qetzal
Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
| Quote | thordaddy:
I will say it again, there is NO process outside the interpretation of empirical evidence in which a person comes to "believe" or have "faith" in an IDer. If there is, please explain? |
Easy. Most people come to believe in an "IDer" because they are raised in religious households and indoctrinated into religious traditions from an early age. Empirical evidence has nothing to do with that.
| Quote | | Remember, let's focus on that first human that looked into the sky and pondered the creator. What was the process that allowed such insight and speculation? Physics theory doesn't leave you much wiggle room, does it? |
So we agree there are processes for some people to believe without evidence, right? Now the question is, how did the first person come to believe?
Who knows? My guess is, s/he looked at the available evidence and misinterpreted it to mean that "IDers" (gods) existed. That's not the same as claiming there was (or is) actual evidence for an IDer.
Or maybe, s/he realized s/he could get others to do what s/he wanted, if s/he claimed to represent some powerful but invisible IDer.
It doesn't really matter. Just because someone believes something, that doesn't prove there must be evidence to support their belief.
| Quote | | Well, since you have no evidence for "no evidence" then it leaves only one possible answer, doesn't it? |
Apparently, the "answer" is for you to dodge the question by spouting nonsense.
| Quote | | The claim is very simple. There is NO process outside of interpreting empirical evidence for the "belief" in a creator or creators. |
This claim is very simple and very wrong, as already explained.
| Quote | | If no empirical evidence exists for an IDer(s) then how, scientifically speaking, did such a belief come into existence? What's the process that initiated this pondering of an IDer where NO evidence existed for such a pondering? |
In case you missed my answer above, there are many possible processes. Self-delusion. Desire to control others. Wrongly interpreting evidence. (Note - I'm not claiming this proves there really is no evidence. I'm just pointing out that evidence isn't required to explain belief.)
| Quote | stevestory,
I don't believe you to be a serious participator in this thread. The point is simple. Judges are defining science. This begs the question.
Why can't preachers define science?
Why can't teachers define science?
Why can't politicians define science?
Judges do!
Please come up with a good answer for these questions. |
Another simple one. Judges are doing this because people are bringing suit in court. You may remember from civics class that judges are expected to make rulings during court cases.
For example, in Dover, parents alleged that the school board was unconstitutionally trying to introduce religion into the classroom. So in that case, the judge was required to decide whether ID was science or religion. Pretty simple, huh?
Now, preachers, teachers, and politicians are all welcome to come up with their own personal definitions of science, too, if they want to. But, they're not allowed to decide court cases. So their definitions don't matter in court. Which is where lawsuits get decided. As in, lawsuits over unconstitutionally teaching religion in public schools.
This stuff isn't that hard; you can get this. And the best part is, once you understand why judges are doing this, you're still allowed to think they're wrong. Try it; you'll be amazed how easy it is!
| Quote | | Read through this forum a little and you will see a pattern emerge. No one outside evolutionary science seems to understand it even with all the "expert" testimony. |
No, that's wrong. Lots of people outside evolutionary science are able to understand it, at least at a basic level. It really isn't too difficult. Many of those people even accept evolution (gasp! . Others understand it, but reject it, usually for religious or philosophical reasons. (Of course, there are some who are incapable of understanding even the basics, or are so threatened by the whole concept that they refuse to even attempt to understand. Ring any bells?)
| Quote | | Did this "conservative" judge get the crash course of ToE and properly decide this case? How was he able to understand what so many outside science are still vigorously debating and trying to comprehend? |
Well, the judge was able to understand all this because there was a trial, and both sides presented evidence. Judges are trained and experienced in evaluating evidence. This judge was able to see that one side presented a lot of evidence in favor of their arguments, and the other side presented none. So I don't think it was really that hard for him.
I hope I was able to answer some of your questions. I tried to give simple answers that you could understand, since it's clear you've had some trouble following previous answers.
Now perhaps you can answer a question for me. What did you mean when you said:
| Quote | | Remember, he's supposedly a "conservative" judge. |
Are you saying real conservative judges aren't smart enough to understand this? Or maybe that real conservative judges would rule in favor of religion regardless of the laws or the evidence?
|
