I was very pleased to see that the United Methodists' Conference in the USA this year has decided to deny space to an exhibition stand promoting so-called "Intelligent Design". There is an article about it here : http://www.christiantoday.com/artic...t.design.from.its.annual.conference/77314.htm This makes it plain that the United Methodist Church in the US wants nothing to do with creationism or the underhand tactics of the ID movement to subvert science teaching. I thought this was worth sharing, as one sometimes encounters a view that a lot of Christians, perhaps especially evangelical Protestants, are anti-evolution and anti-science.
So what is wrong with Intelligent design.? If we would not challenge, we would settle with the stupid primordial soup.
Everything is wrong with Intelligent Design. The issues are well-rehearsed and you can read about them for yourself in numerous places on the web. But I'll summarise for you what seem to me to be the two fundamental problems: (a) there are no objective criteria for "design", by which it can be detected in nature, so the idea is inherently not testable and thus not scientific, and (b) it is a science-stopper, because ID proposes that, instead of searching for an explanation of something we cannot yet explain, we should say aha, that must be because it was designed supernaturally - and therefore there is no point in looking for a natural explanation. Aside from this, the movement has a reputation in practice for being deceitful, perhaps best illustrated by the behaviour revealed in the Dover school "Kitzmiller" trial in 2005.
I think you are too kind to ID. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I think the Wedge Document showed it is a social engineering project masquerading, quite cleverly, as science.
You have to remember on thing . Science is not creating NATURE. SCIENCE IS STUDYING NATURE . meaning was have been done . I don't believe ID scientists are masquerading. The problem is there are two camps . Atheist trying to negate the Existence of God with out knowing all the facts , and pretend to know the fact. About the design : Would you rather have your balls hanging were your ears are and your dick on your arm ?
If you can manage to respond to the reasons I have given you, we can take this further. Meanwhile, why don't you spend a few moments reading the article I linked to and pondering why a major Christian denomination agrees with me about ID.
Do you mean reason your way. So what is for you intelligent design ? Is that an intelligent question ?
No. I mean that you need to respond to my (a) and (b) above, if you want me to take this further with you. If you do not know what Intelligent Design is, Wikipaedia is - as so often - your friend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design Read that, then re-read my (a) and (b), read the article I linked to in the OP and then perhaps you will be equipped to have a discussion on this subject.
Your question a) and b) does not apply to me , specially science stopper , that is a nonsense , I always can apply the question "I like know, how it was done " Instead , this is how it is don. My lack of knowledge keeps me going . Your artificial knowledge stops you . I assume if there would not be a challenge your part will not advance For me the example is the Communist system which was stagnant.
About process of life how it started . Go on with Millers bottle in the 1950 . That is your base . So far have past 65 year .
Exchemist: It was a pleasure to see that you are not quite of the false belief that ID subverts science! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! While of the one that ID is unscientific! From article: The movement is fundamentally a version of the teleological argument for the existence of God. While it encompasses a range of views about evolution, with some proponents saying God simply guided the process, others are keen to argue that some life-forms demonstrate an "irreducible complexity" that means they have to have been specially created by an intelligent directing force. It critiques evolutionary explanations of life, saying that they are inadequate accounts of origins. It usually avoids saying that the intelligent designer is God, but the implication is clear. EDIT: On second thought, I just noticed you've agreed with spidergoat. You've lost my respect. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Returning this thread to its original subject, I had not previously come across this Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups which is a another useful corrective to the idea of opposition between Christianity and evolution. All the main groupings of Christianity accept evolution. In (in fact they have done so for about a century now, but that's another story.)
Isn't forbidding the expression of perceived unorthodox opinion one of the things that more authoritarian belief systems are justifiably criticized for? Unfortunately, we are seeing more and more of it in contemporary intellectual life.
