Printable Version of Topic Discussion Board
+--Forum: Intelligent Design
+---Topic: antievolution? started by jasin

Posted by: jasin on Feb. 28 2006,14:52

If intelligent design is anti-evolution then evolutionary theory is anti-religion.

You can't have one without the other!
Posted by: jasin on Feb. 28 2006,15:08

I believe in < freedom of religion > unlike most posting on this board.
Posted by: Produkt on Mar. 07 2006,07:11

It's great that you believe in freedom of religion. Unfortunatley, IDism is the repackaging and relabeling of monothiestic creationism in an attempt to ahve it forced upon young children as a valid science agains't fact's and evidence's when IDism provide's none. If IDism folk's want ti taght in school's or should I say, want to continiously try and force it into school's, they should have ALL creation mythologies be taught in on giant class, as none have evidence to back them up. Science deal's with reality, fact's, and evidence's, not some supernatural fantasy use to explain away man's own ignorance and inability to have all the answer's at the snap of a religious persons fingers.
Posted by: jasin on Mar. 11 2006,07:13

Produkt, if you believe that then you clearly do not understand where the concept of intelligent design comes from or what it is rooted in.
Posted by: jasin on Mar. 11 2006,07:39

Questions about Intelligent Design < >
Posted by: Frodosh on Mar. 15 2006,05:40

Intelligent Design is no more a religion than it is a science. It is a confusion of the two that nullifies both, along with more traditional creationism. Therefore, denying intelligent design has no effect upon religion, only upon science, allowing it to continue without the specious and all inclusive conclusions that the inference of a designer inevitably results in.

Evolution may well have been god's way of designing. But speaking from my own position of Theistic Evolution, I would suggest that the question is not as simple as "Did god design the world in order to meet specific ends". I see the laws of nature as a kind of guidance system, allowing for the completely freedom of creation, the "Fully gifted creation" perspective as Howard J Van Till puts it.

In relation to religion, Evolution by Natural selection is completely neutral, just as all scientific theories are. Neither affirming god's existence, nor denying it.

The reason?

God cannot be placed in a analytic box, I.E. god cannot be subject to scientific methodology, because the existence of god is beyond the reaches of science, but it is not the only way of knowing. If it were, i should deny the existence of not only god the designer, but also god the creator.

I do deny the former, in the traditional sense at least, but that has no implication for my acceptance of the latter.
Posted by: acriticaleye on May 28 2006,18:31

i dont think much of how you capped "Evolution" but not "god" also if my tax $ are going to my school shouldnt i have a say in what is tought? as for religion being pushed on people i havent seen anyone getting failed in science because they belive in evolution, but i have experenced it while not having the option of an I.D. class my answers were "wrong" in his eyes and i didnt get credit for the course. i feel like i was being punished for my convictons. i was being expected to nullify my belifs for points. was that fair?
Posted by: Henry J on May 29 2006,08:20

Re "shouldnt i have a say in what is tought?"

In fields in which you are a recognized expert, yes. In other fields, not really.

Re "was that fair?"

IMO, yes.

Posted by: acriticaleye on May 29 2006,16:51

thats not cool
Posted by: Ichthyic on May 31 2006,17:29

It is a confusion of the two that nullifies both, along with more traditional creationism.

in other words, ID is a black hole of mental masturbation.

yeah, that about sums it up alrighty.

no light ever escapes from it.
Posted by: John on May 15 2007,02:16

Guys, check this out...

< >
Posted by: Not A Monkey on May 29 2007,07:52

Quote (Frodosh @ Mar. 15 2006,05:40)
Evolution may well have been god's way of designing.

That is not possible.  For it if were true, it would be clearly stated in the Bible, which is the word of the true God himself.  It takes a man much vanity to argue with its God.  Surely, Satan is pleased.

Leviticus 5:7
" 'If he cannot afford a lamb, he is to bring two doves or two young pigeons to the LORD as a penalty for his sin—one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering."

Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a
Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.