This Intelligent Design stuff is a bunch of crap. Creationism got ruled out of the courts, so now its come back under a different name. A name that trys to sound so pleasingly modern. When I first saw the name, before I knew what was going on I thought, "intelligent design....now that sounds pretty cool....wonder what it is....probably something innovative and interesting." Yeah right!!.....LOL. If Intelligent Design starts to be taught in schools it will be a disgrace, but it could never last forever. Science will overcome ignorance and force people to face the truth it reveals. Creationists.....stop kicking and screaming....your gonna have to accept science someday. And science has made possible a greater appreciation for God and reality anyway.....dont you freakin see that?!??!?!

My turn.
As far as I know Sir Issac Newton invented Calculus because the existing methods of math just didn't satisfy his mind. His thoeries and principles were based on earlier scientists like Copernicus and GALILEO.
As far as what has evolution done for science? I can answer that shate. Let us think of SOME of the inventions that have taken place since. SETI, the lightbulb, nuclear technology, X-rays, polio vaccine, velcro, the internet, air travel, space travel, ground travel (cars), napalm, VX, Tang. The list goes on.
Allow me to retort though. What has religion done for mankind? Seriously. "Saved" millions of select people because they adhere to a doctrine from a loving god of "control"? Nay, I say. Religion has done nothing for us but divide us. A fracture that your armageddon may help resolve. I sure as hell hope it does.

Sorry, he was addressing ChristJesusistheonlyway. He did not intend to be confusing. =)

Out of curiousity, I went to ChristJesusistheonlyway's blog and had a look around. I read all his current posts, and despite searching desperately to find evidence of Intelligent Design, I failed to find any there.

Hmmmm...

It's not entirely clear to whom "Wehlia's Husband" was addressing his remarks, but I suspect it was to the comment left by ChristJesusistheonlyway below, and not to my blog entry above. Or at least I *hope* that that's what he intended. :)

As a hint to the reader, it is always helpful to indicate to whom your comment is directed. :)

Your statement was so abhorrently rediculous that I took a look at your site out of some morbid curiosity, some lust for mental pain. I don't know, can't explain it. As I was reading through the garbage on your page, I wanted to go through and tear apart every "argument" you made, but I see everyone has already performed that task satisfactorily. Since you start with a belief instead of a question, you are NOT open to any new (or correct) information. Your belief structure prevents it. You already have your mind made up before you look for an answer. As long as the answer proves your belief right, you are comfortable in your idiocy. Should you find anything that is contrary to your anticipated answer, which is based on a previously held belief, you will find some nutcase pseudoscientist who has "debunked" that fact, and you can remain, as always, comfortable in your idiocy. As a scientist, I am truly offended by your claims and your lack of respect for the scientific method. I will not specifically address anything you say regarding science vs. fairy tales because I would feel as though I had stooped to some intellectually infantile level to try to drag you kicking and screaming out of your self-imposed mental hole.

Wehlia,
tell me one good thing that "evolution" has done for science? It has done nothing to help our quest for knowledge of the world around us. For example: look at who started calculus-- a christian.
Science does not claim to hold truth...the scientist do. Evolution is a religion.
Shawn

Bush is probably afraid it might kill loads of Republican Voters. Can't have that.

After reading the other comments left here, I still have to say that religion does NOT belong in our schools. Science has always and will always belong. I don't see why this has to be an issue when people should just separate their feelings from the facts.

thank you for my happy little thoughts. now who's sweet enough to give cavities? ;)

*big teddy bear hugs*
shannon

Here's a very humorous explanation of the current trial that is taking place in Pennsylvania.
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2005/11/whoa-post-modern-theocratic-judicial.html

"A Vatican cardinal said Thursday that the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer, warning that religion risks turning into “fundamentalism” if it ignores scientific reason."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9913712/
How do you justify teaching religious dogma in a science class? My husband went to a Christian high school, and they taught evolution in biology class and creation in bible class. what is wrong with letting the scientists determine what is or is not science? if the christians want to learn about creation, let them go to church. the introduction of psuedoscience into the science classroom threatens to get our future scholars laughed out of the international science community. european scientists find it laughable that we are still having this debate at all.

It seems the shoe is on the other foot. The argument used to be only teach Creation not evolution. Now it's the opposite. Who is right, well that does not matter, especially in this case. If we are going to teach Evolution (this was something many fought to have taught) and not Creationism is a double standard. The Creationists did the same thing, does this mean its payback. How about those who believe the two go hand in hand (as I do) are we now the minority, will we pull a double standard if we get our views taught. The answer is probably Yes, but I won't be one of them I believe that all is fair. We should treat each other as we would be treated. I know that is something taught by Christians but does it not apply to every human being regardless of what or who you are.

P.S. Catholics and this may apply to other religions as well believe that persecution of our beliefs is a sign we are doing God's will. Thank you

P.P.S. I'm not poking at you; I just wanted to add my 2 cents. I know that you will be yourself no matter what I comment and that's good, being true to ones self is important for most people. (By that I mean I am true to God through myself, I put God first them myself, non Christians usually don't put God first, maybe you put others first but I’m sure you get my drift)

Later,

JacksNick

Wow! I have to agree with this. Isn't it convenient that a virus can evolve but not a human being or any other life form for that matter? No one ever said "That George dubyah has a beautiful mind" for a reason. Organized religion is only there for the weak minded and desperate. Those seeking alternative answers when they don't get the ones they want when faced with the reality of life. Life is harsh, get over it I say. It's what you make of it, not what's "planned" for you by a "Higher power". I've always said that school and the church should remain separate. There is no logic in "creative design". Like renaming it would make a difference.

can you feel the love, simon? loved the group hug! what's next? a rousing rendition of kumbya? :P

my views on the topic? science is for school and religion for wherever ELSE you choose to have it...but that's just me. i believe that the most important thing to be taken from any of this is that in all actuality there are too many things that are open to interpretation. want to do the kids a favor? give them the FACTS. then give them the skills and confidence to reason out thier own views. that is what makes great thinkers, be they theologians or scientists.

'No, I believe that this intermixing of scientific and religious views is neither innocuous nor condonable.'

I've been arguing with a creationist so much lately, its hard to switch gears. Yes, 'spreading the good news' is certainly a Christian mandate; a lesser mandate in most other religions, and almost nonexistent in some. Proselytizing (especially with some of the tactics Christians use) is not something I look apon favourably. Science has to be free from the shackles of religion, but religion isn't simple irrationality. The problem comes when natural processes are rejected for supernatural ones. When religion avoids this dangerous trap, I think it can be healthy.

Is religion to blaim for all the evil mankind has commited? No, mankind is to blame; not the various idealogies he has bought into (including those that have tried to rub religion out completely). Perhaps this is giving individuals to much credit, and ignoring group psychology, but I believe in the end we can all think for ourselves. Although we're sometimes not that terribly good at determining the cause/effect in the future of our present actions.

Neuronaut:

It is quite evident how the media, church groups, and I.D. community viewed Bush's statements. They definitely viewed them as support of ID, and I suspect so did many people who read the reports of the statement. So, regardless of what he said or did not say, it is pretty clear what he meant. Why should we now be surprised that Bush today would be softening his position, backpeddling, or "clarifying" his position to mean something other than what he meant when he first made the statement? Remember his statements about WMDs? What Bush says today has absolutely no bearing on what he said (and meant) back in August.

Also, regardless if it is reported in his own explicit words, I don't think anyone would dispute that Bush's particular religious views (born-again / evangelical / apocalyptic) are most definitely at odds with the idea of Evolution as an explanation of the *ORIGIN* of ALL LIFE.

Bush said, "as a governor of Texas, I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.”

(There aren't two sides. There is either one true explanation, which is supported by fact, or ALL alternatives -- no matter how ridiculous -- are plausible, which is absurd.)

"When a reporter asked for his position today on whether ID should be taught alongside the theory of evolution, Bush replied that he did 'so people can understand what the debate is about.'"

(What!?!? We have to teach "Intelligent Design" alongside Evolution in science class for people to understand what the debate is about? Why don't we teach in Physics class that gravity is caused by rubber bands attached to our feet, so that people could understand that there is another, equally valid but alternative viewpoint? ...so that 'people can understand what the debate is about')

Daleelama:

Agreed, why should we object if one chooses to hold a religious view while still accepting and practicing science?

It should only be a problem when people try to reconcile their religious views using pseudoscience and try to supress science and the honest pursuit of knowledge, right?

No, I believe that this intermixing of scientific and religious views is neither innocuous nor condonable (particularly of those who possess political office or policy-making power) for the following two main reasons:

1. I have seldom seen the religious refrain from proselytizing and promoting their supernatural believes over the teachings of science (and thus supress science), for a fundamental directive of any religion is to "spreading the word", despite whether the word is at odds with scientific knowledge or not. Science has no such explicitly stated expansionist directive encoded in dogma or creed, therefore science does have the replicatory power as a meme in the ideosphere as a belief system that has this explicit replicatory mechanism. Therefore, the cancerous spread of religious belief grows unchecked and replaces reason and rational thinking with superstition and fear of inquiry and fear of discovery, which ultimately threatens the scientific enterprise and pursuit of factual knowledge.

2. The second problem I have with the intermixing of scientific and supernatural belief is what such intermixing says about the logic and thought process of the person possessing these disparate sets of beliefs. How can a person, who claims a belief in science, a domain of logical inquiry, critical thinking, and natural causes possibly reconcile this belief with the inconsistenties, conflicts, contradictions, and paradoxes that arise between this worldview and the religious worldview, which is not based on logic, and is founded on supernatural causes. I find it hard to trust the judgment or views of a person that has such intellectual myopia.

Bush didn't actually come out in favour of ID despite reports to the contrary. See http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/archives/2005/05-08-16.html for an analysis of what he actually said (he equivocated by answering a different question). But even if he is a young earth creationist that doesn't logically prevent him from believing a flu strain could mutate. The dispute is more about the origins of complexity, not what is happening today. Don't get me wrong, I still think the creationists have serious inconsistencies in their belief systems, I just don't think this is one of them.

Not only does ID fail to scientifically explain anything, it provides intellectually lazy people the opportunity to stop looking for new answers. The acceptance of that idea will provide any would-be scientist who asks a question about nature or physics or astronomy or chemistry with the same cop-out answer you would give a five year old: "Because God made it that way." We are not willing to accept that answer. That is why we can make vaccines and do heart transplants and study quasars that are billions of years old and tear atoms apart. But if everything happened because God made it that way, none of these things would have ever come about. We are not willing to provide our society's children with an acceptance of that degree of laziness. I can't believe this even has to go to court. This should be common sense. I wish common sense were more common.

H. L. Mencken has some great sound bites. Hmm, a good idea for a blog I think.

If someone wants to see God in science, while it is subjective, I don't have a problem with that. When they simply deny science or try to redefine it for their own religious purposes, it is a problem, but only when they try to force this on others. This of course is my problem with creationism, and ID is simply a somewhat desperate tactic these people are now using. But it seems inevitable that their 'God of the gaps' is well on his way to being squeezed out.

Bush wouldn't be where he is without the support of the conservative Christian population, so I don't know that he actually accepts ID, or whether he is using it for political points. Mind you, the man is not terribly brilliant.