Re: The Fuhrer Principle

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:30:20 -0700, "Chas" <chasclements@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>There is no prohibition against 'religious' practice- in fact, it's
>protected. The only prohibition is against establishing a State Church

And that (among other aspects) is what Judge Jones ruled on, that the
IDists were sneaking religion into public schools, thus creating a
state-funded religious practice.

>- that
>is to say to cert a particular version of ID. That's what's prohibited, not
>any view that science finds offensive somehow, but can't disprove/prove.

See, this is the great thing about ID. It can't be proven or
disproven because its adherants have consistently avoided defining
what it is.

>> And since you've admitted that ID isn't scientific, why is it being
>> pushed into science curricula?
>
>Didn't say 'ID isn't scientific' except as regards the failure of science.
>Atheists have sought to exclude the very real options of ID for their own
>moral reasons- little or nothing to do with 'science'.

What 'real options of ID'? There's no research, no theory, it
predicts nothing, it explains nothing, is not falsifiable, and yet its
proponents call it a valid science - that is, when they aren't saying
its a religious proposal.

>> As in 'what happened before the Big Bang'?
>
>Not so much as what the Event was- the difference between a Big Bang and the
>Word.

And when they find evidence of the Word they will have to either see
how that fits with previous theory, or create a new one.

>> Not explicitly, no. But, since ID is creationism, and very
>> specifically Christian creationism, it's pretty easy to connect the
>> dots.
>
>strawman-
>it's as easily said; science is atheism; pretty easy to connect the dots-

Except that science is not athiesm. It neither requires, nor does not
require a god, or belief in a god. It is neutral to the issue. One
could say God invested penicillin with antibiotic properties and it
would be utterly irrelevant to the fact that penicillin has antibiotic
properties. Science just doesn't care.

>a competing belief system is a religion, by your own definition.

Certainly, except that science is not a belief system. Objects that
fall from an athiest's hand fall at exactly the same rate as those
dropped from a Christian's hand.

>> 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."
>
>It would, as well, include any belief system that didn't think this was all
>a happy accident.
>That's what it boils down to, and your side has no more proof than does ID,
>and is more defined as a 'State Church' than any other belief system in
>modern times.

Except science isn't a belief system.

ID has no proof. It proposes nothing, tests nothing, and does
research on nothing.

>> 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.
>
>Well good for you-
>and we don't care that you abdicate the question- we've got it covered for
>you.

See, and that's why religion shouldn't pretend to be science, and vice
versa. Why *shouldn't* science abdicate the question?

>> Sure, if you don't mind humans being created whole cloth instead of
>> evolving from previous hominids.
>
>I see the spark of intelligence as defining the difference between hominids
>and not-hominids. There is also a Biblical perspective that not all hominids
>are 'sons of God', so that further limits what 'human' may mean.

See, and this is why evolution may or may not be consistent with
Genesis. The Christians can't even figure out what it means. Is it
literal? Is it allegory? A mix? And are we looking at creation from
Genesis 1:1 or 2:4?

>And there are utterly non-christian belief systems that acknowledge an
>intent to the Universe rather than some statistical manipulation that cites
>a remote possibility to 'accident' and depends on Bill's Blade for it's
>entire logical support.

So let's see the evidence otherwise.

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

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Faith, Reason, God and Other Imponderables
    ... Books on Science ... Faith, Reason, God and Other Imponderables ... for the age of the earth, scientists have to be brave to talk about religion. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Darwins god
    ... God has always been a puzzle for Scott Atran. ... Atran has been struggling with questions about religion ever ... something beyond the reach or understanding of science. ...
    (talk.atheism)
  • Religion and evolution
    ... God has always been a puzzle for Scott Atran. ... about religion ever since - why he himself no longer believes in God ... something beyond the reach or understanding of science. ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Religion and evolution
    ... God has always been a puzzle for Scott Atran. ... about religion ever since - why he himself no longer believes in God ... something beyond the reach or understanding of science. ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • The Science of Belief
    ... God has always been a puzzle for Scott Atran. ... about religion ever since - why he himself no longer believes in God ... something beyond the reach or understanding of science. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)