Replies

You don't believe you have the ability to rationally choose what is good or bad? How odd. Especially when the quote you are referring to has to do with what should be taught in a science class. Only God can say that? Do you even read what you post?

I have the ability to chose good or bad, but I don't have the ability to decide which is which. That depends entirely upon Divine decree.

You asked why care about anything at all, and I said because I do care. I value things because I can, and because I conclude it is rational to do so.

Wow. There's no higher authority than one's self, I suppose.

Because a Creator isn't a scientific certainty indicated by the evidence. In fact, the existence of a Creator is outside of the scope of science. ID is a purely theological claim, which is fine in itself. Theological claims have no place in a science classroom.

Okay . . . so evolution isn't atheistic, but it precludes the existence of a Creator anywhere outside a philosophy class. Ironically, in an earlier post when I said that it wasn't classification that mattered but "what actually happened" you said that this was precisely what "science" does. So what does the "religion" that your evolutionism doesn't oppose do? Anything other than provide a nice cushy job for professional clergy?

That's not true at all. ID makes a claim that can't be tested; it says that an unknown designer did unknown things at an unknown time in an untestable way. It's junk science, and junk theology.

Hmmm. I get the "junk science" dig but not the "junk theology." So according to you theology shouldn't deal with a theoretical Creator who in some sense actually created the world? Then how do you defend your previous claim that "evolution isn't atheistic?" Exactly what sort of "gxd" and "theology" isn't "junk" and exists in harmony with your evolutionism? That's some "gxd" that your philosophy doesn't contradict! (Sounds kinda like the "gxd" and "chr*stianity" of Thomas Jefferson.)

You presumptuous ass.

Now, now . . .

Why would I be ashamed? I love the South.

Hence your choice to initiate this argument with me, a well-known Southerner on this forum, because my beliefs embarrass you. Believe me, I am well acquainted with the phenomenon. And I note that such Southerners never seem to be offended by transubstantiation or the aboriginal dreamtime or the Greek Orthodox "miracle of the holy fire." Those beliefs are accorded full respect. Genesis alone is attacked because Genesis is "the redneck book."

Of course, it is quite possible you love the old ante-bellum pre-fundamentalist South of Thomas Jefferson. Thank G-d the Puritans converted us!

But since (according to science) all our thoughts, ideals, beliefs, and opinions are merely the products of brain biochemistry, I wonder why science condemns people for the way their brain chemistry works. I suppose because the brain chemistry of scientists compels them to do so.

"I have the ability to chose good or bad, but I don't have the ability to decide which is which."

That's a scary admission.

"Wow. There's no higher authority than one's self, I suppose."

There's reality. It's a harsh mistress.

"Okay . . . so evolution isn't atheistic, but it precludes the existence of a Creator anywhere outside a philosophy class."

All science is incapable of making any claims about God. That's theology, and theology doesn't belong in a science class.

"Ironically, in an earlier post when I said that it wasn't classification that mattered but "what actually happened" you said that this was precisely what "science" does."

And that is true. Science deals with what actually happened, and it's methods allow one to have a better understanding of what happened.

"So what does the "religion" that your evolutionism doesn't oppose do? Anything other than provide a nice cushy job for professional clergy?"

It doesn't provide a method to examine the physical world.

"I get the "junk science" dig but not the "junk theology."

It makes God a God of the *gaps* in our knowledge. As those gaps get filled, God disappears.

"So according to you theology shouldn't deal with a theoretical Creator who in some sense actually created the world? "

Not what I said. Theology can do that, but pretending it is also a scientific claim is bad science, and bad theology.

"Then how do you defend your previous claim that "evolution isn't atheistic?" "

It doesn't say there is or isn't a God. The question isn't a scientific one. NO theory in science deals with God.

"Hence your choice to initiate this argument with me, a well-known Southerner on this forum,"

How would I know you are from the South? Am I supposed to be a mind-reader? Believe it or not, I don't follow you around thread to thread to follow all of your posts. On these threads, where did it come up before now?

"because my beliefs embarrass you."

Why should your ignorance embarrass me?

"And I note that such Southerners never seem to be offended by transubstantiation or the aboriginal dreamtime or the Greek Orthodox "miracle of the holy fire." Those beliefs are accorded full respect. Genesis alone is attacked because Genesis is "the redneck book."

Those other beliefs don't conflict with the physical evidence about the history of the Earth and of life. Nobody I know of is trying to push those beliefs onto unsuspecting children in a science class.

"Of course, it is quite possible you love the old ante-bellum pre-fundamentalist South of Thomas Jefferson. Thank G-d the Puritans converted us!"

I love the modern South. I don't want to live anywhere else.

"But since (according to science) all our thoughts, ideals, beliefs, and opinions are merely the products of brain biochemistry, I wonder why science condemns people for the way their brain chemistry works."

Because reality is what it is despite what anybody's inner feelings are. Those who push creationism/ID are pushing the irrational and teaching people that evidence is not needed. The more people who think like that, the scarier the world will become. I live in the world, and my self interest is for as many people as possible to be rational human beings.

That's why I care.

The only self-haters I see here are the people who hate the brains they were born with and refuse to use them to understand the world.

And I note that such Southerners never seem to be offended by transubstantiation or the aboriginal dreamtime or the Greek Orthodox "miracle of the holy fire." Those beliefs are accorded full respect. Genesis alone is attacked because Genesis is "the redneck book."

You're overwhelmed with paranoia. I assure that if "aboriginal dreamtime" were construed as suggesting a chronology and sequence of earth history that contradicted the meticulously accumulated knowledge of professional geology, and if some group insisted that "dreamtime" science be included in textbooks and curricula as an "alternative" to conventional geology, the reaction would be EXACTLY the same.