THIS BLOG IS NOW IN STASIS.


PLEASE VISIT MY NEW WEBSITES:


My other projects include:


TrueFreethinker.com


My side projects are:


Worldview and Science Examiner


Fitness Trends Examiner (wherein I review individual exercises and workout routines, diet and nutrition, supplements and healthy snacks)


My YouTube channel

1/23/10

The Mad Pagan Skeptic, part 2

Please note that this essay will now be housed in True Freethinker’s section on Atheism

8 comments:

  1. Creationists are evolving. The new MO is to sue over free speech.
    The problem is that Creation/ID is not Science. And has no place in a science class or a science museum.
    I’m not the only one who is saying that. Two major court losses for the Discovery Institute drive home the point.


    This case allows the UC system to discriminate against students who are taught with a creationist biology txt book.
    http://ncse.com/news/2010/01/victory-again-california-creationism-case-005282

    Even a GW Bush appointed, conservative, federal judge, (self proclaimed born again Christian), Ruled in the Dover Pa trail that ID is nothing more than creationism and is not science. He also said the DI people were fundamentally dishonest.
    Judge Jones said...
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html


    "The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. [...]
    The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."

    Mark,, Ca

    ReplyDelete
  2. blah blah blah creationism this creationism that. I'm seriously bored of everyone coming on here and trying to smash the discovery institute and ID. Ever consider that theres more to Christianity than that? Or that there are millions of believers who really have no problem with evolution (until someone claiming to be a scientist says that it proves God doesn't exit of course) like myself? Micro evolution is fine by me. Macro im more shaky on as 150 years and we're claiming that we know all we need to know. Evolution itself points to the hand of a Designer. That was the sentiment even in Darwins day.

    The only reason people change their tune now is because some idiot thought that it disproved God. Darwin didn't think this. He wasn't naieve. I'm sure he'd be rolling in his grave if he saw how his theory was being represented today.

    signed "that anonymous troll" ;)

    ReplyDelete
  3. There is no conflict between belief in God and excepting science.
    It is the Discovery Institute that keeps offering that false choice.

    The best evidence against Creation/ID is the Discovery Institute.

    Beth

    ReplyDelete
  4. Beth..

    "There is no conflict between belief in God and excepting science.
    It is the Discovery Institute that keeps offering that false choice."


    This article suggests that you are incorrect.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What does this article have to do with Intelligent Design and Evolution? Let me read it again.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Nope, I was right it's much bigger than evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "...this is, at least part of, the reason that God does not part the universe, appear in the sky and say, 'Shalom! I am God and you are not' as this would, essentially, rob us of the freewill to seek and find or reject and feel justified in doing so."

    There are at least 2 responses to this:

    Response #1: According to the Bible and other religions, this is EXACTLY what god did--revealing himself in various ways; so this statement is contradicted by the beliefs of the person who states it.

    Response #2: Isn't that convenient!

    Isn't it also extraordinarily convenient that (as Mariano here has brilliantly shown) the Bible, which claims to be the truth, explicitly belies any criticism of it? And they wonder why people see religion as intolerant, exclusionary and backward.

    ReplyDelete
  8. O K Your particular God is real. Prove it. Not personal beliefs. Not Biblical, Upanishads, Koranic nor Torah quotes.

    Just replicable, verifiable, evidence. I have asked repeatedly for over seventy years, and never have I received a reply. Will you be the first?

    ReplyDelete