Re: Don't insult our intelligence

On 12 Aug 2005 07:02:53 -0700, EKurtz99@xxxxxxx wrote:

>Von Bailey wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 05:09:11 -0400, "GWhyte" <gwhyte3003@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Von Bailey" <ovbailey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >news:2qunf1pilqstu2oei1dkdh87gdr6o5ltpf@xxxxxxxxxx
>> >> On 11 Aug 2005 07:05:27 -0700, EKurtz99@xxxxxxx wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >GWhyte wrote:
>> >> >> Don't insult our intelligence
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The Bible has many things to teach us about life but it is no
>> >substitute for
>> >> >> science, Mr Bush, writes Tim Radford
>> >> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/lastword/story/0,13228,1546180,00.html
>> >> >> Thursday August 11, 2005
>> >> >> The Guardian
>> >> >
>> >> >Actually, the only intelligence insulted by this article is that of the
>> >> >Guardian readership, but they appear to like it, and keep on reading.
>> >> >
>> >> >> President Bush has let it be known that he thinks "intelligent design"
>> >> >> should be taught in schools, along with and as a balance to, the theory
>> >of
>> >> >> evolution. Evidence of intelligent design would imply an intelligent
>> >> >> designer, or God, as we Catholics call him.
>> >> >snip
>> >> >> What is shocking about the intelligent design
>> >> >> argument is that it isn't true and can hardly be honest. It looks, from
>> >a
>> >> >> distance, like a cynical attempt to introduce a literal version of
>> >Biblical
>> >> >> teaching into the American school curriculum, against the intention of
>> >> >> America's own founding fathers and the US constitution.
>> >> >
>> >> >If that is how it looks then the writer is obviously too far away to
>> >> >distinguish Creationism from ID, and should stick to what he knows.
>> >>
>> >> Why don't you differentiate it for us? I don't see any difference
>> >> between the two. Intelligent design of the universe implies a creator
>> >> no matter how you look at it.
>> >
>> >
>> >The claim is that ID is "a cynical attempt to introduce a literal version of
>> >Biblical
>> > teaching into the American school curriculum". It obviously isn't that
>> >specific.
>> >
>> Do you resist the word 'cynical' or the idea that it's an attempt to
>> introduce biblical teaching?
>
>The latter:
>
Okay. I will grant you that in some places it will not be taught from
a biblical POV. After all, there are over 2000 religions in the world
and quite a few of them have their own version of how the world was
'created'.

But that does not dispute the reality that if a person or a group of
people believe in a biblical God, that such a curriculm would not be
affected and influenced by their belief in a factual nature of their
*biblical* POV.

Giving creationism or ID a factual basis without being able to define
what or who the creator/designer is with factual evidence, is not
science, it is a lot of psuedo-logic based on an assumption. If you
will grant me the assumption of a magical genie I can explain the
universe too.

von
---
There is no conversation that I can have that threatens my reality and I
don't see how anyone can live with such a precarious state of mind.
---
God isn't the problem, religion is. Something that doesn't exist
can't really be a problem. Worshiping something that doesn't exist
is an entirely different subect.
.