Producer - Organised religion is just another group of, in your words “bloodsucking parasites”.

They indeed. Note however that there is a VAST difference between organized religion & christianity

.

Dear praxidice,

.

You wrote:

"Whilst you clearly don't acknowledge the existence of a higher intelligence, a substantial number of highly regarded scientists do, and none of that group perceives a problem with the combination of intelligent design & Darwinian evolution".

.

I think you are referring to a "higher intelligence" exterior to the material universe, some form of supernatural entity, a deity perhaps.

If so, I doubt that anybody could rightly "acknowledge" the existence of any such entity, "acknowledge" meaning "own up to, or admit, having knowledge of". In my mind, neither you nor I nor anybody else could possibly "have knowledge" of any form of supernatural entity, albeit a "higher intelligence".

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Most likely, I think you meant to say: "... you clearly don't believe in the existence of a higher intelligence ...".

If so, that is correct. I do not. However, I am willing to do so if there is one such as you describe it.

I consider the matter to be of capital importance and faith alone is an insufficient basis for my acknowledgement of the existence of any such entity. Nothing short of regular direct physical contact in the presence of credible witnesses or, failing that, solid scientific proof, will do, so far as I am concerned.

It is not something I take lightly. Nor do I place my faith without, at least, a good deal of irrefutable circumstantial evidence.

Until such time, I remain convinced that there is no "higher intelligence" other than all those talented people who share this life on earth with me, and I imagine they are legion.

You may be interested in the results of some recent research on the subject of "Religiosity and Intelligence" I found on the internet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
.

http://www.anth.uconn.edu/degree_programs/ecolevo/divineintuition.pdf

PS: I am sad to read that you consider that everybody who disagrees with you has a closed mind. I hope you will reconsider that.

It is certainly not reciproal so far as I am concerned.

.

Praxidice – The last time I looked Christianity was very well organised. I consider it no different to all (without exception) other religions.

There is a lot of good stuff being done by botherers of many franchises. The purpose with very few exceptions is to influence individuals to join the flock (some are honest enough to call it a flock) of sheeple.

Surely as a sheeple yourself it is a bit rich to bag other sheeple such as Spindoc, Hasbeen, Shadow Minister and Yuyutsu. These contributors believe passionately in their chosen franchise to a degree that it clouds any logic and stifles any meaningful discussion that does not fit with their particular mindset or agenda. Just like religion?

Whether it be religion or politics it is the blind acceptance of a particular doctrine and the dogmatic belief that everyone else should accept that doctrine as well is a very dangerous, retarding and generally a self-serving principle.

I believe in the power of one.

I believe from chaos will come order.

Stability will come from revolution.

A bit of Python
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDe9msExUK8

Dear Banjo,

All species develop tools for survival or they don't survive. Shared religious belief as far as I can see is an unequaled binding force when humans live in tribal conditions. However, when different groups with different religious beliefs mingle it becomes an unequaled force for conflict if those groups have a missionary impulse. The worst sources of conflicts are the missionary religions, Christianity and Islam. They are not satisfied to rest secure in their mumbojumbo. They would put it on other people. Islam was not originally a missionary religion. Early Islam regarded itself as a religion for the Arabs and discouraged their subject peoples from conversion. However, after a while they imitated their Christian opponents. One reason could have been that armies motivated by a righteousness could more eagerly slaughter other human beings.

Akbar (b. 1542), one of the Muslim Moghul emperors, came to believe that all religions are equally illusionary and should be tolerated in a state that sought real peace. Since he was emperor he was free to state any opinion he liked. In a theocracy which many countries have been in the past and are still in the present people with the same opinion as Akbar had must keep silent to preserve their status and even their lives. The secular state, being neutral as to religious beliefs allows all people the freedom to state their opinions as to religious belief. An increasing percentage agrees with Akbar. In my opinion the idea that the belief in an unprovable religious proposition carries with it the right to impose that 'truth' onto others is a pernicious idea.

>>If you consider they are not incompatible, then they must be compatible.<<

But they aren't. This video and this wikipedia article might go some way toward explaining why they are incompatible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPv4FMtxO9o

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

Intelligent design is not science. It uses supernatural explanations to explain natural phenomena: scientific theories are purely naturalistic or they're not scientific. If a theory involves any supernatural explanations then it falls outside the purview of science. It is probably philosophy or theology. There is nothing wrong with philosophical and theological theories but they shouldn't be confused for science and taught in science classes: they should be taught in philosophy or theology classes.

Darwinian evolution is science. It is an entirely naturalistic theory, using only natural explanations for the phenomena it deals with. Until evolutionary theory starts using supernatural explanations (and thus stops being science) or intelligent design drops any supernatural explanations (and thus starts being science) the two are not compatible.

Claiming that they are compatible is like saying astronomy and astrology are compatible - and that astrology should be taught in science classes so children can hear both sides of the 'debate'. Astrology and astronomy deal with similar subject matter: the motion of heavenly bodies. But astronomy is science and astrology is not: astrology deals with the supernatural effects of the movement of those bodies whilst astronomy doesn't consider the possibility that those movements have any supernatural effects at all. Astronomy is appropriate to be taught in science classes, astrology is not.

It should be noted that there is no inherent incompatibility between an acceptance of Darwinian evolution and a belief in the supernatural. Darwinian evolution is only incompatible with supernatural explanations for observed biological variability, not necessarily with the supernatural itself.

Cheers,

Tony

Dear Banjo,

To keep men on their toes, raise the urinals.