The irresponsibility of ID

Remove all ads!

Well, I imagine if they are teaching it as a course, then it should "count" just like any other course. Pubic schools in the U.S. generally do not offer religious studies courses, but at many private school and universities, not only do they offer them, but they require you to take several of them. For example, I attended a Jesuit University, and we had an 18-credit requirement from the religious studies department, and at least 6 of thsoe credits had to be on courses focusing on the Old and New Testament. And of course, yes, they counted just like any other course.

[ December 21, 2005, 16:27: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Sydax,

I don't believe there is anywhere near as much interest in the UK (and therefore not a conflict as there isn't enough support for ID) but it does exist. I've a friend working in a South London school, and there are a few children that don't attend Biology classes as they are "Creationalists".

 

Never heard of anyone believing in intelligent design in here. I've seen a couple of mormons who believed in creationism but that's about it. Creationism and intelligent design is not taught in public education, not even in the religion class. And if you ask me that's the way it should remain and most likely will.

 

This point is likely made in many other threads, but my understanding is that in Catholic schools (which are also publicly funded, at least here in Alberta) there is a mandatory religion class. Given that the option to attend other public schools exists, I see no problem with that.

I guess I'm one of the "few Mormons" Morgoroth mentioned - -I'm not exactly sure what meaning is tacked onto the term "creationism", but if it means that someone believes that a Supreme Being created the universe, then count me in. That doesn't mean that I claim to know how that being did it, and I see no problem trying to study out scientifically how it was done, which to me would be the perfect topic for study in a science class; I'd have no trouble studying Evolution if I ever got the opportunity to take a science course again.

 

AFAIK the first creationism v/s evolution court case that was fought in US had the creationists harping on the litteral translation of the Bible. Not just the belief that we were created by a greater being but that the earth is 6000 years old and was created in 7 days and all that

 

Yes, if I recall correctly the quote in that case was "....4004 B.C...." (bad quote, leave me alone ) Proof the work of fiction known as the bible *equips flame shield +10* should not be taken literally, as explained below:

I actually know a kid who is so fanatically religious he doesn't believe in galaxies, that the universe has as many stars as it does, or dinosoars (lmao, did I spell that right? wow). In history class whenever the teacher mentions an ancient civilization with an existence date before 4004 B.C. he immediatly disagrees and claims that it never happened because the bible says the earth was created at that date--he doesn't even belive in the ice age or glaciers.

 

Oh boy. I didn't know those people still existed. I know a lot of hard core religious people. And when I say hard core I mean HARD CORE. But I didn't think anyone doubted the existence of ancient civilization, dinosaurs, or Ice Ages.

Oh, and I think you're right with the date of 4004 BC, as I have heard that too.

 

You think that's strange? There's a Flat Earth Society! Seriously. They think the earth is flat, that the space program is a myth created by the government, etc. And it turns out most members are also creationists. Go figure.

 

Oh, there are plenty of people (I know some of them) who think that space travel is a myth, but I think that has been covered in another thread.

 

I think that we're painting creationists with a rather broad and inaccurate brush. I'm a creationist. I believe in intelligent design. I don't believe in Intelligent Design, but my Faith and education let me know that none of this here by coincidence or a series of beneficial accidents. I'm not a raving lunatic who thinks the world is flat or 4000 years old or the space program was a hoax...and the vast majority of creationists are just like me.

Part of the reason that creationists tend to be a bit defensive is that we're continuously confronted with this same kind of ignorance and arrogance (a deadly combination) that causes evolutionists to chuckle and guffaw and pat each other on their backs to celebrate their superior intellect.

The un-Faithed scientific community has had it's share of nutcases too, but you don't see us try to assume that all scientists are the like. Just keep that in mind...the vast majority of creationists and intelligent designers are just as educated and well versed as you...many even believe in some forms of evolution as a natural process. In order to have an intelligent dialogue, respect must be shown by both sides.

 

Hack,

Can you please clarify these sentences from your post:

I can only assume that the differentiation lies in the fact that you capitalized the first use, but not the second use. So you believe in an intelligent designer, but not the same intelligent designer that people who support ID believe in? Please explain. And yes, I understand that the vast majority of people who support ID also believe in ancient civilizations, dinosaurs, and the space program, so in a sense, they're just like me too.

 

@AFI and Hack: I sort of believe in the idea that there's a designer behind the universe. I've said before - isn't it possible that God did create the universe and humankind, through the mechanisms of the Big Bang and evolution? My problem is not so much with ID itself, it's with its fallouts:
1) Calling ID science, and treating it as such; and
2) Taking the Bible literally.

 

Of course, Aldeth...I'm sorry, I thought the i.d. versus I.D. distinction had been discussed earlier in this thread, but maybe I read it somewhere else.

By ID I'm referring to the vocal minority who seek to have the anti-evolution challenges taught as a science. When evolutionists are found in error, by all means attack those errors within the scientific community, but the ID theory needs to be presented within the philosophy realm of academia (I think relegating it to religion class is an error also). Given the basic definition of any science, ID just doesn't fit, although I don't consider it without some merit.

I don't think that most people who have Faith in God would consider themselves in the ID camp. They, and I, would be considered id. id, by my definition, recognizes the irrefutable presence of God...a 'Prime Mover' if you will. Somewhere in distant time, very likely NOT 4000 years, God spoke and everything that exists began.

It's a little naive to cling to the standard that organisms can't change over time, we see it in the compressed life cycles of fruit flies or bacteria. We see people today generally taller than they were 200...500 years ago. Just as a rational person can't reject a natural phenomena such as erosion, aging or seasons, it's only sensible to consider, or at least entertain, a theory that changes have occurred to living organisms.

That's not to say that I buy any of the current theories for the origin of humankind or the varieties of life itself. I think that there is enough of "organism level" change built into God's creation to enhance the survivability of the organisms, as well as fool fallible scientist into extrapolating it to a much larger scale. I think that man has existed from his beginings fundamentally as we see him now...although even if there have been physiological changes, it's a basic teaching of almost all Christianity that when "God made us in His image" it implies a spiritual resemblance, not a physical.

God didn't create a static world that has an unyeilding design...it's alive and dynamic. Likewise, God doesn't finitely control every action (ie. picking us up if we stub our toe and fall), He rather infinitely controls every action in ways that surpass our wildest imaginations. In my opinion, a world where change can and will occur is far more in keeping with my understanding of God anyway. God never changes while his creation always will...that's what makes us "creature" instead of "creator".

It think this pretty much summarizes the viewpoint of most creationists...rational, educated and surprisingly well thought out. I'd share some thoughts that a Jesuit once told me...but people around here think I'm nuts enough already.

I hope this covers how I make the distinction between ID and id...besides, to call God "intelligent" is like calling the Pope "Catholic".

[edit]Sorry, BTA and Rally were answering while I was typing away on my intelligently designed keyboard.