thordaddy
Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
qetzal,
Ah, after we wade through the condescension, we finally make some miniscule progress. I guess something is better to nothing.
Tell me though... How is anything you've said not equally applicable to science? Afterall, you aren't suggesting that the majority of those that believe "descent with modification" actually go through the rigors of the scientific method to give meaning to their interpretations of the empirical evidence?
Most "believers" in the ToE don't even call their belief by the correct name (descent with modification). How's that for anecdotal evidence? In this regard, there is little difference between religion and science as it pertains to how people gain their beliefs. A minority of elite feed us "knowledge." Take this to its logical extreme! Is this evidence?
Then you state,
| Quote | 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. |
I can't say I agree with your first statement because materialist philosophy seems to suggests it's not possible. All that exists is evidence in one context or another. There seems to be no such thing as non-evidence. The Universe is wholly comprised of information (evidence) and we are constantly and perpetually interpreting it.
This seems to lead one to the conclusion that evidence of an IDer is embedded within the material Universe. If it was not embedded within the material Universe then it does not exist. The question then becomes how did the first human come to interpret the creator only to be followed by billions of other "believers" if the creator does not exist? That's a heck of a mass "self-delusion" and a bold claim indeed.
Next you say,
| Quote | 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! |
This could be pretty simple for those that are beholden to one side or another. For me, I see problems.
If one claims ID isn't science does this mean it is religion? If one claims ID is religion does this mean it isn't scientific?
It seems to me that science can never be religious, but religion could be scientific. Remember, science by definition limits the full meaning of empirical evidence while it continues to expand the definition of "observation." Do you really observe gravity, mass or force? Who cares about experiments when the fundamentals are so much more important.
So know we have a judge deciding the definition of science, but only those in the public sphere are mandated to accept the definition while the rest of us have the freedom to point out the flaws. It seems odd that scientists fear the infusion of ID and welcome the infusion of the judicial bureaucracy? It is quite the contradiction.
Lastly,
| Quote | | 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? |
Actually, that was your point or else why include the desciptor in the first place? Was I supposed to be impressed that this was a "conservative" judge? Why? They claim President Bush is a "conservative," too. How do you know that of which you do not know?
|
