This is why Bobby Jhindal is a fool

The evolutionary process of plants and animals is not where "ID people" these days place their main concern. Their main concern is coming up with an alternative to the monkey to man theory.

I am a scientist, hence the terms we, my lab...

 

Let me fix this sentence: you are pushing an agenda which seeks to replace wishful thinking with reality. Are you implying that faith should have an equal footing as science in the classroom?

I don't get your comparison. Trying to rid the classroom of superstition is the same as allowing the superstition to be taught as fact?

Where am I being intellectually dishonest? Either something is real and scientifically proven, or it is not. We should teach reality and science, not unsubstantiated hypothesis. How is this an agenda on my part?

Then we agree. Science in the classroom, ID in philosophy class. I'm glad you came around to my view.

 

You've done nothing more than countered my assumption with an assumption.

New possibilities that are among many other possibilities. The possibilities are limitless and continue to mount which is just a sign that science cannot explain where the ingredients of the Big Bang came from any more than they could hundreds of years ago.

You have yet to show me evidence. You supplied an eloquent though fictional story along with a link to an article discussing the unproven "mathematical time machine called Loop Quantum Gravity."

 

What kind of scientist? I worked in a lab as well, so you'll have to excuse me if I don't assume scientist because of the word "lab". I can assume from you assertion that there is a "monkey to man" debate going on that "we" doesn't include anyone versed in modern evolutionary theory.

ID is concerned with all life, not just man. Where did you get this idea?

Also, the "monkey to man theory" does not exist. Can you show me where any scientist was advocating that a monkey evolved into a man?

 

I'm left to guess what you mean by "Wow." I suppose this means you believe life is simply logical. What is the logic behind death and birth, love and hate, pain and joy? We are emotional creatures, life is largely irrational - I can't think of a good reason why we should leave behind a large portion of what we are and only embrace logic.

I am probably diverging from the topic a bit in part because you left the other thread unanswered, but I am also responding to statements you made in this thread.

The point I was trying to make is that atheists seem to easily dismiss the faith of others as a pathetic attempt to find meaning in life, as if those of your fellow men who choose to believe in God are ignorant and beneath you. These words seem harsh, and I know that you have a lot of opposition here (which I can relate to for other reasons), but please believe that I am only trying to have a civil but direct conversation. I hope that you are trying to do the same.

Anyway, I really feel like atheists such as yourself should consider the point of view of their fellow man more than they do. Maybe there is some validity to the irrational belief in God.

As far as intelligent design goes, I know very little, but I'm not sure it hurts to discuss that subject as long as evolution is not easily dismissed. I really think it is relevant to discuss possibilities, even in science, if for no other reason than to keep children from being too rigidly scientific and logical. Critical thinking is important, both on the side of religion and on the side of science. Still, science should not be glossed over. The scientific method is powerful and necessary to grow as a society.

I can understand how you would fear overzealous teaching of ID, but I must say in Baton Rouge's public school system I was taught by many teachers who were over-zealously scientific; I can't remember religion seriously being brought up in any of my classes.

It is my philosophical guess that the complexity of the world around us may be the result of the difficulty our minds have in grasping the true nature of things. I imagine the complexities are a product of our limitations. I wouldn't call this a scientific hypothesis, but I think philosophical hypotheses have a place in the advancement of human society as well, even in the seemingly logical realm of science.

Many possibilities don't necessarily conflict with facts and reality, though on the surface it may seem that they do.

I think one can feel love and compassion and exert beneficial will without faith, but I strongly believe love and will are integrally related to God, be that the God of Hebrews, Muslims, or Hindus.

Will is not something palpable, but the course of mankind has been set by it. Our country and modern science is largely the result of benevolent will, which I think has a lot to do with God.

 

No. I am saying that many strong proponents of evolution, like you, seek to use it to explain away philosophy and other non-material elements of the universe to which they do not apply.

Your selective quoting changes my point entirely.

Are you not trying to turn god into nothing more than a hypothesis? I say leave the material world to science, but leave immaterial concepts to avenues of study best suited for them.

I didn’t come around to your view. I was already there.

I do have a question for you. Why can you not discuss these topics with civility? The condescending tone gets old quite quickly.

 

I'm a 4th year PhD student in microbiology and immunology.

ID people are pushing for ID to be taught in school alongside evolution so as to have a rebuttal to the theory of evolution which lay men take to mean teaching that man evolved from monkeys. It may not be the basis on which ID was originally designed, but it is the reasoning for it's push into eduction. Otherwise there would have been a push for including ID in schools before the Supreme Court case that ruled creationism had no validity, but it wasn't. The push for ID came after that ruling.

I do not believe that ID is really concerned with all life, it just tries to look like it is so as to present itself as valid science. That's why I think it's important to not forget about the monkey to man idea that non-scientist religious zealots think evolution is.

 

I did not make that claim...here.