The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Intelligent design - damaging good science and good theology > Comments

Intelligent design - damaging good science and good theology : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 9/9/2005

Peter Sellick argues it is not a good idea to teach intelligent design in our children's biology classes.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 19
  7. 20
  8. 21
  9. Page 22
  10. 23
  11. 24
  12. All
Those in favour of ID should understand fully what it is they are attempting to prove. A great place to start (and for anyone else who is a seeker of knowledge) is at National Geographic's website. There is a wonderful explanation of Human evolution and also the opportunity to participate in the Genographic Project which is mapping DNA to determine our ancestry.

http://www5.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html

No one has to compromise their beliefs by participating and you never know you may just learn something.

Cheers
Posted by Scout, Saturday, 24 September 2005 9:02:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have to say that, at the very least, this thread has prompted me to investigate ID more fully. After a fairly robust read around, I'm pleased to report that:

* "Intelligent Design" is a moderately sophisticated attempt to reframe "Creation Science" in more palatable terms, following the latter's demolition in various American courts in the early 90s.

* Brendan Nelson has been badly suckered in his approval of an ID video. May it come back to haunt him in years to come... ;)

For a very interesting (and dare I say it - cool) discussion of this topic, check out this podcast:

"The Skeptic Tank - Intelligent Design plus some Bad Astronomy - Richard Saunders, Eugenie C Scott, Phil Plait " at

http://www.skeptics.com.au/tank/

It's aimed at a young audience, but I daresay most participants in this discussion could get something from it! I did :)
Posted by mahatma duck, Sunday, 25 September 2005 9:19:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ANOTHER CLOSED MIND!
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 25 September 2005 10:59:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"ANOTHER CLOSED MIND!"

Philo, please. Capital letters are very poor form, akin to shouting loudly in the ear of the person you are arguing with.

Let me take you back to a piece of your own writing earlier in this thread.

>>"The multiplicity of gods was debunked 4,000 years ago as it was perceived all events [I say all events] were under one unifying cohesion except man who seemed in rebellion against the best design and practise of nature and relationships. Since the universe had one unified state where all behaviour of planets, known activity on earth, and processes of life were coordinated, or unified - hence the conclusion there was but one God over all and in all."<<

There's no evidence of an open mind here, Philo. You have selected your view, and are sticking with it... which is just fine with me. I do object though to people who shout at others for doing precisely the same.

You go on in the same vein:

>>"If present matter happened by a multiple series of unrelated accidental events, it is natural that all these things would be on conflicing courses and chaos would be the nature of design. Though chaos is present it does not interfere with the cordinated design of life. Where there is life there are cycles of maintenance and decay operating that identify a unity. The unity gives notion to the singleness of design of life in the universe. That One God gave life its character and design.<<

Categoric. Convinced. Closed mind. There's more.

>>"The resurrection of Jesus was a physical event that involved his own human body. Jesus said after his resurrection that he had flesh and bone; that he was not a spirit... [t]here had been no essential change to his body except that he had regained its normal functions. The miracle of change was his spirits ascention to heaven 40 days after his resurrection."<<

It doesn't matter to me that you believe this stuff, Philo, but it does annoy me when you shout "ANOTHER CLOSED MIND!" at folk who disagree with your views.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 26 September 2005 3:29:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Indeed, Pericles - and what's more, Philo's textual "yell" is all the more inappropriate because it was in response to a statement by me saying that reading this thread has caused me to read around quite widely about "ID" - hardly evidence of a closed mind.

If Philo had bothered listening to the podcast I mentioned, he would possibly have opened his own rather narrow view of the world just a little.
Posted by mahatma duck, Monday, 26 September 2005 4:32:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Debates about the resurrection of Jesus are endless. There are roughly 1200 “mainline” Christian churches and anything between 20,000 to 32,000 Christian sects in the world today. To try to come to some consensus amongst that assemblage about many theological problems presented to us in the New Testament is an exercise in folly. The greatest hindrance to rational theological debate is the true believer syndrome and self-deception.
True-believer syndrome is an expression used to describe an apparent cognitive disorder characterised by believing in the reality of paranormal or supernatural events after one has been presented overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Self-deception is the process of misleading ourselves to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid or provably unsustainable such as the physical resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Self-deception is a way we justify false beliefs to ourselves.
Self-deception is not necessarily a weakness of will, but may be a matter of ignorance, laziness, or cognitive incompetence. However, self-deception may not always be a flaw and may even be beneficial at times. If we were too brutally honest and objective about our own abilities, about life in general, and about our religious predilections in particular, we might become debilitated by depression.
Christians are challenged, “To search out the truth” and in doing so they can also run the risk of becoming debilitated and depressed about the results, which may not accord with their previously held beliefs. “Search out the truth” about the New Testament’s varying affirmations about the resurrection and doubtless there will be many who will resist further searching because they already know the “truth” from the “infallible”, “inerrant” New Testament. Ah, to be so convinced!
John S. Spong retired Bishop of New Jersey: “A deceased man did not walk out of his grave physically alive three days after his execution by crucifixion”.
George Cary, former Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury: “While we can be absolutely sure that Jesus lived and that he was certainly crucified on the cross, we cannot with the same certainty say that we know he was raised by God from the dead”
Posted by SAS, Tuesday, 27 September 2005 10:23:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 19
  7. 20
  8. 21
  9. Page 22
  10. 23
  11. 24
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy