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 9/9/2005Peter Sellick argues it is not a good idea to teach intelligent design in our children's biology classes.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Page 24
-
- All
Why? It doesn't necessarily further the evolutionary process.
And why do we assume that we have such an authority on what is and what isn't truth? If we argue that there is no knowable God (He/She/It/They is/are too big to grasp our heads around OR doesn't exist) then we have no foundation to say that anything we believe is correct. E.g. we could have evolved the wrong way, and not know about it. Thus everything we believe becomes relative and has no REAL meaning.
I think its admirable that you try to live with compassion and love for others. Why, I'm not sure. Because if we are just biological processes, free to invent our own sense of spirituality or lack thereof, it doesn't really matter what we think is true or good, in the end.
However, it seems to be, that at this point of time, Australians have decided that compassion and love are the moral standards to which we all might aspire (influenced by religion and/or our own innate sense of what's right and wrong, put there/evolved for whatever reason, I'm not sure, but I don't think there's any harm in it).
I salute everybody in this post who has chosen to be loving and compassionate. Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays to everyone.