Slashdot Mirror

Also, the point you make raises one of the problems I have with mainstream religion; it's that it often devalues humanity and life (this life)

I always tend to assume that those who are advocating "Intelligent Design" are advocating just that sort of debate, but it seems that I am wrong from reading the statements that most prominent IDers make. If they want to debate about evolution, they need to be arguing about the mechanism of evolution, not about the fact that more complicated organisms have tended to follow the more simple organisms according to the fossil record. I think that there is plenty of room for someone who believes in the Creator to debate the origins of life with atheists and they shouldn't be silenced for being religious.

Unfortunately, the fact is that most "Intelligent Design" advocates -- though not all (see this article) -- want to teach a literal belief in Genesis, which can in no way be reconciled with today's scientific knowledge, and belongs in a religion class. I suppose that this "theory" could be true nonetheless, but then they need to work out arguments about how plants can grow without sunlight and generally falsify the entire current understanding of how the world works.

I think that you're right, that the real sticking point is abiogenesis vs. creation. Unfortunately, both of these theories rest entirely on faith (at least until someone follows Julia Child's Primordial Soup video from the 60s through and produces life from non-living elements, which would at least lend some credibility -- if not falsifiability -- to abiogenesis), and so should really be left out of public schools according to this ruling...

I know that both sides like to just spew generalities at the other one. But you're distorting the case so much that I feel compelled to post...

"Intelligent Design" does not by definition mean "The creation account in Genesis is 100% literally true", in the same way that "Evolution" does not by definition mean "Belief that natural selection alone provided the diversity of species we see today". Both "camps" contain a wide variety of members, with different nuances.

A large fraction of Intelligent Design supporters are advocating "theistic evolution", that is, that the Creator had some role in directing the process of evolution. There are certainly others who posit direct creation of the existing types of animals by a creator. But don't lump them together, please.

A favorite argument on Slashdot is that "Intelligent Design is not falsifiable, therefore it is not scientific". On the other hand, an intelligent design supporter might ask how evolution is falsifiable. When a gap in the fossil record is pointed to, the evolutionist simply says with great faith, "We will yet find the missing link". Thus it is impossible to disprove evolution as well. Evolutionists mock supporters of Intelligent Design saying that the eyes of squids are much better than those of vertebrates, so why didn't this Intelligent Designer keep with what worked, at the same time failing to explain why natural selection failed to choose the "better" eye form.

Here's an interesting article by an electrical engineer (but published on a Christian site, so leaning towards Intelligent Design): Supernatural Selection

I think if both sides would just listen to each other a bit (perhaps excepting the completely creationist camp and the completely natural selection camp -- if they even exist today), there would be more understanding and possibly even learning from one another.

By the way, as far as official teaching, the Catholic Church has not confirmed or denied either theory, leaving it open to the scientists. Most Catholic scholars (including John Paul II, Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna, and the last I read, Benedict XVI) lean toward theistic evolution, though the director of the Vatican Observatory recently made statements more on the lines of what the parent poster said. However, the mechanism of speciation has been explicity placed outside of the realm of faith -- each Catholic may believe as the evidence convinces him, as long as he accepts God as a transcendent creator and the direct creation of the human soul.

If the Internet had been around in Chuck Colson's day, he probably would have tried that.

I know of Colson, but only because of his life after his involvement in Watergate. He has since converted to Christianity (and become a relatively "big name"), started a prison ministry, and written several popular-level books on Christian philosophy and living.

The article you're referencing doesn't live there anymore. It's here.

You can't save everybody. Jesus himself said "The poor you'll always have with you." When you consider moving money into social programs, you have to ask: is the government the best steward of those resources? For bottom-up social programs, I think the answer is a resounding no. You don't have to look any further than the bursting-at-the-seams prison system and the 80-90% recividism rate.

(ahem: Prison Fellowship)

So if we conclude that society itself--i.e., private citizens--is the best source of humanitarian aid, how do we fund them? By lowering taxes.