The Fishbowl

On this subject:

I know just enough to know that I don't know anything. ;-)

Peace.

Yes, and how convenient for the religionists that they won't be swayed by mere reason. They see themselves as an aggrieved minority, marginalized and persecuted by the mainstream for too long. This is their moment, and they're going to milk it for everything it's worth.

Let this be a warning to all future generations: good Education is essential for a healthy society.

I don't see the problem with intelligent design OR with evolution. Surely an all knowing (g/G)od(ess) whould have the sense to realise that place he was putting his organisms would change over time? I mean, didn't he/she/it create it that way?

He/She/It would have to build in evolution into the Big Plan otherwise all the species would die out in a couple of million years or so...

Yeah, right, Richard. The problem here is not recognizing (g/G)od(ess)s exist or did this or that. You can believe in whatever makes sense for you, and that's perfectly ok: just don't try to impose it on everyone else, which is what the ID proponents are trying to do, in a clever and disguised way, passing literal and fundamental Judeo-Christian views as 'science'.

To me, the sad part is that intelligent design tries to explain one pretty big unknown (how the universe came about and how it got to this point) with an even bigger unknown (god) without any substantial, material, recognizable or otherwise scientifically sound proof. To me, the next question after 'God created the universe' is 'if so, who created God?', which so far hasn't had a satisfactory answer.

You might want to have a look at The God FAQ, here: http://www.400monkeys.com/God

There are folks who believe you can mix science and creationism (see: http://www.drdino.com/articles.php ). And it wasn't that long ago, that people who were striving for an education felt that learning was honoring God by studying more about the world He created. It's only in more recent times that we feel we have to completely kick God out of the picture in order to study science.

The problem "religious" folks have in the US with evolution isn't just about scientific assumption and it isn't about trying to cram their beliefs down the throats of others, it's that when US schools become so hostile to religious material or reference that they essentially teach that there is no god. And when you teach that, you are embracing humanism or atheism. It's a fixation with the whole "separation of church of state" that few understand. I know for a fact that in Australia (at least a few years ago), people were allowed to come in to public schools to discuss Biblical topics.

But when people say "believe what you want but don't try to force me to believe the same stuff", they're really saying, "believe what you want but I want what I believe taught in school." Your arguments are no different than the "religious" folks. Everybody wants their kids to learn what they believe or at least a serious mention of it (in the case of creationism or intelligent design). And it's as simple as that.

>> To me, the next question after 'God created the universe' is 'if so, who created God?', which so far hasn't had a satisfactory answer.

There are very satisfactory answers to that question. Any being creating such a complex world as ours has to be extreemely complex. Such a being can not come by chance and has thus been designed by an intelligen being. Case closed.

If it was a single line of code, then it was most certainly APL -- which explains a lot.

Nothing much to add to the debate here, but just wanted to say that this was a really great post, and and excellent way of thinking about the whole idea of a creator. (By which, I suppose I mean that it closely conforms to my own thinking about a creator. But ymmv.)

I also like the idea that God and his creation may be part of the same whole. That's a pretty radical concept, but it can help with dealing with the doctrines of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. And it also can counter the concept of creatio ex nihilo. Very interesting stuff.

Regarding the jury-rigged design article. The panda is an excellent example of an animal with one jury-rigged component in the design not fitting in with the thousands of perfectly designed parts and mechanisms that make up the "whole" of the panda, but
is it not possible that the scientists simply don't know the purpose behind the opposing thumb-shaped wrist bone on the panda's feet? It's like putting together a whole jigsaw puzzle and then, because one piece doesn't fit, saying the puzzle must have evolved.

>>> To me, the next question after 'God created the universe' >>>Is 'if so, who created God?', which so far hasn't had a
>>>satisfactory answer.

>> There are very satisfactory answers to that question. Any being
>> creating such a complex world as ours has to be extreemely
>> complex. Such a being can not come by chance and has thus been
>> designed by an intelligen being. Case closed.

Case isn't closed at all. Begging the question that a being created the world does not prove that there was a designer. You haven't (and never will) proved the existence of a creator. Or a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Read the case again -- the suggestion was that if you allow a creator, you need to allow a creator of the creator, and a creator of the creator of the creator, and.... Infinite recursion. Stack overflow error.

"If you look at the human body, which was supposedly designed in totem rather than evolved, there are so many bits that are useless, inefficient or even counterproductive that we hardly fit into the ideal of being constructed out of clay, so to speak, by a perfect and beneficent God." - Sounds reasonable, however, we might not be aware enough. Plus, some things have changed as a result of evolution... We are not the same as the first people who were created by God. I think, the only imperfect thing in a Man is his soul, but otherwise the world would be just boring.

Interesting debate, but i don't think we'll all come to a common agreement.One of the main reason for this can be found here (http://scriptures.lds.org/1_cor/2/11-12) .The gist of matter: "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned".
But at the end of it all everyone should have a choice and not be forced.

As far as i am concerned the main point is not whether there is a god or not, or what he might have created.

What we want to convey to our children in schools is the thought complex of scientific reasoning, which has stood mankind in good steed for many years.
The scientific viewpoint on gods is not that they do not exist, but that they have not produced conclusive evidence of themselves.

By applying Ockhams razor and emperical reasoning, we have a conjecture about the evolution as opposed to creation.

My main point is that whats valuable here is the method by which we reach conclusions, not the conclusions themselves. It is this method that should be taught in schools.

The day creationists can produce a conjeture that accounts for the same phenomena that evolution does, and can also survive Ochkams razor, the by all means, let us hear it.