Conservatives against ID

[Neomega]

You were the one who first mentioned there being some sort of "odds" for something occuring, and that statement inherently involves some sort of calculation of said odds. Unless you've done some calculating, how else could you possibly be even able to speak about "odds"?

It wasn't meant to be taken literally. Maybe the "odds" of life appearing by random chance are greater then the odds of a flying spaghetti monster creating life.

However, both, to me, are a real crap shoot.

That said, evolution still seems more logical than intelligent design.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

If these people cannot acknowledge the possibility of God's existence, then I shall haven nothing to do with them.

Bold by me.

You have nicely illustrated one of the problems many religious people have - a voluntarily closed mind. You would be unwilling to even consider new information if it comes from someone you disagree with?

What about agnostics? They acknowledge the possibility of god but see insufficient data at this time to sufficiently support such a theory. Are you allowed to have anything to do with them?

I feel sad for you for with that attitude you may become increasingly lonely, especially considering you are only 24 and have a whole life of experience and learning ahead of you.

 

[YNCS]

More accurately physics has cause and effect except in the case of existence then it just throws up it's arms goes ugghhhh and dissapears off for a pint.

Physics can't answer that question and probably never will be able to, rather than just say 'we don't know" though it is in some sort of denial about it's inability to answer the big question of before the big bang so it justs says it doesn't exist nananananana! I'm not listening

You must know a different lot of physicists than I do.

The Big Bang Theory can go back to 1 × 10^-43 seconds. Past that point, physicists say "we don't know." They don't deny that something, probably many things, happened before that point. They say that they don't know what happened.

 

[Babbler]

As long as there are local school boards that decide on curriculum, there will always be victims of creationist propaganda. There is a solution -- federalize education. Have the federal government establish national standards and force the schools to abide by them.

The federal government does that -- to an extent.

More productive could be to simple hand curriculum decision to the state's department of education.

But it wouldn't get rid of the creation lobby, which will lobby at any level curriculum matter are made.

 

[Sidhe]

You must know a different lot of physicists than I do.

The Big Bang Theory can go back to 1 × 10^-43 seconds. Past that point, physicists say "we don't know." They don't deny that something, probably many things, happened before that point. They say that they don't know what happened.

It's more they say nothing happened before the big bang, it just spontaneously came into existence for no apparent reason, without cause. you can work back to the point of singularity but beyond that?

 

[Boris Godunov]

I would never sign or subscribe to such things. These people want to declare that evolution is a process without God for political reasons. They want to exclude the possibility that God exists. I cannot support that.

I believe in the Theory of Evolution as God's Law. If these people cannot acknowledge the possibility of God's existence, then I shall haven nothing to do with them.

But that's totally wrong, that's not what they're saying. They are not at all excluding the possibility of God's existence. The only thing they said is that they do not want Intelligent Design taught in schools, because it is inherently a metaphysical idea that does not belong in a science class. They explicitly state there is no conflict between evolution and religion, which is what you yourself state.

 

[Boris Godunov]

It's more they say nothing happened before the big bang, it just spontaneously came into existence for no apparent reason, without cause. you can work back to the point of singularity but beyond that?

Do you have any qoutes or cites from reputable physicists who claim this?

While I know many prominent physicists reject the idea that we cannot ever know what happened to trigger the big bang, not a one of them would ever claim so certainly that there was "nothing" before it. In fact, they would likely find the assertion that there had to be "nothing" prior to the BB to be rather incongrous with the issue at hand.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I would never sign or subscribe to such things. These people want to declare that evolution is a process without God for political reasons. They want to exclude the possibility that God exists. I cannot support that.

I believe in the Theory of Evolution as God's Law. If these people cannot acknowledge the possibility of God's existence, then I shall haven nothing to do with them.

So do I, and I signed. Read some of the comments - some of them explicitly state that they are religious people. The teaching of Intelligent Design is not the only way to be religious - it is rather an attempt to force a certain religious viewpoint into science classes.

 

[Sims2789]

Stop using my tax money to teach your religion.

I would applaud, but the ten-character limit prevents me.

However, making someone pay a portion of their income to the government (without which that person's quality of life is not greatly affected) is not nearly as large an affront on liberty as is state-sponsored religion.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Given who currently runs our federal government, I find that idea frightening and don't think it would result in a better outcome.

Point taken. Let's wait for the next administration.

 

[MamboJoel]

How come creationism/ID has been affiliated to the right-wing at the first place ? Sorry to say that, but I have a recurrent feeling we tend not to be afraid enough of amalgams in US politics. Or clichés, since I guess some will likely categorize those right-wing seculars in well suited boxes (defenders of gay mariage, east coast moderates etc...).
Sorry that was a bit spamy.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Because of the Religious Right.

 

[MamboJoel]

Wow, that was helpfull

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, heck, where do I fit? I am (slightly) right-wing, and very religious. I also supprot the teaching of the theory of evolution alone, as much as any correct science, and I neither oppose nor support efforts to give government approval to same sex marriage. I don't fit any stereotype - I am not red, or blue, or anythin so easy to define. Most people, I suspect, aren't.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Well, heck, where do I fit? I am (slightly) right-wing, and very religious. I also supprot the teaching of the theory of evolution alone, as much as any correct science, and I neither oppose nor support efforts to give government approval to same sex marriage. I don't fit any stereotype - I am not red, or blue, or anythin so easy to define. Most people, I suspect, aren't.

When capitalised, the Religious Right refers to specific and vocal groups, not people who are religious and right-wing.

There are funny sites about it.

Wow, that was helpfull

Are you being sarcastic? I honestly can't tell.