There are too many problems with the article to deal with in one response so I will only select a few at this time.

The heading of the article claimed that we are denying children the possibility of discovering the truth if we don't teach intelligent design in schools. I have always been intrigued by this claim, virtually always from conservative Christians, that they want their children to be allowed to look at opposing views in biology and then, presumably, make up their (the children's) minds.

This is vehemently opposed in other areas. The last thing these people want is for their children to be taught Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, . . . and Atheism, before they are allowed to make up their minds.
To say nothing of assorted matters involving sex, drinking, smoking, . . .

And there is the subtle change in the first paragraph. After commenting about the origin of species, it then shifts to the origin of life.
Scientists keep pointing out that the origin of life is not, strictly speaking, part of evolution.
But if ID is accepted as an alternative to evolution, where does the rot stop?
Design by extra-terrestrials?
Design by a bumbling committee of demi-gods?
Design by Satan to mislead us all?

Ken

Grey/Alan Grey, you are clutching at straws.

>>I am not unilaterally deciding. I have made an argument that both positions include the agency of intelligent design in their explanations for human life. You have not refuted this argument.<<

Saying that something is so does not constitute an "argument", even in your bizarre fantasy world.

It is also impossible, even should I feel so inclined, to prove the negative, that all those who classed themselves as creationists do *not* as a matter of fact also believe in "God-guided evolution".

It is of course within the realms of possibility (but not probability, given the nature of the poll) that one or some or many are in this category. But as there is absolutely no evidence apart from your pure conjecture that all Christians, by definition, believe both, your "argument" is at least specious, and possibly mendacious.

And as for you, poor Jose, I feel even sadder to have brought the amazing backward stars to your attention.

>>Exactly. There is no place where that view of the stars can be found. The point is, NASA examined the pattern and found that it was a perfect match, only it was in reverse. Does anyone think a forger playing with ink and a cheese sandwich could get that exact? In 1531?<<

If there is no place where that perspective (of the stars) can be found, what was the "point" of reversing it in the first place...?

Oh, forget it. Have a nice day. And mind you put away the finger paints when you have finished.

I notice that the article was posted on Friday, 21 October 2005.

I don't know whether the author watched ABC TV "Catalyst" broadcast on the evening of Thursday, 20 October 2005, on the topic of "intelligent design". This included, among other things, an interview with Michael Behe, one of the proponents of ID.

He was asked to give an estimate of the number of scientists working on ID. His answer was "a handful - five or ten"

If ID can only come up with this miniscule number of people, compared with the millions who are working in other areas of science, it doesn't deserve a place in the education curriculum at any level.

Ken

I am not a six day creationist but I do not believe evolution can give all the answers.
Someone asked about Islam's view of creation:

-------

Praise be to Allaah.
Yes, Allaah created the heavens and the earth and everything in between in six days, as He says;
“And indeed We created the heavens and the earth and all between them in six Days and nothing of fatigue touched Us”[Qaaf 50:38]
This indicates that what the Jews, upon whom be the curses of Allaah, say is false, as they said that He got tired when He created the heavens and the earth in six days, so He rested on the Sabbath. Exalted be Allaah far above what they say.
More details are narrated in the Qur’aan. Allaah says:
“Say (O Muhammad): ‘Do you verily disbelieve in Him Who created the earth in two Days? And you set up rivals (in worship) with Him? That is the Lord of the ‘Aalameen (mankind, jinn and all that exists).
He placed therein (i.e. the earth) firm mountains from above it, and He blessed it, and measured therein its sustenance (for its dwellers) in four Days equal (i.e. all these four ‘days’ were equal in the length of time) for all those who ask (about its creation).
Then He rose over (Istawa) towards the heaven when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth: ‘Come both of you willingly or unwillingly.’ They both said: ‘We come willingly.’
Then He completed and finished from their creation (as) seven heavens in two Days and He made in each heaven its affair. And We adorned the nearest (lowest) heaven with lamps (stars) to be an adornment as well as to guard (from the devils by using them as missiles against the devils). Such is the Decree of Him, the All?Mighty, the All?Knower”[Fussilat 41:9-12]
And Allaah knows best.

Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid (www.islam-qa.com)

Law of Islam: http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&CR=376&dgn=4

Pericles,
What's the point of the reversal? How about, it's a message saying that God's watching from above (although the view from above wouldn't be like this at all, God can give messages to people with metaphors such as this one).

Bosk,
Re 1) No doubt you've heard of Original Sin (the effects are evident in the disordered nature of man). Man rebelled against God and now suffering is part of our condition.

Re 2) God did in fact create man so that he would always choose the good. It was not the DESIGN of man which LED HIM to choose to rebel (Original Sin) but man HIMSELF who freely chose to rebel. Now as a result, we have concupiscence (a tendency towards evil). However, we have not lost our freedom, as some heretics such as Luther would suggest.

Re 3) The good samaritan. Yes God is the good samaritan (came here Himself to die in order to save us). Through the disobedience of Adam, condemnation, through the obedience of Christ, redemption.

Imagine God prevented the Holocaust...

You'd have just said "Why didn't He prevent the Napoleonic Wars?" or something like that.
The point is, you expect Him to be like a little robot on wheels, following us around everywhere and cleaning up after us. We are the ones who make these problems for ourselves.
Another point is that, through your argument about "why didn't He stop this and that?", you cannot prove that He didn't stop other things from happening that almost happened and almost nobody knows about.

Re: [Either impotent or malevolent],
He has, as I have mentioned above, come to our aid (the Redemption) Through the grace of Christ, all these problems and disorders, concupiscence etc. is overcome. However, you can't sit on your back side and expect a magical and radical transformation into a Saint just because you may believe that Jesus is God. No. Through free and actual cooperation with grace, the individual works towards the fullness of redemption. Through the Sacraments such as Baptism, the fruits of the redemption are applied to the individual.

Kensmith
welcome to OLO, haven't seen a post from you before this.

Your points are indeed noted, re how would we feel if our (conservative Christian) kids are taught about Judaism,Islam,Atheism etc
Actually, our kids can sort through mis and normal information. But it depends on how they are taught.

What we are rather sick of, is how the general theory of 'evolution' by natural selection, suddenly 'morphs' into "no, God did NOT create the Universe or man, it was all spontaneous chemical reaction"

Now.. if Science/Teachers in general had respect for the "possibility" (at least) of Creation, they would perhaps teach such subjects in less 'No its not a theory, its fact' manner.

Unfortunately, pretty much every example of media attention to the origins of man, and life in general, are couched in 'assumed fact' terms. Now this is not only shabby science, its downright misrepresentation of truth. It comes from..where ? ah hah.. of course, the science class room and science in Uni's and educational insitutions.

What we prefer, is that science teaching does not..... suggest origins of life as 'chance happening', we would prefer they left it as an open and as yet unanswered question.

Of greater concern to me, is the lack of teaching of Creation as one philosophical option in non science classes. (this would encompass Islam, Judaism and Christianity by the way).

The moral (or immoral) implications of 'chance chemical reactions' for origins, are profound. It leads to a 'make-it-up-as-u-go' morality. This is exemplified in 2 incidents of recent days.

1/ Eva Longoria,(Desperate housewives) "#1 Hottest Woman in the World" on Maxim's 2005 annual "Hot 100" list, was asked at the Melbourne cup interview "How do you feel about your character" response "I love her, she has no moral boundaries, always gets what she wants, does what she wants to do" ....brilliant.

2/ Oregon USA has just passed a law which allows ALL bars/clubs to have live real sex acts for entertainment.

So, from a purely educational point of view, atheism leads to this situation. (Nihilism)"There is no right/wrong..only 'pleasant/unpleasant...legal/illegal'