Unintelligible Redesign

I know this isn't your argument, but i'd like to reply to it nonetheless.

quote:

---

It posits that life has been designed but doesn't specify by whom

---

This is where it falls apart. There is no evidence that life would have to be designed. There's not even any reason to think so. The argument has no real base. It isn't really a theory.
For the theory of gravity to be true, things would simply have to fall to the ground. We can test this. We can observe what we call "gravity", in action.
ID, while not necessarily christian, is a deistic belief. If we were to, however, see planets pop up out of no where for no apparent reason, then it MIGHT be a viable idea. But that simply doesn't happen.

quote:

---

This soft-headed agnosticism

---

I know this is a bit off-topic, but Agnosticism isn't a separate religion. Agnosticism is just the belief that god cannot be proven or disproven. Any agnostic must still be a deist or atheist.

quote:

---

A conservative state senator says some people "think differently, and all those ideas should be explored."

---

I agree. They should be explored in a humanities class. It is not the place of science class to study anything that anyone happens to think up.

quote:

---

A conservative member of the state education board says Ohioans deserve a science curriculum "they can all be comfortable with."

---

I live in Ohio. I much prefer a science curriculum based on real study and logic.

quote:

---

If Ohio lets ID into its curriculum, they prophesy, the state will become an "international laughingstock,"

---

Ohio is already a laughingstock for the quote on its state seal. I really don't think we should be trying to put any more religion into the government of Ohio.

quote:

---

creationism no longer materially contradicts evolution

---

Of course it doesn't. Now they have theistic evolution, which is STILL an unscientific religious belief.

quote:

---

They argue that natural selection doesn't account for the rise and fall of species

---

Actually, that's what natural selection IS.

quote:

---

that many biological mechanisms wouldn't make organisms more fit to survive unless those mechanisms appeared all at once,

---

This is untrue. An organism better suited to survive is able to breed more. This has been observed within the past 20 years with organisms such as bacteria.

quote:

---

and that the combinations necessary to create life are so complex that it would be statistically impossible to generate them by chance

---

It is NOT statistically impossible (in fact there is no such thing), it is statistically IMPROBABLE. But by far that does not mean impossible.

quote:

---

I don't know whether they stand up to his rebuttal or not. But I do know this: They don't add up to a theory.

---

Quite convenient for him to not mention those rebuttals, eh?

quote:

---

Darwin claimed that humans had descended from apes

---

Can someone tell me where in the hell Darwin did that? Last I checked, he discovered speciation in things like BIRDS. Correct me if i'm wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Huh? How is an agnostic either a deist or an atheist? The whole point of agnosticism is that one doesn't know if God exists or not. There is no choice.

---

A common misconception. To KNOW something, is to be entirely assured of it. To BELIEVE it, is another thing. Atheists cannot disprove that there is a god, deists cannot prove there is a god. That is the nature of faith. I BELIEVE pink bunnies do not exist, but I do not KNOW for sure.
Agnosticism is more accurately described as "believing god cannot be proven or disproven". But there logically isn't a middle of the road. Even if someone says they aren't sure if god exists or not, would be fluxuating between "exists" and "doesn't exist", blanking it out of their mind, or considering it. It's a black and white situation, because there is no "kind of exists".

​

[This message has been edited by Xombie, 03-22-2002]

quote:

---

Our children should be taught the FACTS at school

---

Then they can't be taught science. In science, no fact, belief, or theory is unquestionably static.
Things in religion, however, seem to be.

quote:

---

schools are encouraging children to change their religious beliefs in order to accept evolution

---

That is absurd. Creationism is not the theory that god made everything. Creationism is the belief that god made everything in six consecutive days with the wave of a wand.
ONLY people who take the bible literally (FUNDAMENTALISTS) believe in creationism. If one would look at the genesis creation story for the metaphorical sumerian myth that it is, evolution fits right in.
There is nothing in evolutionary theory asserting that it is independant from god. Merely that it happened. This is why "theistic evolution" exists. The idea that evolution happened, but was dictated by god.By the way, anything that directly comes FROM a religion and is NOT soundly based in science, can NOT be taught in schools in america. It violates the first amendment. Students that are Hopi native americans would be having their rights violated as much as atheists if creationism were taught in schools.

​

[This message has been edited by Xombie, 03-22-2002]

Gravity is a religion