Then your theory bears no resemblance to the theory of evolution, which depends entirely on critical analysis. On the other hand, intelligent design is by definition beyond critical analysis because the existence of a designer cannot be tested for.
You'd be surprised in the amount of critical analysis involved in exploring the existence of a designer. Just because it isn't science doesn't mean it can't involve critical analysis. I said I'll take a break from this topic, so carry on.
I would be just fine with not talking about the origin of humanity if people with "other alternative ideas" didn't bring them into politics. When religion becomes a driving force in our political system, then I can't help but get to the root of the thing when I come across it. Sometimes people's beliefs are simply their own and private and should be respected. But when it affects other people who don't believe, I have a problem. The role of superstition should be to comfort, but that's all in my mind. I don't need God to tell me not to kill or steal or the most common sense things. How am I moral without the belief in God? Today I found an ATM card left in the machine. I definitely delivered it to a teller in the bank after I finished my transaction. Why? Not bc I thought God would reward me or I'd go to hell if I didn't. I wouldn't want it to happen to me and I can visualize myself in their place and it made me mad. Not everyone is so civil, but I doubt basically telling them Santa won't bring them presents at Christmas will deter them much. The only way you can defend the concept of God in my mind is a non-personal Einsteinian-type God who put the laws of physics in motion. At least an Einsteinian God wouldn't be a heartless jerk who ignored humanity for tens of thousands of years until deciding to get involved personally in our lives a mere 2000 years ago. Then this personal God would want me to surrender the only thing, reason, that separates me from the animals? That sounds like a dictatorship to me. Go Rockets!
Easy enough to say but you are in a culture based on religious beleifs those beleifs are so ingrained that are taught even without the religion present The no killing and stealing is a part of our constitution our everyday language Rocket River
I liked the movie, (of course I didn't know about all the lies and deception) at least I didn't fall asleep in the theatre which often happens.
I'll go to it because I have a total straight man crush on Ben Stein. I'd see any thing that guy makes. Unless it's poop.
yeah. Initially I was curious. After reading more about the movie, it's just another heavily biased "documentary". Lying about interviews? Sheesh.
Fair enough. I didn't mean to come off harsh earlier in the thread either. I just get tired of these type of things, be it Michael Moore or Ben Stein. A few months back I got forwarded an email along with a bunch of other people that said the University of Kentucky was no longer accepting the Holocaust and stopped teaching it. I was like WTF, this can't be true - granted, it is Kentucky So, of course a little google and it is an urban legend, that actually started out as the whole country of England (the UK) first until that was debunked and then it picked up steam as the exact same story, just Kentucky. All it takes is a few people to believe and before you know it, a few million people out there have the wrong idea about something. It's disheartening.
Really? Maybe before the concept of ONE GOD or the modern concept of god but the concept of a higher being has been awhile for a while and Morality is more than just Murder or not Murder it is but on component Morality is a litany of things It is like saying there were counting before the concept of 0 as for China it is not the TEACHING of religion that makes a morality system Would you tell me there is no religion in China and never has been??? That the morality of these religions NEVER made it into the minds of the rulers and ruling parties???? Try to take that second step deeper than the surface my friend Rocket River just because there is not chicken on the crust . . .and it cannot be seen from the top . . .does not mean there is no chicken in a chicken pot pie!
Accepting any claims like these about prehistoric civilizations and civilizations with little written history require enormous leaps in logic.
Who said anything about prehistoric. Rocker River always comes from a christian perpsective so if he's trying to say that morals like killing is wrong was Judeo Christian idea first, that's just not true.
How perfectly honest this movie was. Michael Moore would have been ashamed to put this tripe out. I'm saddened by the lack of understanding of the difference here between the scientific definition of the word theory (see here) as well as the confusion between abiogenesis (the origin of life - look at Miller-Urey's experiments) and evolution. As a published Biologist (as an undergrad) and a Biology teacher it's doubly sad. Educators need to do a better job of explaining both what evolution is and how science actually works. Evolution has been under attack from scientists and non-scientists alike since it was first proposed. It has withstood those attacks time and time again, changing, becoming more and more refined along the way with the advent of things like molecular genetic techniques and the like. The so-called anti-ID/Creation agenda by the scientific community surely exists, but it's simply because none of it is actually science. If someone proposes that an invisible blue toaster circling Uranus is responsible for the elegance and diversity we see in nature, it's impossible to test. Is there also an anti-invisible blue toaster agenda that's keeping the proponents down? Not only is the IBTCL (invisible blue toaster circling Uranus) movement's hypothesis untestable, so is every single facet of the ID movement. They bring absolutely nothing to the table, scientifically speaking. The Wedge Document, a leaked internal memo from the Discovery Institute, details just how insidious their agenda truly is.
I never said that so . . in your mind. . someone says religion . .you say JUDEO-CHRISTIAN? Rocket River
Just in an entirely different way. The Babylonians are our legal ancestors (they influenced Hebrew law, which influenced Christian law) and they worshipped dead relatives, heroes, and the living ruler of their town. There was no unified morality until Hammurabi had it written down and so much of that was essentially contract law. I have no clue what or if I am arguing anything. Just felt like talking about Babylonians.
Uh when you say that you are implying a Judeo-Christian, or at least monotheistic understanding. For the record those polytheistic Hindus aren't for murder.
I haven't seen the movie and I don't know if I will, not because I'm against it but that I just don't see many movies these days, but the subject matter of the movie is one of the things that I find annoying regarding the ID vs. Evolution debate. It often ends up not being the scientific merits of ideas but about that one side is being persecuted by the scientific orthodoxy. I will repeat what I've said in other ID vs. Evolution debates. Just because something is a minority view doesn't make it anymore right. Ben Stein and others can rightfully argue that ID proponents are discriminated against and silenced but none of that is proof that ID is scientifically valid.
