No, don't mod your Dreamcast. However, DO buy Ikaruga, right now. It kicks ass, even if it is so ridiculously hard you will tear your hair out in the frustration of attempting to even come close to mastering it. My performance at this game is pathetic!
The reason not to mod your DC is that there is a freely available boot disc which will allow you to play Ikaruga and other imports with one swap. It's called the Utopia disk. If you can't find one, I'm sure I can set you up; just follow the link to my site and send me an e-mail.
You can also buy a product called the Gameshark CD-X or something like that, but it's something like $50; a little spendy I'm thinking...
I do not own a gun, but I'm not willing to give up my constitutional right to bear one as I please (because if I give that up, what's next? free speech?).
This is the only part of your post I really didn't understand. You were the one who drew a comparison between mod chips and guns - wouldn't you therefore be forced, by your own assertions, to argue that a gun should only be legal if you build it yourself, and that people should not be allowed to SELL guns?
The reason I disagree with the rest of your points is not because they're not good points, or not true, but because they are wildly speculative, and I do not believe that it is ok to create broad, important legal policy based on some ideas of the potential effect on developers' revenue streams. Even if there is a demonstrable effect that could be proven with numbers, I would STILL support the right of the mod chip manufacturers to do business. Frankly, I wouldn't feel at home in a capatalist system if I favored one type of enterprise over another to the demise of the loser.
Mod chip manufacturers have jobs too, you know. Outlawing them will put them out of work as well, if you want to look at it that way.
Why does he have to figure it out? Someone else already did, and then, they did this other thing everyone used to know about - they started a business based on a product which they invented and manufactured, and they sold that product. And perhaps this guy bought that product.
You're like the tenth person in here to insist that it's A-OK to mod something, but only if you figure it all out yourself. What bullshit! Better get in the car you made yourself in the garage and drive down to your field to harvest the crops you grew so you can eat tonight on the kitchen table you built. What? You mean you BOUGHT ALL THOSE THINGS?! ILLEGAAAAAAAAAALLLLLL!
No, I don't really think you're allowed to build your own guns either, if the type of gun you're building has been outlawed in your area.
Guns are a bad comparison because outlawing guns might protect people from being hurt. A lot of very reasonable people are perfectly willing to give up some of their personal right to bear arms if it might mean that fewer people will die.
Mod chips do not harm any person. They might harm the bottom line of a corporation, and as I don't work for a console manufacturer, it's not really my responsibility to help ensure their future profitability. I can't think of a good analogy, but if some company came along and could demonstrate that hammers cut into their profit margin, would you outlaw those as well?
Incidentally, what is the difference between buying a mod chip and building your own? What do you feel separates the two, morally or legally or whatever way you want to look at it? (Besides the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA, of course, which we are already aware of).
Sure, you may use it for import games or running linux, but you can't tell me the temptation isn't there for you to go and download games rather than buying them.
So, things should be illegal because you and some others have a suspicion that they are to be used for illegal purposes? How very fascistic of you. You mentioned the legitimate purposes of the chip in the same breath with which you condemned it.
I didn't use the word "arguing" or argument. You might have been thinking of someone else. I actually thought your point was quite valid, I just didn't manage to say so before. In a hurry and all, you know...
I still remain unconvinced that there is some difference, legal or otherwise (aside from that contained in the DMCA) between me modifying my device by studying its schematics and me selling my modification device so that others do not have to replicate my work. Why is one good and the other one bad?
Shutting down mod chips does NOT mean you're unable to do what you want with your hardware.
Yes, it does. It means that I can not buy a modification device so that I might change my hardware's behavior. What right do you have to stop me from doing that, or stop someone else from selling something that I want? (Something which I hope you compare to guns or lockpicks or grenades in your response, because that would be really original)
I don't know how long for sure, but Strider 2 was protected. A friend of mine bought it and was unable to play it because of his chip. Had to use someone else's console:)
I love your "I don't use it so it should be illegal" attitude. Especially this:
For one, i couldn't read the japanese games and often times it wasn't worth the effort
Well, guess what, I can't read Japanese either, but I have enjoyed many games from that country on my modded PS2 such as Sexy Parodius, Twinbee Deluxe Pack, Salamander Deluxe Pack, Gradius Gaiden. I also just happened to purchase Ikaruga for my Dreamcast. These are all shooters - and there is no language barrier for pure twitch action like that.
Konami's games have always been popular here, but we didn't get any of those. So I adapted my system so that it would do what I wanted it to do. I see no harm in that, and there is not a thing about it that breaks any law aside from (possibly) the DMCA additions to US Copyright Law.
You know why people have to import? Because the console manufacturers maintain a tight reign on what is published on their console. They are able to do so because it is nigh impossible to create working distributable software without their permission, and even if you could, you could possibly be in violation of patents or sued under the DMCA (for bypassing methods of protection).
What it boils down to is that certain companies are not allowed to translate their games onto U.S. systems, even if they are willing to spend the money, because the hardware manufacturer is afraid that that title will make their system look bad. That's bullshit. Take a look at the PS2 as a great example - modchips appeared within a small number of months of the console's release allowing pirate games to be played, but NO ONE made a chip allowing imports until this year! It was a much more difficult process... Now why is that?
I want to play the games I want to play. If I am not able to do so, I will pass the console by, plain and simple.
Downloading music without permission is taking without right or leave.
But the "owner" still has it if someone downloads it. So did they take it? You really want it to be the same BUT IT'S NOT. You're suffering from an acute case of not thinking about the way things really work.
But whatever the legal application, downloading copyrighted music is stealing.
I see. It's stealing because it's stealing. Well, the law agrees with me, Nancy.
And it's wrong legally, morally, and ethically.
Don't preach to me. It's right in my post that I don't think it's all right to download copyrighted music for free. But, as I predicted, you've jumped to the conclusion that I was defending it.
And you should stop doing it.
Being a dick isn't going to help you be more right, either.
Sure, that's why the MPAA/RIAA will be sure to release DRM protected content which allows consumers to use the content in the ways in which they want to use it.
Funniest statement of the year, right there. I can't even respond. You're either a big commercial for the entertainment industry, or you're an idiot.
Get back on topic, this article is not about laws.
And this:
DRM is a technology, not a law.
DRM is impossible without laws to support it. It makes no sense for you to try to separate the two. If DRM related things are not enacted into laws, then DRM is completely useless, as competing, open technologies would be widely available and more desirable to consumers. If all of the consumers buy non-DRM technology, the MPAA/RIAA will drop DRM like a bad habit. They NEED laws.
I also like your implication that you get to decide what aspects of this issue people should argue about. I don't think it probably works that way, buddy.
Do you refuse to buy food that you can't microwave as well?
If the food came in a sealed metal container that only opened to release the food once it was half way down my throat, just for the purpose of not being microwaveable, then no, I would not buy it.
No, they don't say that. They have this other thing - maybe you've heard of it - they're called copyright violations. They're punishable under a completely different set of laws. The argument is not silly because it is simply not stealing, from any definable standpoint.
Depriving someone of potential revenue is not the same as physically stealing something. I am not saying that it's ok to copy everyone's music for free, though you have probably already decided that that is exactly what I am saying.
I am simply baffled that you think that two crimes with entirely different circumstances are the same crime. If I shoot your dog, are you going to accuse me of "stealing" his life? Why not? Didn't I just deprive you of the future potential use of your pet?
So you think that the 600 Mhz iMac (the ONLY Macintosh that seems to cost $800, incidentally) is somehow a better deal than a 1.6 GHz Athlon or Pentium IV? Let's see, you get yesterday's processor, a small built in monitor, and a computer case that frankly no computer power user I have ever known has had the slightest interest in whatsoever? Yes, great deal!
I used to have a Mac. I bought one of the cheapest available at the time, a Performa 640CD/Dos Compatible with a Motorola 68040 processer. Cost me $1600. It became obsolete maybe 1 1/2 to 2 years later. See what happens when you buy yesterday's technology? I couldn't afford $3000 for a nice new PowerPC based machine, so I opted with a 200 MHz Pentium. Pretty fast at the time, ran all of the software I wanted to use, spent less than $500.
I like Macs just fine. But get this - THEY ARE VERY EXPENSIVE. No amount of zany comparison pseudo-logic is ever going to change that, and why does it bother you so much anyway?
I have looked at Apple's prices lately. They are very, very expensive. Don't you feel bad for being one of the many to perpetuate this myth that somehow this is not the case?
You're not saving "a few bucks" building the equivalent PC to a Mac ever. You're probably saving several hundred dollars, at least.
It's certainly interesting to think about, but the problem with assuming that things needed to be created is this:
Q. Someone must have made all this junk! I mean, it didn't get here by itself! So who made it?
A. God!
Q. Who made that?
A. Uh.... He got there by himself!
That's not to say there is no God! I don't believe in such a being personally, but I mean no disrespect whatsoever toward your beliefs. To me, believing in a divine creator is interesting and profoundly spiritual. Really believing, not just going to church every week like most people. But attempting to put forth that such a creator must exist because something must have started it all is jumping a bit too far, in my opinion.
I don't think science is going to ever answer the question completely. Even the Big Bang theory does not discount the possibility of a creator. Imagine that the universe simply perpetually existed, or that a creator perpetually existed. This concept, for me at least, is impossible to wrap my mind around - the idea that something could "just be there". I really don't think anyone's ever quite going to put their finger on it.
What you say speaks really close to home for me. When I attended high school, we were taught some very non-fundamentalist theology. We were also taught to use our brains to decide what the truth about religion is for ourselves. The number of my peers who abandoned Christianity as a result of this is astounding.
This is justification of my assertion that you are not separating the philosophy from its abuses.
You are absolutely right. Indeed I was not separating them. Unfortunately, those who follow blindly seem to greatly outnumber those who use reason and logic to discover what it is that they really believe.
Then why construct such a long winded reply? You were talking very much about philosophy.
I suppose we were. I'm glad we could agree on some things.
Well, that is an interesting point. I believe that his statement was meant to be a very generic demonstrative example - he could have shown how simple changes change the word BANANA into ORANGES or something too, but that would be a tedious demonstration (as he would probably want to go through thousands of random sequences to produce such a radical change).
I am not all that familiar with origins of life theories. I only know about the popular ones (Big Bang, primordial soup, etc). I'm just a lowly computer scientist with too much spare time on his hands. You'd be better off asking someone else about that.
I don't like ID because it's a gross misuse of mathematics and logic.:)
Well, creationists I have read in the past have separated the two - it's not a difference between mutation and evolution though.
Creationists usually separate evolution within a "kind" from evolution "across kinds". (What a "kind" is, specifically, I have never seen defined). This is because it is nigh impossible to refute that small evolutionary processes are fact. You can observe them easily in laboratory conditions - but large evolutionary changes are still a Creationist target because they can't be observed directly. I am not saying that I don't believe in large evolutionary changes - just that they require different, more difficult evidence than small changes.
Wow, you sure are good at making 50,000 assumptions based on one sentence. Too bad I wasn't discussing philosophy - we were talking about science. You ARE supposed to just believe in the existence of God. I was not using this statement to say that all Christians are completely blind to the facts. Your philosophy seems reasonable; however, you're not taking your religion and using it as if it's a hammer with which to smash science fact, either.
I attended a Jesuit high school. I was a Catholic for 20 years. Despite the fact that the Jesuits' instruction always encouraged us to think critically and believe what we logically observe to be true, they, like all Catholics, pushed the Catholic church's idea of the "Infallibility of the Pope". This is the idea that the definite statements of the Pope can not be refuted by the Cardinals. Not a bad idea, really, but the belief behind it is that the church speaks for God, and the head of the church CAN NOT be wrong or else God is wrong. At least, that was my interpretation.
I stopped attending church when my Archbishop circulated a letter (an encyclical) to the parishes explaining the Church's stance on a handful of issues: homosexuality, abortion, and women in the priesthood. It was made known that these stances were the official church stance, that they were not to be argued with, and that anyone who attempted to debate these issues with the church in any way could never hold any office with the church. I have no idea whether this letter came from a higher office - perhaps it was just my Archbishop, which would be even more disturbing - now the Archbishop speaks for Church law as well! So, in conclusion - the Catholic Church, my former church, DOES NOT WANT YOUR PHILOSOPHY, no matter what you and the apologetics have to say about it. Admittedly, the issues in question are all subjective, but so is the lion's share of Theology.
I studied Catholic Theology for four years. It was NOT scientific, though it was very well thought out - a lot of thought has gone into it for TWO THOUSAND years in fact, but this does not change the fact that the material is all subjective and open to continued debate. (Except for "reserved" subjects such as the Immaculate Conception and Women in the Priesthood).
My "pathetic" assertion that in the end, you're not really supposed to test God is based on twenty solid years as a Catholic. What I know about Protestant denominations (I have Protestant friends) and the history of the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation suggests that the philosophy of debate, but not TOO much applies to most of them as well. I won't even talk about the fundamentalists - they don't want to talk about your "facts" at all!
Once again, my simple statement was based on what I see as the VAST majority of Christian philosophy. Yours is based on a small group I've never heard of. Are you still going to tell me that I know nothing about this subject?
Slashdot Mirror
The paddle the paddle the side the side the paddle the paddle the side the side!!!!
:p
POOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNGGGG!
---
Don't mod it if you don't get it.
No, don't mod your Dreamcast. However, DO buy Ikaruga, right now. It kicks ass, even if it is so ridiculously hard you will tear your hair out in the frustration of attempting to even come close to mastering it. My performance at this game is pathetic!
The reason not to mod your DC is that there is a freely available boot disc which will allow you to play Ikaruga and other imports with one swap. It's called the Utopia disk. If you can't find one, I'm sure I can set you up; just follow the link to my site and send me an e-mail.
You can also buy a product called the Gameshark CD-X or something like that, but it's something like $50; a little spendy I'm thinking...
I do not own a gun, but I'm not willing to give up my constitutional right to bear one as I please (because if I give that up, what's next? free speech?).
This is the only part of your post I really didn't understand. You were the one who drew a comparison between mod chips and guns - wouldn't you therefore be forced, by your own assertions, to argue that a gun should only be legal if you build it yourself, and that people should not be allowed to SELL guns?
The reason I disagree with the rest of your points is not because they're not good points, or not true, but because they are wildly speculative, and I do not believe that it is ok to create broad, important legal policy based on some ideas of the potential effect on developers' revenue streams. Even if there is a demonstrable effect that could be proven with numbers, I would STILL support the right of the mod chip manufacturers to do business. Frankly, I wouldn't feel at home in a capatalist system if I favored one type of enterprise over another to the demise of the loser.
Mod chip manufacturers have jobs too, you know. Outlawing them will put them out of work as well, if you want to look at it that way.
Why does he have to figure it out? Someone else already did, and then, they did this other thing everyone used to know about - they started a business based on a product which they invented and manufactured, and they sold that product. And perhaps this guy bought that product.
You're like the tenth person in here to insist that it's A-OK to mod something, but only if you figure it all out yourself. What bullshit! Better get in the car you made yourself in the garage and drive down to your field to harvest the crops you grew so you can eat tonight on the kitchen table you built. What? You mean you BOUGHT ALL THOSE THINGS?! ILLEGAAAAAAAAAALLLLLL!
No, I don't really think you're allowed to build your own guns either, if the type of gun you're building has been outlawed in your area.
Guns are a bad comparison because outlawing guns might protect people from being hurt. A lot of very reasonable people are perfectly willing to give up some of their personal right to bear arms if it might mean that fewer people will die.
Mod chips do not harm any person. They might harm the bottom line of a corporation, and as I don't work for a console manufacturer, it's not really my responsibility to help ensure their future profitability. I can't think of a good analogy, but if some company came along and could demonstrate that hammers cut into their profit margin, would you outlaw those as well?
Incidentally, what is the difference between buying a mod chip and building your own? What do you feel separates the two, morally or legally or whatever way you want to look at it? (Besides the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA, of course, which we are already aware of).
Sure, you may use it for import games or running linux, but you can't tell me the temptation isn't there for you to go and download games rather than buying them.
So, things should be illegal because you and some others have a suspicion that they are to be used for illegal purposes? How very fascistic of you. You mentioned the legitimate purposes of the chip in the same breath with which you condemned it.
I didn't use the word "arguing" or argument. You might have been thinking of someone else. I actually thought your point was quite valid, I just didn't manage to say so before. In a hurry and all, you know...
I still remain unconvinced that there is some difference, legal or otherwise (aside from that contained in the DMCA) between me modifying my device by studying its schematics and me selling my modification device so that others do not have to replicate my work. Why is one good and the other one bad?
Shutting down mod chips does NOT mean you're unable to do what you want with your hardware.
Yes, it does. It means that I can not buy a modification device so that I might change my hardware's behavior. What right do you have to stop me from doing that, or stop someone else from selling something that I want? (Something which I hope you compare to guns or lockpicks or grenades in your response, because that would be really original)
I don't know how long for sure, but Strider 2 was protected. A friend of mine bought it and was unable to play it because of his chip. Had to use someone else's console :)
I love your "I don't use it so it should be illegal" attitude. Especially this:
For one, i couldn't read the japanese games and often times it wasn't worth the effort
Well, guess what, I can't read Japanese either, but I have enjoyed many games from that country on my modded PS2 such as Sexy Parodius, Twinbee Deluxe Pack, Salamander Deluxe Pack, Gradius Gaiden. I also just happened to purchase Ikaruga for my Dreamcast. These are all shooters - and there is no language barrier for pure twitch action like that.
Konami's games have always been popular here, but we didn't get any of those. So I adapted my system so that it would do what I wanted it to do. I see no harm in that, and there is not a thing about it that breaks any law aside from (possibly) the DMCA additions to US Copyright Law.
You know why people have to import? Because the console manufacturers maintain a tight reign on what is published on their console. They are able to do so because it is nigh impossible to create working distributable software without their permission, and even if you could, you could possibly be in violation of patents or sued under the DMCA (for bypassing methods of protection).
What it boils down to is that certain companies are not allowed to translate their games onto U.S. systems, even if they are willing to spend the money, because the hardware manufacturer is afraid that that title will make their system look bad. That's bullshit. Take a look at the PS2 as a great example - modchips appeared within a small number of months of the console's release allowing pirate games to be played, but NO ONE made a chip allowing imports until this year! It was a much more difficult process... Now why is that?
I want to play the games I want to play. If I am not able to do so, I will pass the console by, plain and simple.
Downloading music without permission is taking without right or leave.
But the "owner" still has it if someone downloads it. So did they take it? You really want it to be the same BUT IT'S NOT. You're suffering from an acute case of not thinking about the way things really work.
But whatever the legal application, downloading copyrighted music is stealing.
I see. It's stealing because it's stealing. Well, the law agrees with me, Nancy.
And it's wrong legally, morally, and ethically.
Don't preach to me. It's right in my post that I don't think it's all right to download copyrighted music for free. But, as I predicted, you've jumped to the conclusion that I was defending it.
And you should stop doing it.
Being a dick isn't going to help you be more right, either.
Sure, that's why the MPAA/RIAA will be sure to release DRM protected content which allows consumers to use the content in the ways in which they want to use it.
Funniest statement of the year, right there. I can't even respond. You're either a big commercial for the entertainment industry, or you're an idiot.
This:
Get back on topic, this article is not about laws.
And this:
DRM is a technology, not a law.
DRM is impossible without laws to support it. It makes no sense for you to try to separate the two. If DRM related things are not enacted into laws, then DRM is completely useless, as competing, open technologies would be widely available and more desirable to consumers. If all of the consumers buy non-DRM technology, the MPAA/RIAA will drop DRM like a bad habit. They NEED laws.
I also like your implication that you get to decide what aspects of this issue people should argue about. I don't think it probably works that way, buddy.
Do you refuse to buy food that you can't microwave as well?
If the food came in a sealed metal container that only opened to release the food once it was half way down my throat, just for the purpose of not being microwaveable, then no, I would not buy it.
I'll send you a bill for the analogy repair.
No, they don't say that. They have this other thing - maybe you've heard of it - they're called copyright violations. They're punishable under a completely different set of laws. The argument is not silly because it is simply not stealing, from any definable standpoint.
Depriving someone of potential revenue is not the same as physically stealing something. I am not saying that it's ok to copy everyone's music for free, though you have probably already decided that that is exactly what I am saying.
I am simply baffled that you think that two crimes with entirely different circumstances are the same crime. If I shoot your dog, are you going to accuse me of "stealing" his life? Why not? Didn't I just deprive you of the future potential use of your pet?
So you think that the 600 Mhz iMac (the ONLY Macintosh that seems to cost $800, incidentally) is somehow a better deal than a 1.6 GHz Athlon or Pentium IV? Let's see, you get yesterday's processor, a small built in monitor, and a computer case that frankly no computer power user I have ever known has had the slightest interest in whatsoever? Yes, great deal!
I used to have a Mac. I bought one of the cheapest available at the time, a Performa 640CD/Dos Compatible with a Motorola 68040 processer. Cost me $1600. It became obsolete maybe 1 1/2 to 2 years later. See what happens when you buy yesterday's technology? I couldn't afford $3000 for a nice new PowerPC based machine, so I opted with a 200 MHz Pentium. Pretty fast at the time, ran all of the software I wanted to use, spent less than $500.
I like Macs just fine. But get this - THEY ARE VERY EXPENSIVE. No amount of zany comparison pseudo-logic is ever going to change that, and why does it bother you so much anyway?
I have looked at Apple's prices lately. They are very, very expensive. Don't you feel bad for being one of the many to perpetuate this myth that somehow this is not the case?
You're not saving "a few bucks" building the equivalent PC to a Mac ever. You're probably saving several hundred dollars, at least.
Good lord! It figures that they couldn't design their own website, either.
It's certainly interesting to think about, but the problem with assuming that things needed to be created is this:
Q. Someone must have made all this junk! I mean, it didn't get here by itself! So who made it?
A. God!
Q. Who made that?
A. Uh.... He got there by himself!
That's not to say there is no God! I don't believe in such a being personally, but I mean no disrespect whatsoever toward your beliefs. To me, believing in a divine creator is interesting and profoundly spiritual. Really believing, not just going to church every week like most people. But attempting to put forth that such a creator must exist because something must have started it all is jumping a bit too far, in my opinion.
I don't think science is going to ever answer the question completely. Even the Big Bang theory does not discount the possibility of a creator. Imagine that the universe simply perpetually existed, or that a creator perpetually existed. This concept, for me at least, is impossible to wrap my mind around - the idea that something could "just be there". I really don't think anyone's ever quite going to put their finger on it.
What you say speaks really close to home for me. When I attended high school, we were taught some very non-fundamentalist theology. We were also taught to use our brains to decide what the truth about religion is for ourselves. The number of my peers who abandoned Christianity as a result of this is astounding.
This is justification of my assertion that you are not separating the philosophy from its abuses.
You are absolutely right. Indeed I was not separating them. Unfortunately, those who follow blindly seem to greatly outnumber those who use reason and logic to discover what it is that they really believe.
Then why construct such a long winded reply? You were talking very much about philosophy.
I suppose we were. I'm glad we could agree on some things.
Well, that is an interesting point. I believe that his statement was meant to be a very generic demonstrative example - he could have shown how simple changes change the word BANANA into ORANGES or something too, but that would be a tedious demonstration (as he would probably want to go through thousands of random sequences to produce such a radical change).
:)
I am not all that familiar with origins of life theories. I only know about the popular ones (Big Bang, primordial soup, etc). I'm just a lowly computer scientist with too much spare time on his hands. You'd be better off asking someone else about that.
I don't like ID because it's a gross misuse of mathematics and logic.
Well, creationists I have read in the past have separated the two - it's not a difference between mutation and evolution though.
Creationists usually separate evolution within a "kind" from evolution "across kinds". (What a "kind" is, specifically, I have never seen defined). This is because it is nigh impossible to refute that small evolutionary processes are fact. You can observe them easily in laboratory conditions - but large evolutionary changes are still a Creationist target because they can't be observed directly. I am not saying that I don't believe in large evolutionary changes - just that they require different, more difficult evidence than small changes.
Wow, you sure are good at making 50,000 assumptions based on one sentence. Too bad I wasn't discussing philosophy - we were talking about science. You ARE supposed to just believe in the existence of God. I was not using this statement to say that all Christians are completely blind to the facts. Your philosophy seems reasonable; however, you're not taking your religion and using it as if it's a hammer with which to smash science fact, either.
I attended a Jesuit high school. I was a Catholic for 20 years. Despite the fact that the Jesuits' instruction always encouraged us to think critically and believe what we logically observe to be true, they, like all Catholics, pushed the Catholic church's idea of the "Infallibility of the Pope". This is the idea that the definite statements of the Pope can not be refuted by the Cardinals. Not a bad idea, really, but the belief behind it is that the church speaks for God, and the head of the church CAN NOT be wrong or else God is wrong. At least, that was my interpretation.
I stopped attending church when my Archbishop circulated a letter (an encyclical) to the parishes explaining the Church's stance on a handful of issues: homosexuality, abortion, and women in the priesthood. It was made known that these stances were the official church stance, that they were not to be argued with, and that anyone who attempted to debate these issues with the church in any way could never hold any office with the church. I have no idea whether this letter came from a higher office - perhaps it was just my Archbishop, which would be even more disturbing - now the Archbishop speaks for Church law as well! So, in conclusion - the Catholic Church, my former church, DOES NOT WANT YOUR PHILOSOPHY, no matter what you and the apologetics have to say about it. Admittedly, the issues in question are all subjective, but so is the lion's share of Theology.
I studied Catholic Theology for four years. It was NOT scientific, though it was very well thought out - a lot of thought has gone into it for TWO THOUSAND years in fact, but this does not change the fact that the material is all subjective and open to continued debate. (Except for "reserved" subjects such as the Immaculate Conception and Women in the Priesthood).
My "pathetic" assertion that in the end, you're not really supposed to test God is based on twenty solid years as a Catholic. What I know about Protestant denominations (I have Protestant friends) and the history of the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation suggests that the philosophy of debate, but not TOO much applies to most of them as well. I won't even talk about the fundamentalists - they don't want to talk about your "facts" at all!
Once again, my simple statement was based on what I see as the VAST majority of Christian philosophy. Yours is based on a small group I've never heard of. Are you still going to tell me that I know nothing about this subject?
Have you actually read the theory of intelligent design at all? It's the most utterly ridiculous thing I have ever read.
Here is a site refuting the idea of intelligent design.
Here is an essay by William Dembski expaining the theory behind ID.
If you read both and still think that ID is a good thing (tm), you're either
A. Not very good at math or
B. Gullible
My apologies to your crackpot professor.