ID - was 'censorship sux'

[fringe_dweller]

Viva democracy!

[xrekcor]

Hola Police State!

[h0ughy]

Ok you got our attention, so what is so bad as to cry foul?

[fringe_dweller]

Houghy - I cant say, the Thought Police are inside my head ( oh sorry thats a cheap trick song hehe) actually if you read my signature that will give you a hint ;)

[fringe_dweller]

actually it is very serious an important, it is about an unprecedented attack on the 400 years of the age of reason and science

[fringe_dweller]

...And the people behind this very serious and highly organised and funded, highest level possible connected movement are protected by a type of political correctness - even though they are generally the most vocal opponents of PC I have ever heard - ironic?. I just dont like seeing the laid back attitude, and "she'll be right" and all that of Aussies being taken advantage of by - again! - by this stealthy thin edge of the wedge stuff

[h0ughy]

The forum rules are quite clear on the topic of religions and debates on that subject, but this one is a little grey. Because this is being integrated into school curriculums for science I agree that there should be some definition of the boundaries of the topic. Bagging religion for being just that, religion is wrong. But bagging science because it is just that pure science is also wrong.

The views expressed by the members in contributing to this type of topic should be just that their views.

But it is easy to offend, I seem to be good at doing that on occations. And with different viewpoints there is an easy cop out to blame the neanderthals for not understanding the reasons given for an arguement. This leads to heated posts and divisions within the forum community.

For this reason I can see why it was pulled, however Mike et Al (mods) the fact is this is going to be official curriculum for science, there must be some discussion.

[Ambermile]

We have a little of the same problem here - not that there are calls to bring it into the curriculum (it already it was there though the RE subject matter) but there prolly soon will be. I have no problem with it being included as long as the full meaning of the word "THEORY" is stressed - for all sides of the debate. I don't have issues with it - but I do have issues with the "fall down and worship" part, whichever side of the debate is talking. Intelligent design is an elegant solution, but one bound to instill deep inferiority in people if true. Darwinian is also elegant - and can be seen in action, but also bound to instill inferiority in some. (having said that I look around me and sometimes have to think that natural selection for the fittest to survive is *not* working, but that's maybe getting too political).

Arthur

[fringe_dweller]

Well said! thats right - this is to be taught IN science classes (and taken seriously) AS science - that changes evrything IMO, they cant hide behind that greyness as they so like to do on this occassion. The theory and its reasons for being taken seriously must be out in the full light of day. and don't forget we are talking about a view that isnt seriously held to be gospel by probably maybe, who knows - 80% of christians - certainly not the biggest ones do - this should be in relegious education classes - i would have no problem with that

[asimov]

The 'thought police' belong to George Orwell's novel 1984....The 'dream Police' was cheap shot's......I mean cheap Trick's song...

[fringe_dweller]

thanks for pointing that asi - dream police - thought police same diff :P i think ID is a cheap shot

[fringe_dweller]

Arthur, it sounds like your a little partial to the idea perhaps? yes I like elegant theories, for example - Erich von Daniken's "Chariots of the Gods?" was a popular theory held by UFO enthuisiasts - it reached fantastic acceptance in the '70's, but should it be taught as science in schools? hhmm ...I am sure the road to perdition is paved with elegant theories alongside the path of good intentions - if I we were allowed to examine the details of an article of faith that is presented as a verbatim irrefutable fact, than maybe I could explain myself better? But i cant at this stage.

[fringe_dweller]

also I feel that a great deal of the ID thrust comes from great uncomfortableness and an unease and inferiority some people feel with being descended from monkeys -

[avandonk]

No I am afraid it is much worse than that!We are descended from gutless spineless flatworms!This explains alot!

Bert

[Exfso]

QUE???!!!

:confuse3:

[avandonk]

Sorry for the confusion.

I was just pointing out at what point do you stop saying what we evolved from.Why stop at a monkey.The reality is we are all made of the remnants of stars and supernovae and so is everything around us (apart from the Hydrogen and Helium and some of the Lithium).It just took a long time for working arrangements of these atoms to produce life and then self awareness.

Bert

[gaa_ian]

A very interesting discussion !
So who says that ID is going to be taught in our schools?
I thought this was something that has been thrown out of every education board in Aust, when it has been suggested ID become part of the SCIENCE Curriculum ?
Entirely appropiate to be taught in the RE classes, or as a scientificlly unproven theory in the science classes perhaps?

[jmb]

I agree, this is a very interesting discussion. I certainly would like to have a better grasp of the issues involved. I think religion and science can benefit greatly from each other.

Anyway, I think any discussion which allows different opinions to be expressed should be encouraged..
:nerd:

[fringe_dweller]

Ian, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/21/intelligent_design/ it is not definite yet of course - but the fact that none less than the Australian federal education minister Dr. Brendan Nelson is a another very vocal pro-active proponent of it - in fact it seems to be one of his fields of special interest, that doesnt reassure me very much that it will never happen - I dont think now but who knows in the new police state they might be able to do it easy?
I took from the tone of most media outlets (now that George Dubya is a beleiver an backer) that they are taking it all quite seriously - its like everyones going "like yeah why not? - i didnt like being descended from monkeys - thats brilliant" the fact that it is even contemplated seriously for a millisecond in the media, and in my face 24/7 - absolutely blows my mind - and scares the living beegeezus out of me - I mean werent the Taliban specialists at that sort of stuff?

[avandonk]

ID is no more a theory than the existance of the tooth fairy.Niether is testable.

Science on the other hand cannot prove or disprove any superstitious belief that is untestable.
Evolution is testable and is now incontrivertible.
All people are allowed to believe anything they like no matter how preposterous.
So keep beliefs based on faith where they belong, in religous classes.

Bert

[TidaLpHasE]

Here Here, totally agree.

And i definately have no problem being a decendant of a monkey;)

[janoskiss]

The smartest thing I heard said on this topic was along these lines:

When you invoke a creator or "designer" in your ideas about the origin of the world, then you are just shifting the problem onto the origin of the Creator. Most believers will simply say that: Ahh, but that's the creator, He's always been there and always will be. So why not just say that the stars have always been or life has always been?

The truth is that we don't have a clue what is going on! Some of us pretend that we do, but if anyone takes an honest look at themselves, they would have to admit they have no idea. I believe that this lack of ability to understand the true nature of the world is an integral part of our semi-conscious human existence. Some people will attach divine significance to things they don't understand. I am happy to simply acknowledge the severe limitations of my cerebral cortex and just work with what I've got.

[avandonk]

There is nothing wrong with that approach but don't call it science!

We still cannot even start to figure out what or where conciousness is.But that does not mean we retreat and invoke the aluminium hat god.
This is as good a belief as all the others.

Bert

[netwolf]

Why mix Science and RE. Both have there seperate places.

BTW did someone prove Macro-evolution (one specis to another) while i was sleeping or is that still in contention.
Micro-Evolution (evolution within one specis) is not proof of Macro, and I do not belive there has been any evidence found of Macro. Unless some has and I dont know about it..

Regards

[janoskiss]

I didn't mean to. :ashamed:

[avandonk]

Thats what I have been saying.

The typical tactic of the ID/creation mob is to find an area of contention and then claim science doesn't know.And then say the whole edifice is invalid.
They don't apply this criteria to their superstitions.

Macro(your definition) evolution is real ,just have a look at the evidence!It is all around you.
If you want a futher explanation read Darwins original book.We have moved a long way since then as we now know the molecular basis for his original hypothesis.

Bert

[fringe_dweller]

ok in my understanding of ID - the basic unquestionable bedrock fundamental core of the Theory is that the Earth is no older than 6000 years - I'm sorry but i cant get past this first little part of it - let alone and of the other bits

I have to say that the original thread that was deleted wasnt started by me, but i got upset that twice now my posts had been deleted on this topic - and I didnt think there was anything offensive in them and the subject was relevant to today and astronomy - that it actually made me worse -
also it makes me sad to have to seemlingly denigrate someones beliefs - i beleive the vast majority of christians do amazing good works everyday - lots of thankless tasks in volunteer organisations, hospitals you name it ect. and society wouldnt be where it is today without its organised religon in history
but if we are placed in a position were you have to defend your beliefs (make no mistake this theory doesnt accomandate anywhere for science - it is anti science by its very nature - and is basically calling science a pile of rubbish) than what can you do?
Lots of intelligent and great responses to the thread Guys hehe
- flatworms hehe :)

[netwolf]

You are right Bert, that is a narrow definition i suppose but you must admit there are still things we have to find like fosil records etc. The abscence of this is still alarming.

Everything has a place and it does not need to be the same place. But what i really dislike are the zelots on either side of the debate. Faith requires not proof as that is unfaithfull, it need only be taught as faith. As to Scienctific method, that is how we explore our world and understanf it with what limited senses we have. Science is not a cetaintiy as it changes and grows with us.

Regards

[netwolf]

Come on 6000 years old, thats just a cheap shot.. a day does not have to mean 24 hours. Diffrent planets have diffrent day lentgs and when was time a fixed quantity or is that theory indisputable..

[avandonk]

An area in the history of science that was even more scary was Newtons Clockwork Universe.It implied predetermination.Classical Physics said that if you knew the position of all particles in the Universe and their velocities you could predict the past and the future.This implied fate and no matter what you did you would meet your destiny!We now know this is not true.Quantum mechanics and chaos theory both predict an indeterminate future.We still have free will!
It is up to us to make our future.

Bert

[fringe_dweller]

Netwolf, are you saying that fact I mentioned isnt fundamental to the theory - thats the way I heard it loud and clear through the media?? The highly paid PHD in marketing gurus for ID should of done a better job in explaining it to the world, How is a theory that flexible?

[avandonk]

No it is not a cheap shot!Either there is an internally self consistent theory that is testable.Or it is a superstitious belief called any religion.ID is just that a superstitious belief without any foundation in any rigorous science.

Bert

[avandonk]

By the way the word superstitious is derived from two words super=above

the stit bit is stand both Latin origin.Just going on a failing memory of latin ca.1962

Bert

[fringe_dweller]

just as a reference - i was raised in a hardline Catholic bible thumpin enviroment - we learnt the bible by rote in school - as all good christians did then. So i am not unfamiliar with organised religon exactly
What i dont understand is religon and science were getting along just fine - a sort of mutual respect if you want
even the usually ultra conservative hardline Roman Catholic Church had no problem with being descended from monkeys and flatworms whatsoever (the Pope just recently flatly rejected ID on wholesale level just out of interest) - because to them God is so great as to transcend mere mortals understanding - who knows why he did it the way he did it? He created the whole universe supposedly? why would he do that? just to accomondate one little planet? so we have something to look at through our telescopes? why couldnt he of intended the outcome the way science thinks it happened - I am not so un-openminded as to not think that is a possibilty of all the possibilties

[avandonk]

All that works is science.Science cant yet explain love lust greed and all the other good things let alone the sins.
How I handle GOD is by thinking of two ants crossing the carpet in the lounge room and one ant says to the other I know how that television works and from now on you should listen to me. They do not have the wherewithall and niether do we.So I'll stick to something simple like science.
One thing the Christian Brothers taught me was a healthy disrespect for any authority.

Bert

[iceman]

Ok this is a valid discussion, please keep to the topic and don't post anything which is intended to cause a reaction.

Don't forget, we have a lot of members with varying ideals and beliefs and you never know who might get offended by what you post. Please, err on the side of caution.

If you see anything offensive, use the "report post" button and the mods or I will take a look.

[slice of heaven]

Cool, Kearn :) This is in response to your temporary sig of yesterday, but I couldn't reply because of the sites problem.
I was happy with the reasons given for pulling the original thread, there is a fine line.
Seems the site IS mature and grown up enough to discuss a topic like this ;)

[netwolf]

I do not subscribe to any theories that have a basis in Religion, as religion requires no theories its based on faith. At present I accept the Science that we know thus far, and I dont worry about the gap between it and faith. I was brought up a muslim and according to our scriptures, in many places it is idicated that those who wish to understand will understand. And one of the major areas were this is mentioned is in the sighting of the crsecent moon and the lunar callender, it clearly indicates that this is what we declare but those who want to understand it will. And Astronomy clearly today presents a theory that explains lunar movements well and there is no gap. The stars above and there movements has been well understood for many thousands of years. The pyramid builders the Mayans the ancient indians and others all understood the motions of the stars as is seen in there construction works. Part of living is to except that our understanding is limited to what we can observer repetedly and this is Science. This does not mean that faith is incorect or that Science is. It just is, and those who insist on finding proof for faith are driven to make others understand.

Creating theories to explain that fit your faith is being unfaithfull. I accept that there is something beyond my understanding that i can not observer nor explain. That is faith..

Though my parents are religious both are very scientific in there attidudes and that they have passed on to us. Education teaches us how to communicate,observer and learn. And I belive our kids our smarter thans us in understanding the gap between science and faith. Why certain folk belive its neccessary to prove faith is beyond my understanding.

Why I like astronomy and why i am a forum member is because i wish to expand my knwoledge of the universe arround me in a scientific way. And my upbringing is such that it demands this in conjunction with my faith.

Appoligies if i have caused offense to anyone.


Regards
Netwolf.

[avandonk]

I am in total agreement with you Netwolf.That was the point I was trying to make all along.Science and religion are not in conflict.It only becomes a problem when we attempt to use either to denigrate the other.
The problems that have occurred through history have been due to some humans hanging on to their power and priveledge,rather than their firmly held beliefs.
I am sorry if I have caused any offence to anyone.But I think it is fair to say something when this line is crossed.

Bert

[acropolite]

Well said Bert...

[Eardrum73]

If you look through the annals of history, you will realised that man has always had a need to belief in something greater than themselves.

Every civilisation from the ancient Egyptians, the Norse, ancient Greeks to the Incas in Peru, believed in gods, creators that shaped the world. Most of them had not one diety but a few! Each one to explain a particular phenomena or to cope with a particular aspect of their daily lives.

It is an inherrrant need in all humans (even in the modern world) to seek to explain the unexplainable world around them. To give meaning to something that is uncontrollable.
In the ancient days, the heavens and stars were seen as celestial powers that could influence their world. A solar eclipse probably meant the sacrifice of few hundread virgins in some cultures..... (I am exaggerating, but you get the picture)

What I am trying to say is that when faced with the unknown, ( and man fears the unknown) man will try to quantify in a manner that is comprehendable to the human mind.

ID follows from the need of man to believe in something greater than themselves, hence to me it is more a belief, a religion or philosophy instead of science.
But in todays where society is heading towards freedom of belief, making it a part of the science cacriculum in schools seems to be taking a step backwords in that sense.
What if I don't want to study ID because I believe in the philosophies of Nitchezt or I am simply athiest? Or I am of a religious belief that has conflicting views with ID? Why force it down people's throats?

If anything I believe ID should be classified as a philosophy, since it is neither completely in the region or science or religion.

My opinion in this is that it should be like an optional subject, just like any philosophy class in any school or univerisity.

[davidpretorius]

"everything in moderation"

I hate seeing what happens when religion, money, science & other human conditions get out of whack!

I watched a doco last night on the abc re the suicide bombers, and whilst I get so angry when they blow up innocent people, I felt I was made aware of how enshrined into their way of life, ie their parents and grand parents worship the "sacrifice" their children have made. I learnt something!!! Before that I was judging without knowing the full story. I still don't like what they do, but at least I am aware of how these problems and deep seated causes need to be addressed over a long time before it can be fixed.

There are no definates, no-one is perfect and there is no right or wrong, we must try and live together. As soon as we get judgemental and start categorising people, we lose out way.

I am not religious, but I like many of the 10 commandments and they make great sense. I like the more "Liberal" individual pursuits and goals in the workplace, but I don't like how I may now have ability to be able to bully a 16 yr into an agreement where it is obvious he or she has no experience in negotiating.

When it all gets to messy, I think of the old pope or the dalai lama (not sure on spelling). They are obvious results of religion (and the old pope had some different views to me about certain things) , but they seem to me to always have humility & utmost regard for humanity.

We shouldn't try and always complicate it!!

There are guys and girls on this forum with chequered pasts, we are not all computer programming physics boffins. And that is what makes it great. We share a common passion, but bring a different perspective, and we are all made richer because of it.

The one thing I want my 5 yr daughter to learn, is to be able to think for herself. Yes you are there to learn from a teacher, who may put a slant on things because the government says so or the school priest says so, but whatever she does, I want her to ask questions until she is satisfied she has an answer. If that teacher is too stupid to realise that this is "real learning", then watch out parent teacher night!!!!

Governments and policy makers come and go. they make stupid decisions sometimes, but the more i observe how it all works, the more "faith" i have in grass roots, face to face leaders within the community. They tend to be the ones that grow our communities & economy!!!. Don't worry what they push thru schools, there will always be a rebel teacher, one that clicks with your child!

Iceman had a dream for this site, we all followed. The way Bird grabbed hold of us fledgling imagers and captivated us at star camp was another example. He could have been an arrogant guy that simply puts out great pics, but no, he is a leader and educator. His images now mean a whole lot more because of that!

Our kids will be allright, give them the opportunity to be around natural leaders and thy flourish. Teach them to question politely if they don't agree or understand and respect others and they will be all right!

[jjjnettie]

Our duty to our children is to bring them up open minded enough to accept that others have different views. Learning about other peoples beliefs is integral to that.
How can they make intelligent decisions about their own faiths and beliefs ( religious or scientific) without this knowledge?

[Moonman]

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051107/full/051107-6.html


Heres a free article from nature.com on what's happening in two US states Kansas and Pennsylvaina.

I think all creation stories whether believed literally or not were never intended to be tested scientifically by those who wrote them including God him/herself if you believe this to be the case.

It could be argued that creation pseudo sciences are misleading as they use the language of science to promote what is a purely theological perspective and interpretation as scientific fact.

I have no problem with ID in the sense that I believe there is a creator. But I do have a problem when this becomes confused with science and misrepresented missing the whole point of these texts.

The biblical creation story was written down during the Babylonian Captivity as an attempt to preserve culture and traditions and even, if you look at the historical context, to assert a natural view of creation in the face of a culture that interpreted the sun, moon and stars as gods and demons.

At the very least it is a step in evolution of thought on the matter but never intended to be dragged through a dogmatic argument over our origins.

Food for thought. I try not to get too bogged down with this stuff as in church circles it becomes an extremely devisive issue.

I have no problem seeing evolution and big bang theories as a viable process to explain how we got here but we do have to show a little caution as new data and ideas don't always fit the generally accepted models. So it pays to keep an open mind and to be sensitve to others when we discuss these issues.

I hope this adds well to the discussion.

[netwolf]

I agree with your Bert. I think that it boils down to fear, fear that belifs maybe be discarded for Science. I think that if you truely belive in something then no amount of Science will disuade you. What we need to chidren is to be open minded and that there is greater truths to be learned by opening ourselves to appreciate diversity. To walk in another persons shoes, will teach you how to respect his view of the world. So to enforce a belif as Science is meaningless fear.

Many of the evils in our world have little to do with belifs or science, they have more to do with greed and power. Educatators need to be vigilant that they are not falling prey to the would be power brookers.

I dont know if any of you watched that movie with Robin Williams called Patch Adams. The scene were the mad proffeseor in the hospital asks Robin how many fingers do you see. I think this scene shows the power of human imagination is limetless, why limit it by Science or Faith. Small children playing never distinguish between race religion and crede. It is the adults around them that shape there views and create the distinctions. Teachers are not given anywhere near the respect they deserve and it is they who must protect our kids fron any one sided influences.

Regards
Netwolf.

[fringe_dweller]

Thanks Slice :) I was fairly confident that the IIS forum was chockers full of smart, tolerant, intelligent people who could calmly and rationaly discuss an issue without resorting to emotional responses to get their point across, even with potentially explosive matters :)

I have enjoyed every response so far - they all have very good points - isnt free speech a great thing!

Netwolf, beautiful and eloquent responses - I found them very interesting indeed, thanks for sharing an insight from a different perspective

Bert, we agree on a lot of things there, I love that ant's & TV ananolgy - that cracked me up :) so true! and yes the CB's taught me a healthy respect for authority too, but i just missed out on latin - they had just stopped the mass being celebrated in Latin when i was very young - thank goodness :P

Eardrum, i think I have heard fear is the number one motivating driving emotion in Humans - you can find it at the root of many things - even in this debate!

David, I am in agreeance with you totally, well said mate

jjjnettie, agreed :)

I would of thought that the children of Christian parents would of received plenty of information on their religion from the Parents themselves and from the church they attend - why the need for the additional information? If we are going to be openminded why stop at the views of one particular small branch of the christian faith - we should maybe include the Aboriginals Dreamtime version of creation in Science classes as science as well? after all shouldnt their heritage be respected too?
I am just afraid that this was going to be some sort of indoctrination process - after all the jesuits used to say 'Give me a child till the age of seven and they would be a catholic forever" or something along those lines - ie brainwashing - I think you get plenty of opportunities in early adulthood and way beyond to examine all the possible paths in life and make better informed decisions as a result perhaps - why the rush?

Michael, scary hey! I notice cosmology was one of the subjects removed from the school curriculum in the 1999 case - if anyone thinks this subject is going to go away from the world - they had better think again - these people are on a mission - and they dont give up easy ;) yes dogma is no substitute for Science and never will be

Its extremely surprising to me in the 21st century that we are forced to defend things that i would of never of thought we would have to defend when i was younger - goes to show you cant take anything for granted in this great new progressive century - vigilance is a neccesary constant

[rumples riot]

hmmm, I think that we are being made to return to the 1950s. In reality we have never lived in a free and open society, its all an illusion to keep the masses quiet. Religion serves this purpose as well. Science does this also to some degree. Can anyone of us really prove any scientific theory? Can anyone prove that god does or does not exist? Both I believe have an emphatic no attached to them.

Funny, the introduction of oppressive legislation to hold "terrorists" or have powers that a draconian, New legislation to control Unions and workers and now teach the kiddies ID theory. Just like going back to the 50's. Seems that is a pretty fair indication of where our society is headed. The people that Australians voted for, have decided that we need to feel safe and warm and that a return to these values are necessary. That's the way forward. So much for science. Knowledge is power; no knowedge is now dangerous!!!

I tend to agree that the fossil record has many problems, that said though, even if you say the earth is 6000 years old, how did the fossils get there and why are there no fossils of modern man in amongst the Dinosaurs or Ediacrean (spelling ?) fossils? I think both the evolutionary arguments and the creationist arguments have loads of holes in them. No one theory will stand up to heavy scrutiny. There is no proof definitively either way. Religion is irrational, science is pragmatic. Nothing is certain.

Maybe science like religion is just another form of brain washing. Maybe non of our theories are really correct, after all; we can't even travel frequently to the moon, much less the stars, how are we to know what is real and what is unreal. Its all subjective. Perhaps in 5000 years we will be looked upon as quaint neanderthals with a lust for power and little understanding of the real universe. Much less what is actually going on.

Hmmmmm. What is so bad about teaching ID theory? Well nothing really, Both science and religion are largely unproven in my mind, I can't say catagorically that all science is correct, theories change, Gods change. Funny if we were completely wrong about most things!!!!

[gaa_ian]

Having recently watched the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy movie
The Quote by "Slardy Bardfast" the creator of the "Fiords" in Norway in the Movie is appropiate:
"I would much rather be happy .... than Right"

Having recently attended an ID lecture by one of the Authors of "Creation" magazine based in Brisbane.
I questioned the presentor on his assertions that his "evidence" that the earth was a mere 10,000 yo, he was forced to qadmit that his evidence was really a matter of faith in what is written in the Bible, when taken in a literal & not a metaphorical sense.
Faith I have no problem with, I consider myself a Christian.
Faith Masqerading as Science, that is another matter, & not something I would want my kids to be taught as "Fact".
Ask questions and keep asking questions, that is the key to understanding
Both intellectually & spiritually !

[janoskiss]

Geez this thread has obviously touched on some very difficult topics. Just have a look at the lengths of the posts here compared to most other threads. So I'll keep this brief (and preachy :P): Blind faith in what one's parents and peers are telling them belongs in childhood. Thinking for oneself and encouraging others to do the same is a healthy way to be.

[Stu]

I'm glad this thread wasn't canned.

Before I add my view I'd like to say that my wife is Christian and I am as far from religious as you can get. I initially refused to get married in a church. We are both very stubbon and it quickly became clear that we were going to have a stalemate that could stop us getting married if we didn't agree on where we would get married.

Then I woke up... (No I didn't turn born-again :rolleyes: ) and thought that one day we are all going to die and the people who remember us will all die and the planet will get swalled by our big red giant main sequence star and even if we have left the planet we wil not survive the big crunch or big rip or big chill anyway so who cares what type of building I get married in. Problem solved. Now I'm in the process of living happly ever after...

Science and religion can get along nicely.

Having said that...ID in science classes is teaching a blatent lie. I will never let my kids be taught it in the context of science classes. But they can select in as "an optional subject, just like any philosophy" -> Thanks Eardrum73.

[netwolf]

Did we not recently go to war with a nation that practiced, strict relgious education and draconian laws. I wonder who won....

rumples, i did not say it was 6000 years old. I dont know how old the earth is. And Scientifcally how to we validate the age, as none of us where there. We can only theorise on that.

Regards

[ving]

good olde creationists vs evolutionists...
I am not an expert in either but my opinion is that I have not seen or heard enough evidence on either side to substantiate a claim that either side is right or wrong.
Astrophysics has given us insight into the movement of planets and some idea of how the universe works and was created... but from what i see alot of it is guesses based on what is currently happening. no one was actually around to experience how the universe was created.

so much of this science is educated guess work as far as i can see...
creation? "click!" tadaaaa! we have a universe... er... I dont know bout that either.

so there you go, my opinion is that i dont have one :)

[davidpretorius]

whoever or wherever they came from, I like looking at stars!!!!

[netwolf]

Well there is always the Stargate theory, we are not from this world... I suppose that fits in well from the exodus of eden... lol. Maybe we evolved some place else.. Maybe the earth was moved accros the universe by the Borg... and maybe i need more coffee or not.. wait its coming to me know.. we are not on the original earth... we are the 12 tribes for the 12 constelations who left earth far behind... and only the Battlestar Galactica can get us home...


Dave, I am with you lets get back to them stars.. If only the clouds would leave.. If only i can get enought time from work to do my centre spoting... if only...

[fringe_dweller]

I am afraid even a dummy like me can see the surrounding countryside that I live in isnt eroding and changing at a rate that would fit a 6-10 000 year time frame :P I dont think you have to be einstein to work that bit out! or the rate at which galaxies ect are evolving during our lifetime while viewing them through our telescopes! many, many simple examples like that. rate at which a glacier moves ect. none of these things fit a 6-10 000 year frame rate. And beleive me that is fundamental to this theory - remember many movements and politics rely on the general apathy and non involvement and ignorance to get their agenda's progressing - the nazi's for instance - I wonder if the victims of the Holacaust thought life was just a dream?.

I also think it is mischevious, to say the least, that a belief held dear by all of ~6% of all Christians masquerading as fact is given MASSIVE reverent and unquestioning mainstream media coverage over a sustained period of time, and is even seriously considered by our government representatives at the highest level, as replacement and or alternative to science for all Aussies, non-christians everybody, the lot. And on top of that if you question and examine it, you are anti-God and religion - that is outrageous! how conveniant!
Even a dummy like me knows that science is fully transparent, built slowly on facts tested over and over, and science thrives and invites and indeed demands that you question and question hard everything contained in it - thats how it got were it is today - lets look at this alternative to science - I think dogma is supposed to be just accepted and accepted unquestionably..that is called faith

to harp on about my experience again - the brand of religon I know best was very wary of the old testament and indeed almost embaressed of it - they just glossed over it -they seemed to think it was slightly unhealthy and morbid to get too hung up on it and take it all literally - they were totally different when it came to the new testament - from Jesus onwards and the gospels was their big focus - and quite rightfully.
My main concern re this theory was not wether god exists or doesnt, but how this seriously proposed Theory related to a subject i am fond of and what were the impications for cosmology, astronomy? I cannot find any information on the web from the proponents of this theory that tells me how the 6-10 000 year time frame fits in with cosmology - does that make the universe the same age - I assume it does? can anyone tell me? TIA

[fringe_dweller]

also i dont see scientists campaigning hard to have Darwin's theory of evolution added to the Bible and have it preached in sunday school? maybe they should? that would be only fair. I wonder if Darwin will have to change its name now? maybe to Howardtown or something?

[davidpretorius]

Good point Kearn,

another one:

I listen to news radio and it transmits the parliament. Why in this day and age must we say something wimiliar to the lords prayer to open daily proceedings. Hate to think what any muslims and buddhists or athiests are meant to do during this time when the are in parliament??

It seems to me to make it a complete waste of time. Which is a shame. Why not a statement towards humanity and serving the australian people.

................Then the cynic in me who does like lots of common sense religious stuff, cracks up laughing as these politicians start scrapping and arguing like a 3 yr olds before all this nice introductions have even finifhed!!!

[fringe_dweller]

Thanks! its true David - Church and State should be a very seperate as they say

I hate to say it - it is some of the most unchristianlike behaviour I have ever seen
I know christians arent perfect, just forgiven - as the bumper sticker goes
it seems like religions are like football clubs you barrack for now - your either with us or against us type of thing

[bonox]

<hr> This is an e-mail I received from a friend so it must be all true with very good points.


CC:

* DOVER SCHOOL BOARD (PENNSYLVANIA)
* OHIO STATE SCHOOL BOARD
* RIO RANCHO SCHOOL BOARD (NEW MEXICO)
* GRANTSBURG SCHOOL BOARD (WISCONSIN)
* COBB COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD(GEORGIA)
* SHELBY COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD(TENNESSEE)
* CHARLES COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD(MARYLAND)
* NAPERVILLE SCHOOL BOARD(ILLINOIS)
* DARBY SCHOOL BOARD (MONTANA)
* BLUFFTON-HARRISON SCHOOL BOARD (INDIANA)

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.
http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg
In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Sincerely Yours,

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.
P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.
http://www.venganza.org/him2.jpg

[janoskiss]

Flying Spaghetti Monster! I'm convinced and converted!
:rofl:

[bonox]

i just love being touched by his noodly appendage :D

[janoskiss]

Amen Brother ... or Sister! :rofl:
:lol: I can't stop laughing! I'm in tears. I'm glad I'm not at work right now because I'd be in a lot of trouble.

[bonox]

another one:

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

Evangelical

Rev. Gabriel Burdett (left) explains Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."

[avandonk]

Some fifteen years ago I said to my boss at CSIRO (He is a world renowned scientist) that I thought that the human brain worked at a Quantum level.This means when retreiving information or thinking about a complex problem all possible states exist and in an instant the best answer or information appears in the concious mind.This was my only 'proof'.
His reply was collect all the evidence you can, test it repeatedly,and if it makes a testable prediction, test the prediction.Then come back to me and convince me with facts and results.I have still yet to do this by his criteria or satisfaction.This is the scientific method.

But some real consequences if this is correct,it would give a mechanism for telepathy over time and space,non corporeal existance,and more.

As I write this there are some major breakthroughs being made in Quantum computing.So only time will tell.

I thought I would throw this in as how science works.

Bert

[bonox]

thanks Bert - got a hypothesis on how you are going to test it?

[avandonk]

Out of body experiences if they can be proved beyond doubt to be real is one way to test.Telepathy is another.The only weak evidence so far is child prodigies Mozart for one.Idiot Savants,and there are many,as in the film Rainman is another weak indication or proof.

There could be some evidence in the highly disciplined practitioners of some meditative religions.This is just a start.
But the real test would be a working Quantum computer that would give us some insights into how the brain functions.
Modern digital computers are just machines that bear no relation to how our brains work.

There is one more thing.When two particles are 'created' out of the energy of an energetic photon.A positron and electron say they are still linked.Einstein called this action at a distance and refused to believe it.How it works that both particles have indeterminate states until you observe one.Once this is done the other particle of the pair immediately has its state fixed by this observation no matter how far apart they are.This actually exceeds the speed of light!
This is purely philosophical but did you ever consider that if the Universe started from a singularity, all particles are linked.The whole Universe is linked
at some level to itself!Where in the young child does happiness,joy and hope reside?


Bert

[netwolf]

Excellent post bonox, i think you nailed it. There are so many theories out there that it makes no sense to teach them as fact. I think its very important thought that kids be taught the difrence between fact and theory. Science labs as i recall used to be about experiments, observing, recording, postulating, formulating and repeating. This process allows us to use our limited senses to make sense of the workd by ensuring the theory we postulate and formulate fits the data, and is repeatable. We are limited to the data we can gather. Theories are such where we have an inability to gather data, or can only gather limited data as the event has already passed.

As such theories are almost fictional requiring imagination and faith. To convert these to facts may not be near impossible sometimes.

As such if we provide children with a sound understanding of the "Scientific Method", and help them understnad there limits then they can be safely exposed to any theory. Sheltering them will not increase there knowledge, weather that knowledge comes from RE class or Science class those are only containers. And one other thing that is required that will only come with age is Wisdom. The sample data that bonox provided shows how data alone can not be used to draw valid conclusions. The wisdom required to see beyond the data, can only come with age and experience. We can draw graphs of anything vs anything but the wise observer knows what not to bother with.

At the end of schooling, one must see the big picture infinite diversity in infinite combintations (Vulcans -Star Trek). To see that Science/Maths/English/Relgion (all of em not one) etc are not seperate but requrie each other to form wisdom enough to see the big picture. The key is to diversify learning post learning the basics.

I dont think teaching ID or any other theory anyone has is wrong, but first it is necessary to learn the fundamentals. Teaching ID or any theory as fact is fraud. To teach it as a common belif is more appropriate.

The whole thing boils down to the learning phillosophy which we as adults will base on our experince of what is good and bad, however will our children ever see furhter if we are not giants. If we do not diversify learning then will our children be the same as us and is the need of ours to make our children the same as us is it benificial or futile. Truely not a subject that can be resolved simply.

Huygen wave theory of light was not accepted beacuse Newton was more popular and so the particle theory of light persisted for 200 years, will we limit our children with what we currently percive as truth or allow the to explore the infinite diversity. Limited only by some smal set of rules. Do no harm to self or the others, etc some kind of prime directives perhaps..

Keep um comming this is an intresting and stimulating discussion.. Almost sufficent to pass the time while the clouds hang around.

Regards
Netwolf

[avandonk]

To Netwolf: I again fully agree with you.It is the blurring of boundaries that can lead to conflicts.It is also paramount that human knowledge should not be partitioned (pidgeonholed).Humanities combined knowledge should be self consistent (no paradoxes).

Bert

[fringe_dweller]

Bonox - while i personally find those very funny satirical looks at the subject entirely apt (I hope they are satirical!! ;) *gulp* - I think i remember the spaghetti monster one from a while ago :) )- we still have be aware that some members might find them offensive? (I have avoided naming names so far - I would like to use to the vague euphenism/name they so often refer to themselves by - a christian group - none of the other big ones do that? wonder why they would hide there true identitiy so often?) and it could result in the pulling of the thread ;( and that would be unfortunate! so I implore caution in future posts from all if you want the thread to remain -
Bert would my vague feelings of deja vue qualify as evidence? hehe :)

I have another "any (non scientist) dummy can see at a glance ..." easy piece of observational evidence that the earth is quite likely much older than 6 - 10 000 years - just look at the moon - is it covered in huge craters? that are obviously not new? - and we dont have much in the way of even historical anecdotal observations of new ones being created - so where on Earth is the evidence that we have been recently bombarded with such ferocious activity? - the rate of erosion and renewal that it would take to cover the bleedin' obviousness of such evidence would have to be much more rapid than the rate we currently see it at to fit that time frame -maybe erosion and continental plate movement ect. has had periods of varying speeds through the last 6-10 000 years? ;)
I hope that makes sense?

[Iddon]

I just can't figure the rationality of a person taking all the trapping of modern society, happily using and accepting all the products, devices, tools and outcomes of the SCIENTIFIC process, and at the same time consider that ID is an equal and competing system of thought. But this isn't about pure rationality is it :) OK - who have I offended ?

[bonox]

fringe, from my point of view, if the religions et al keep challenging people about the strength and longevity of faith versus the farcical and often changing ideas of science, then why cannot science do the same in return? (from a scientific reasoned standpoint of course!) It is no different to challenging ones own faith in the light of all you have learned - if you can't justify it to yourself, it seems that you must require the support of a group behind you to force the notions upon all others in the hope that you can follow their lead.

The point of the argument in any case is the definition of 'what defines education', and any information, even unfactual, is useful provided it is given in the appropriate context. The problem here is that with restrictions on specific religious ideas being put forward in general education (ie state) schools, the ID approach appears to be nothing more than a foot in the back door for the old dogs playing new tricks - ie the context of ID teaching as proposed is not appropriate.

[bonox]

Oh, Iddon

what do you think of the idea that if we see ID around us in the form of toasters and TV's, why cannot we apply this same concept to ourselves? Some mythical being must have done the same, because I refuse to believe that I can be the product of mutation and evolution with a surrounding environment over many years - in the same way many cannot understand the concept of death and an end, and therefore choose to believe in a persisting 'soul' as a future hope.

I shall refrain from using such terms as spiritual and emotional crutches here! I enjoy poking the violent religions based on their past history of beating populations into submission on the notion that you have to pay your way into the afterlife through an institution. Besides, was it not only a year or two ago that the catholic pope finally conceeded that galileo was right!

We as a population often scorn the ideas of knowledge shortages in the past being filled by wild and wonderful concepts to explain them - indeed the human animal enjoys seeking reasons and meaning for things, even in the field of an otherwise arguably silly philosophical bent of 'why am I here'. The australian aboriginal dream-time for example has pretty well been steam-rollered by joe average at this point - in my opinion it is only a matter of time before the christian and muslin faiths succumb to the same. The buddhist ideas are different, in that they do not require anything other than a belief in yourself!

[netwolf]

Not all creation theories are equal, looking closer at my own belifs, i have found that the word for day is mistranslated. As the same word is used in many location to mean diffrent lenths of time, it infact means very long periods or ages and aeons. So its more like 6 very long periods rather than days... And given that time of 24 hours in a day was only established post creation of the earth and sun, it would not make sense to use these terms to describe creation. Some insights into another perspective on creation.

Nothing is fact when the observer has limited capacity to understand the nature of that which is beyond him. We are all alwasy lerning and facts do change as our understanding increases. Who knows when we will know everything about everything. Is that even possible?

Education should be about teaching us the basics of learning and exploring for ourselves. Fact/Fiction/Faith.. we each decide for ourselves, we can not impose restrictions even onto our own children. Or we might as well just clone ourselves, to extend our life and our belifs.

Regards
Netwolf

[fringe_dweller]

Grant, I dont think they want to tamper with hard sciences or subjects that make most of the money? things like pure maths ect. would be untouched I would imagine - they only want to discredit/water down/undermine/fiddle with subjects that dont agree with their literal interpretation of the bible, and challenges their beliefs. In the firing line number one of course is darwins theory - but I thought biology was a huge money spinner? and further along comes geology (another huge money spinner? mining ect.) and poor old cosmology - not a money spinner i guess? - as they conflict with their version of the age of the earth.
But even an casual observer from the public such as myself can see the danger with that surely? I thought science was a roughly? linked integrated whole -and you start pulling out bits out that you dont like based on emotions and you would undermining the whole edifice and its authority? and setting maybe a dangerous precedent for the future of science.
I have educated myself a little more on this topic since getting involved in the original thread - I didnt realise there were 6 squillion webblogs out there on the subject!!! and it appears from my web travels that there is a perception from ALL the religions that in science classes that they go out of their way to teach kiddies that there is no God - what a load of rubbish!!! thats outrageous!! I have no recollection of such an experience in science classes - have they changed that much?
What PQ'ed my interest initially and made me prick up my ears, was the reverent and glaring acquiescence of the bulk of the mainstream media when promoting and endorsing, sorry I mean reporting on this theory - it was just this unquestioning dewy eyed almost fawning over the theory like they had just found the holy grail of science, and they had just discovered the meaning of life, the theory of everything all rolled into one, and it was on par with the theory of relativity being just discovered or bigger!! - and the vague main supporting aurgument seemed to be that the human eye is so perfect.. blah blah (with no mention of the nitty gritty of the theory being based on the literal interpretation of the old testament - remember the devil is always in the detail as they say ;) ), ..and that therefore science is flatly wrong and trying to hoodwink the public - sounds like human vanity to me - there was scant balanced reporting on it imo ..
(Note: I just looked at that webpage that I linked again with the education minister's comments on ID - now I swear when I first read that - that he said, when asked, that introducing ID in science classes for state schools wasnt yet ruled out, ie that is still being considered - it appears to have changed? That is also my recollection from the time of the first response to the 70 000 Australian scientists and science teachers releasing that 'open letter' condemning ID as unscientific in the media recently - a conspiracy? wheres my tin foil hat? )
Bonox, totally agreed - thats pretty good :) they were feeling a little left out maybe? starved of attention? flexing their muscles?
but have they achieved their objective in as much as as to have joe public and the media talking about and debating God and religion in their everyday conversations - and just basically publicity, air time and today relevance for religion? basically keeping it in the headlines? if that is their goal than they have certainly done that - clever buggers -
Netwolf - I have to admit to complete ignorance on creation story in the Koran :ashamed: please forgive me I didnt know it was a similiar theme!! I know the Bible and the Koran have some/a fair bit of common ground. whatever creation theory anyone subscribes too - wether it be the dreamtime or genesis or whatever - I dont think any were meant to be taken literally? they were guides and probably meant to deal with difficult questions by uneducated (by todays definition of the word) people seeking answers - but they are all united and purposeful in that they declared that God,/Gods/Great Spirit(s) created the earth long ago for us - and is/are our true father/s and thats all that really matters?

[Iddon]

Sorry - I went of on a tangent there. ID has its place I guess - but not in science class rooms. Brendan was wrong in saying that the broad community needs to decide what is taught in science classes - a sectarian educated "middle bureacracy" will make these type of decisions and I personally don't feel any threat from ID into this rational domain in Australia. Some US states may go a different way however.

[fringe_dweller]

No need to apologise at all Iddon - that was fair question..
the 70 000 Australian scientists and science teachers thought there was a threat enough to act - I have never heard, in my short life, of such a thing being necessary in this country? has anyone else got an example of something similiar happening in our recent history?? I guess maybe global warming?

[Moonman]

It's such a pity that there is all this fuss about where we came from but nobody really seems to want to put the same amount of investment and time and resources into where we are going to end up.

Global Warming / Polution / Evrionmental degradation / Species becoming extinct everyday.

These are the truths that stare us in the face today. Unlike much that has gone on before we can touch them, see them and measure them. But do you think the powerful evangelical christian groups want to throw their weight behind them. No!

I think they would rather play on peoples nagging doubts and uncertainties and try to give them a place to hide and a false sense of meaning based on dogma and not reality.

There are numerous storys or parables that Jesus told during his life and one that rings true for me now is one concerning the parable of the talents. Three servants each given care over a portion of their masters property while he is temporarily absent. Two use it wisely and produce something from it and are rewarded the one who hides it and is afraid and only returns the same recieves his just punishment. (This is a figurative story not to taken literally in the everyday sense).

One of the main themes of Christianity is that of being called in the end to account for your life what you did what you achieved and how you stuffed up. What I believe is missing from the ID perspective is any real application as to how any of the 6 to 10000 year nonsense affects the real problems of today other than supplying some sense of artificial meaning.

I believe that if Christian's are really fair dinkum about pushing their theology onto the world they should at least be using it for the good of all trying to address the real problems and not the demons in their heads which tell them that they are right and everybody else has got it wrong and then try to dress the whole thing up trojan horse style in a psuedo scientific theory. :scared:
They should be using the inspiration that their faith gives them to push for the real science that actually improves peoples lives and solves real problems.

They should be talking about calling people to account for the divided between the rich and porr in the world the fact that 20% own 80% of the worlds wealth. Millions living in poverty. Many do do this and are not sidetracked into these creation vs evolution type debates.

Some of you may be remotley aware af the recent "MAke Poverty History" Campaigns and the worldwide campaign leading up to the G8 Summit trying to convince the world's richest's countries to cancel third world debt. There were of course many different groups involved in this campaign and (in my book) a big tick to those whose faith and beliefs inspired their participation.


Anyway I think my soapbox is starting to get a bit creaky and wobbly so I jump off for now.

Regards to all and to all a good night (viewing night that is)

[avandonk]

Please, Intelligent Design purports to be Science!So no matter how much we denigrate ID in the confines of Religion,we do not have to apologize!And if we suggest they are wrong on scientific grounds it is up to them to put up or shut up!I am sick and tired of right wing ignorant morons pushing their limited view of the Universe.

END OF STORY!

Bert

[xelasnave]

I have been away in the bush since my last post. My post is gone because it was of a religious nature.. my comment was on inteligent design and the danger of regarding it as a new science and moreover that the general public are being marketed to so as to deliver such a concept...the post is gone (deleted) because of its religious reference or content? Now I see this thread going over the matter. I presume this thread may have been started as a result of the deletion of my post and its deletion. My thread starter I hope was not too hot but I had been discussing it on astronomydaily.com researching the push behind the idea and found that it is being put forward by people in the highest places. My point simply lets keep our proved science and not be swayed by clever marketers to introduce this "new" science into our schools. So I would like to think that when discussing ID we are in fact not talking about religion.. I have be sucessfully marketed to.. we are talking "new" science and wheter it should be taught. Does the "new" science stand the tests you would like to gaurd our accumulated knowledge or not.
alex

[avandonk]

xelasnave you have to be as duplicitious as they are,say one thing and do another.Have you noticed how careful I was in not denigrating anybody.All we can do is be absolutely honest in every thing we say and do and yet these crazy people will not dissapear!
How many right wing preachers HAVE sinned(that is busted publicly)?Praise the lord and pass the ammunition.
I was not going to add to this thread as I find any sort of fundamental theocracy to be absolutely wrong by being so limited, and to react to these small minded twits only encourages them.I am not sorry for saying this!And I will not apologize!

Bert

[xelasnave]

Bert I am happy to see the push is not going un noticed. I dont care what anyone believes just lets preserve a school environment where fairy tales are for kindergarden, religion is for Sunday School and above all science is practiced with the aid of a Lab. and proven facts and observations.
alex

[fringe_dweller]

Yes Alex, this thread did come about as a result of your original one - and everyone have tried to keep this thread along the same guidlines that you originally intended - hopefully evryone agree's :)
I am pretty confident that we Australians pride ourselves on our religious tolerance in this country (as most modern countries do) In fact SA was built on that ideal - City of Churches and all that - some peoples came here mainly because they were being persecuted for their beliefs in their homelands - and it offered a haven to practice their faith in peace and safety.
But the reverse flipside to that idyllic situation is a quasi-religous run state - and that is surely not an Australian Ideal?
But yes Religion bashing should not, and wont be tolerated on this forum, I am sure of that.

[xelasnave]

Thanks for that information Kearn, I have been in the bush and missed the fun, but I was a little confused, in truth I missed seeing 3 of the pages posted, made my first post today ,came back and could not see it, I thought that one was deleted also, it was in this context I was trying to work out what was it I said that was different to the general grift of the thread.. I see it all clearly now.
May I take this opportunity to appologise if I offended anyone. I can be "over the top" and I truthfully can not recall my exact words but I was fired up so perhaps I came over anti religion. That is not the case..but I am not pro religion either. I cant abide subdifuge to grind an axe however and I think it is lamentable that ID is mentioned in the same breath as science. Of prime concern is Mr Brendon Nelson's position I have not got all his words but the ones I have heard seems to suggest he thinks its OK. I hope that is not his posssition as to me he seems a very well educated man, and personally impressive, It would be dangerous if he offers even tacit support.
For me I will take action to write letters to the polies and not let it wash over me. I have a daughter (7) so I guess that is why I respond to this issue with such passion. I see ID as a real and dangerous threat to her future education. What would you say to your daughter if she came home happy that she got an "A" in intelligent design?
alex

[fringe_dweller]

No worries, i hope you enjoyed your trip mate, Mike and the moderaters (sounds like a good name for a band? ;) i think that been suggested before?) agreed to the thread coming back after they realised what we were on about, and that we werent just randomly attacking religion like jackboot johnnies - i am grateful they agreed :)
I visited the thread on astromydaily you mentioned earlier - man I was in serious tears reading some of those posts :)
I was impressed by some of the links put forward - in particular the one from Dave Mitsky (i know that name!)
It is the one with the response from "Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson" on the outcome of a ruling on the topic of ID in the U.S recently

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/10/religion.robertson.reut/

is this a rational person? this is one of their premier spokesman!! Man those guys in PA are seriously cursed now!!! wouldnt want to be them :scared: I wonder what the next euphenism will be for creationism after is finally discredited this time around - the next time they want to give it a sexy new name :scared: and sell this gobbledygook "Theory"

[xelasnave]

Yes it was thanks to Dave posting re Mr Pat Robertson and reading about him that fired me up ( as you probably gathered from my go at him ) I hope your tears were of joy and happiness not tears of dispair and frustration. I take joy and happiness that others see thru this guy and what he represents but I do dispair and become frustrated to think someone can be so outlandish and frightening folk with fire brimstone and retribution. I have however discovered there are two approaches to truth in this world. The first presumably that which most of us enjoy is truth from fact and scientific observation the second that is out there is the truth someone holds by virtue of their desire that their belief doth become the truth...tradgically it is the second "truth" that we are asked to accept if we accept ID. Well I have to relax and settle so I guess I have to accept that there is in fact two approaches to the truth both very real its just I dont like one of the approaches. I am trying to impress Mr Pat Roberston with practicing what he should be preaching ..tolerance.
alex

[fringe_dweller]

yep I agree Alex - seems like a lot of good people caught up in a bad idea

what upsets me a little about these groups also - is the Elders and Leaders were widely reported to have instructed their congregations on who to vote for in federal and so forth elections en masse - this is a substantial amount of people when focussed in that way
(George Bush was widely reported to have got over the line in the last U.S election thanks to these type of instructions)
that changes evrything when they become pro-active political animals - starting political parties, seeking earthly power, seeking influence on public policy ect. -
( indeed even putting the current leader of the free world in his job ) - then they enter the public arena and are fair game like evryone else.
I dont remember my brand X instructing people who to vote for from the pulpit, and that they would go to hell if they didnt? sure you knew what their political bent was, if you looked hard enough - but they didnt shove it down your throat
I thought voting was sacricant in a democracy and was purely a matter between ones own conscience and the ballot box - not an organised group - isnt that almost unconstitutional?
I only mention this to point out we are not talking about some suffering, persecuted bunch of powder puffs that cant defend themselves really

[Orion]

I have two daughters 9 and 12 years old and if they came home with an A on ID I would be extremely happy and if they also came home with an A in Science I would also be happy, what is wrong in knowing about what other people think or believe? (Creation or Evolution) It will only add to there knowledge of life!
It is us as parents that create the confusion. We want our sons and daughters to believe in what we believe.

[netwolf]

Orion, exactly right, we want our children to be clones of us.. And forget that we rebeled from the same thing being done to us when we were children. Free thinking is what we need to encourage, with the limit of do no harm. My dad used to give an example about freedom. A man walks down the street swinging his umberella, another man from behind walks up quickly and stops the first and slaps him. The first man says why did you do that, the second says because you are swinging your umberella. The firs says i have the freedom to do that, and the second responds your freedom is over when your umberella touches my nose.

The moral i guess is that any Freedom has its limits, but within these limits there is much that can be learned. When you are lost and you have a map, the first thin you look for is where you are. Most maps around shopping centres and in the city's will say "you are here". In the same way our children need to know abou the world around them, in all its infinite diversity. Weather it is belifs or science. Such that the can then look for the infinite combintations.

Regards
Netwolf

[xelasnave]

Thanks Ed for a hint of the other side of the discussion. I hope you have not taken my stand as anti religion as that is not the case. I respect all humans freedom of thought and have not sort to offend.
What is wrong with knowing what other people think or believe...nothing as such and that is I imagine the reason we study history, social science, philosophy, marketing, etc etc. However to give credibility to a particular philosophy and call it science is the danger. I have no problem with a desire by any parent to have their children believe what they believe how ever there are simple realities to be observed here, paramount of which is the need to preserve science as a respected area of study with a credibility supported by proven fact. I was raised as a Christian and I sincerely try on a day to day basis to follow the teachings of Jesus the man, wonderful principles to help one relate to other humans and these wonderful things I learnt in Sunday School. When I sit and wonder "what came before the big bang" I answer myself "well maybe it was the pure energy of the entity we humans refer to as God and claim for our own". Other explanations enter and they all live happily in an area of nil understanding. There are times when I feel that my inspiration has come from only one source and that source has built the whole thing for me to enjoy. I understand faith. My point is I am not unsypathetic to religion or the possibility of a power beyond our comprehension. But education of science should be confined to established fact and matters established via proof. I was educated in science only to the end of High School I was then educated in Law. Interestingly even Law requires this nasty little thing we call evidence. A plaintiff or Defendant when seeking the judgement of the court must present evidence, in the case of Criminal matters, beyond a reasonable doubt and in a Civil matter, the evidence must be such that "on the balance of probabilities a reasonable man would accept". If you wish to teach something that is unsupported by our scientific community using a standard of proof not acceptable by our courts there is only one place to do it I respectfully suggest that place be Sunday School or Church.
And trying to deal with the practicality of teaching ID what qualification must the tutor give to identify belief on the one hand and established fact on the other.
Truth is fact not what we want to believe.
alex

[xelasnave]

Sorry Netwolf I did not see or acknowledge your post until now. And indeed freedom is the thing. How nice is it that we can discuss issues without fear of persecution or ridicule but you are right.. dont stick your umbrella in anothers face as that is abuse of your freedom.
alex

[gaa_ian]

An intersting addition to this discussion is a quote from Darwin himself:
"I imagine that probably all organic beings which ever lived on earth, descended from some primitive form which was first called to life by the creator"
Quote from "After its kind" by Nelson
This still does not make the earth 6 to 10 K Y.O :confuse3:
Science & faith require two different qualities:
Science requires us to use our (God given IMO) free will to apply critical analysis & testing to a question.
Faith requires us to submit our free will in humility, to our creator to get the answers we seek.
Neither is invalid, and each will give us different solutions to different questions.
"Seek and you will find, ask and you will receive"
Works for both ;)

[xelasnave]

My faith has never let me down and all my prayers have been answered so I can not complain. Thinking about it I think it is the folk I identify like Mr Pat Robertson who makes true believers look stupid that gets me going. I am generally tolerant just cant get past the prospect of religion as science. Mr Dawin fortunately was able to use his intelligence to assess the process. It is nice to see that his faith was not shaken but that he could still approach the matter with a detactement one would like to associate with scientific method. But still it boils down to a question of qualification.I D theory is not science, no matter how hard one wishes it to be so, I feel that if I.D. theory is to be introduced into our schools perhaps it is a matter best taught in a "scripture" class. If so there could be no riddicule as will follow if ID is paraded as science.
Thank you for your interest and input these are matters that need balance and although I have my possition it does no good not to understand all the views available.
alex

[fringe_dweller]

Orion, interestingly when ID theory or creationism fever reaches its logical conclusion, as we have seen in examples from the U.S over many years - it is actually Darwin's theory (amongst others) that are eventually banned!!!? how is this a balanced view outcome?

...also how do you explain to a child who comes home and says ' in science class today we learnt at first that earth is 6-10 k old, but then we also learnt it is 4.5 billion years old?' is this a not a conflicting and confusing arrangement?

[fringe_dweller]

I worked with a bloke for a long while, who was convinced that it was a conspiracy and simply not true that you could tell the age of a tree from its tree rings once you cut it down (nothing to do with religous beliefs either).
He was a normal smart guy in everyway, but there was nothing i could say or do to convince him that he was wrong and that it was an irrational belief. Since then, nothing surprises me about peoples beliefs.

[xelasnave]

There is a clear desire by certain members of the community who have the need to see their beliefs supported to include ID in the education of their children.
If ID is taught as science one of the unforeseen consequences must be the elimination of religious dominations for surely we can not expect in addition to have different denominations of ID. Further what will each individual school teach as the "true" designer?? I see this as a further divisive issue. Such a proposition must logically see ID in a scripture class. The other concern is does science currently constitute a compulsory subject? If it does this is means that ID will be compulsory, if so, this is indeed a backhanded way of making religious teaching compulsory. I recall scripture classes being optional which surely must be a keystone of a free democracy.
Further given our mix of people from all parts of the world there will no doubt be others outside the field of science who finds ID classes contrary to their beliefs. As an opponent of the concept of ID being taught as science in school I would be happy to compromise to see optional scripture classes where in those whoes parents wishes to bring their children up to enjoy similar beliefs to their own can have their children attend those classes. I would like to think that is reasonable whilst catering to the needs of the ID view.
alex

[xrekcor]

Dont mean to bring up an old topic, but thought some might be interested
in this

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intelligent.design/index.html

regards,CS

[fringe_dweller]

yes, its all over the news again! it sure has legs! its like lazurus himself this story ;) good to see commonsense override emotion isnt it. What I find strange is that Darwins theory isnt the only theory or science in their sights - the Big Bang theory is also in the firing line amongst others - but you never hear them mentioned?
I note the judge saying he thought it was odd that decent proud christians are involved in something so stealthy and not completely open?
A friend of mine also thinks its interesting that they have no trouble believing in complex theories like DNA, (as long as it supports their view) - but cant accept basic stuff like carbon dating!!! weird