Expelled

[hoglaw]

Now in saying this- I am not taking on the science world and trying to over throw the system. I think as science advances, the truth will come out but what I hope for is that all scientist will have a honest and open mind on BOTH sides of this issue and admit they are wrong- because one side is wrong and the side is not.. in a nutshell.. kind of.

I don't think it will change our personal beliefs about life and God... I will not even try to do that on a forum. It's not the place because it is impersonal and not based on friendship and relationship and only if you know someone would you want to live like his example.

Sorry for rambling... just don't want this to become a bash session on each other's belief cause that won't accomplish a thing.

This is not correct. Saying that "science" is one side of the argument and one side must be wrong is not an accurate statement. "Science" or "evolutionists" do not profess to have all the answers, or even a single definitive answer on the origin of life. Science has only give us a testable theory based on observable phenomena that has the ability to change as new experiments necessitate, or to be completely proven wrong. This is only a theory in the same sense that gravity is a theory. It is an observable phenomenon given a name and tested through the scientific method. Our current notions of gravity are everchanging, and may one day be completely turned on their collective ear.

Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is a fundamentally religous theory. It begins with an end conclusion: God created life, and attempts to fit pegs into the holes in that conclusion. It is not a theory. It is a belief. It cannot be proven wrong. It cannot be tested. It is not in the same league as science. This is not to say that it is incorrect or inaccurate in any way. Every idea touted by ID proponents may in fact be completely correct. But it's not a theory.

Science and Intelligent design are not the two sides to this argument. They are apples and oranges. To pit them against eachother is like having the Blues play the Rams in a tiddlewinks tournament to see which sport is really the most athletic.

[Phil Lilley]

Interesting... the saying "it takes more faith to believe in the big bang theory than in a intelligent designer" lends itself to theological thinking BUT there are those who think that intelligent design, if there is such a thing, came from other beings from another place and/or time.

Is it possible for science to conclude "scientifically" that "life" had to have been started by a designer, whatever it or he may have been, or is this impossible?

I know no one can predict what may be found in these smallest of living building blocks, but I'd think that at some point this answer could or would be discovered someday by someone, seeing the advances man is making today.

[hoglaw]

Interesting... the saying "it takes more faith to believe in the big bang theory than in a intelligent designer" lends itself to theological thinking BUT there are those who think that intelligent design, if there is such a thing, came from other beings from another place and/or time.

Is it possible for science to conclude "scientifically" that "life" had to have been started by a designer, whatever it or he may have been, or is this impossible?

I know no one can predict what may be found in these smallest of living building blocks, but I'd think that at some point this answer could or would be discovered someday by someone, seeing the advances man is making today.

First of all, no one believes that the "intelligent designer" came from other beings or another place and/or time. This was propagated by the ID proponents as an effort to avoid being associated with religion. The fact of the matter is ID is inherently and purposefully religious. The most important case on point to date is Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. In Kitzmiller, an extremely religous and conservative trial judge could not help but find that ID's primary purpose was to advance religion in schools, and that it had the primary effect of advancing religion. This was after over a month of testimony by both sides on the issue of whether ID was religious, or its own scientific theory. The case was, of course, upheld.

Now, I shouldn't say that no one believes the designer came from another planet. Lots of people believe lots of strange things. However, the fact remains that ID as we know it is a clandestine effort to lend scientific credibility to religious teachings in an effort to get them into the public schools at the k-12 level.

It is not possible for science to prove or disprove the existence of God as we, the believers, understand God today. Completely impossible. Short of a direct manifestation on a fiery chariot, it can't happen. Science does not tell us what to believe in, or that we have to make a leap of faith to "believe" in the big bang. Science only tells us theories of what might have happened, coupled with evidence supporting those theories. Even Newton's "laws" (which purport to be more than theories) are subject to being disproven, or are subject to constraints. Science does not attempt to "prove" the origin or meaning of life. It can only debunk or support things we observe and ideas we may have.

The only universal truths and absolute answers come from religion. That's the difference. I can believe in anything I want to in the name of religion. It doesn't have to be proven or disproven. It's faith. ID is faith masquerading as science when it doesn't need to. If you want to believe in ID, that's fine. You have a right to believe in anything you want. Just don't teach your religion to elementary school students in public schools.

[Trav]

No matter what a person may believe. It is without question that the human specie is invasive and destructive and has no real place in this ecosystem. The only good it has for its enviren, the potential to recognize its harm, is a moot offering. There just isnt any stopping the Anthill.

Thats the reality of it all and no Faith can change that.

[Phil Lilley]

First of all, no one believes that the "intelligent designer" came from other beings or another place and/or time.

Was quoting Richard Dawkins from the movie... he's not a scientist. He's a "Darwinist".

I respect your answer. Thanks.

[JobyKSU]

I really like to stay out of these arguments, but I'll point out a few things.

1 - Science may not tell us what to believe, but scientists do. Further, non-scientists often use scientific theory as fact. "Theory" is quite often taught as "Law."

2 - Evolution is not a theory about the origin of life. In fact, Charles Darwin resorted to raw speculation to come up with the chemical-soup hypothesis. Evolution is an explanation of the diversity of life. ID is an attempt to explain where it came from.

Hoglaw, while your view of the purpose of Science, Theory, and Religion are semantically correct, they are not realistic views of modern society. The simple truth is, a large portion of people believes that either science or religion is True (note the capital T) but not both.

You have a right to believe in anything you want. Just don't teach your religion to elementary school students in public schools.

I absolutely agree with this - but I'll follow it up with "Just don't teach your science as religion to elementary school students in public schools."

[JobyKSU]

It is without question that the human specie is invasive and destructive and has no real place in this ecosystem.

Now Trav,

Using words like "purpose" and "no real place" definitely speak to a higher power.

Bit of a stretch for your athiestic ways, eh?

Without faith, purpose, and absolutes there is no reason that we should worry about the environment or our place in it - life will adapt and humans have proven to be one of the most adaptable.

[Trav]

I wasnt speaking to/of any Higher Power.

In an ecosystem there is a circle or a food chain so to speak and the humans are definatley out of the loop.

No stretch there.

The human race is nothing but an unchecked over population. No different than a plague.

[jscheetz]

Trav, your unbridled optimism and positive cheery outlook on life is almost bringing a tear to my eye - you gotta take a valium or something to "keep it real" so the rest of us down here in the trenches don't get too hopeful.

1 - Science may not tell us what to believe, but scientists do. Further, non-scientists often use scientific theory as fact. "Theory" is quite often taught as "Law."

That is SO right on the money. While many Christians may be "hiding" behind ID as science to legitimize the belief in God - there is no question that many more people with anti-Christian agendas have been "hiding" behind "science" and "evolution" for many, many years. So much so that I believe that has made it very difficult to get to the truth of the matters. To act like "science" is this noble thing which only seeks the truth is not only naive but smacks of a distortion of the truth.

And to say that -

"Science" or "evolutionists" do not profess to have all the answers, or even a single definitive answer on the origin of life.

This is not totally true either - I know MANY Evolutionists who absolutely think they have one definitive answer... God does not exist.

JS

[mark hedger]

And to say that - This is not totally true either - I know MANY Evolutionists who absolutely think they have one definitive answer... God does not exist.

JS

There are extremists on either side of every issue, including this one.

When Bertrand Russell was asked what he would say to God if he met him, he responded "Sir, you did not give us enough information."