creationism, and substituting the word God with
'designer' doesn't make it any less religious.

>the only objection is Constitutional- the only legally relevant one anyway.

So I take it you've never read the Wedge Document then?

>The only Constitutional objection is whether it 'establishes' a *particular*
>religion, not whether it discusses 'God'. God is deemed 'self-evident' in
>our Declaration of Independence.

You need to read the judges decision from the Dover case. He laid out
his reasons quite well.

>>>The only reason for keeping it out is ideological, not 'scientific'.
>> So you're saying ID is scientific?
>
>Couldn't be- Science declines to address the question at all.

Which question? The origin of the universe? The origin of life?
Evolution? You seem to be saying that ID is all about the origin of
the universe. The ID'ists are way more concerned with evolution than
anything else (although they keep confusing abiogenesis and the Big
Bang with evolution).

And since you've admitted that ID isn't scientific, why is it being
pushed into science curricula?

>>>'Science' chooses not to address the question of Origin at all.
>> Hey? Only if by "chooses not to address the question of Origin at
>> all" you mean "is an area of intense research."
>
>'Address' in terms of making a definitive statement as to the question of
>the genesis of the Event.

As in 'what happened before the Big Bang'?

>poop.
>Nothing about 'science' clashes with the concept of God- in fact, Science
>declines to address the question at all, and religion has no inherent denial
>of anything that science discovers.

Oh please.

>ID doesn't have a creation story.

Not explicitly, no. But, since ID is creationism, and very
specifically Christian creationism, it's pretty easy to connect the
dots.

As mentioned in the link I provided last post, Phillip Johnson, the
'father' of ID, "equates theistic evolution (which would include most
of Christianity) with atheism because of its acceptance of evolution."

>> Once again, ID is creationism, thinly veiled.
>
>Of course ID is 'creationism'- except as creationism manifests as telling a
>particular story. If you tell the American Indian story, it's probably
>'religion'; same with the Jewish story, or the Asateru story, or the one
>about the great turtle.

Yeah, that's great. And we really see the Discovery Institute et al.
welcoming their Muslim, Asatru, Vedic, etc. brothers with open arms.

>And, ID has existed parallel to the various religious stories- the 'Great
>Mechanic', or the 'Great Clockmaker' kinds of concepts have been around a
>very long time, and have nothing to do with Genesis(tm).

Science doesn't give a hot hairy damn if there's a god out there
winding up the big spring on the universe and letting it run. Doesn't
matter an ounce if there is one at all - science works totally
independent of belief or lack thereof.

>Hell, Genesis doesn't even conflict with 'evolution'

Sure, if you don't mind humans being created whole cloth instead of
evolving from previous hominids.

Badger Jones
www.youngforest.ca
"Never, under ANY circumstances, take a sleeping pill and a laxative on the same night."
.

Relevant Pages
Loading