I don't usually bother to respond in slashdot political/religion debates, because of the strong anti-Christian sentiments here. However, I feel compelled to explain the viewpoint of an intelligent design proponent - I certainly don't think of our believers as rubes or idiots.
"Intelligent Design proponents no more believe in their so-called theory than any other critically thinking human. ID is simply fundamentalist's latest attempt into having evolution taught in highschool science classes. They have been knocked back time and time again on this issue, and now are trying to beat science at its own game."
I am sure you meant to say that we are trying to teach creationism in the classrooms rather than evotluion. That point aside, there is a dual argument that the ID proponent has againt current educational standards.
The first is an attack on evolution itself. It is simply not true that evolution has been proved beyond doubt - in fact, most illustrations of evolution given in classrooms are known by scientists to be incomplete or erroneous examples. Haekel's embryos, Darwin's tree of life, the Miller-Urey experiemnt are all 'evidences' of evolution that in themselves do not stand up to scientific rigor. I could go into details, but I would suggest that you google these topics independently. Simply speaking, Darwin maintained that future science would justify his research and his theory. He thought that the many gaps in the fossil record would be filled in the years to follow. This has not happened.
The fact that evolution is taught in classrooms as mere fact is an affront to many Americans (85% believe in literal creationism/intelligent design guided evolution).
The second argument of ID proponents is that we need a system that will offer a view of the rise of life separate from Darwin's model of selective evolution. Although I personally question whether our public education is mature enough to handle an argument that a designer is the answer for the unbelievably complex systems of life and universe, I certainly do not argue against the merits of intelligent design (Lee Strobel's Case for a Creator gives several excellent examples of nature that seems complex beyond chance). I certainly think that it is time a critical challenge was waged against Darwin's evolution, so that people can make a decision on their own. I was spoon-fed Darwin's model of life through high school (from the liberal Bay Area), but came to see its flaws after going into biochemstry at UC Berkeley.
One more point:
"Normally I would espouse a policy of "attacking the message, not the messenger." But in the case of ID, the problem is the messenger."
Yes, there is a validation of ID if you try to attack the message. But just the same, unless you try to attack the message, you are simply closing your eyes to the arguments (and beliefs of a majority of Americans), unwilling to even consider that they may be right. Why is Darwin's theory so invincible, that you automatically dismiss any attempts to discredit it? Have you researched both sides of the Darwin argument?
I got Microsoft streets and trips for use with my GPS device. The nice thing about these maps is that they are meant to be used down to the street level and even let you select every available address in America.
Within the US, you can view the entire nation and zoom in as much as you need. Imagine how PDF files work - the information is stored in database and is not pixelated by maginifcation. This would help for any US maps.
For international, the same suite (Streets and trips 2004) works on the city level, but only has major streets. You would have to find the speicific maps you are looking for.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not familiar with the mod system here, but does my comment deserve a 0?
Are people here so insecure about their beliefs, that they would rather bury opposing ideas than expose them to the public?
Perhaps this is my misunderstanding, but for a forum that espouses the freedom of speech and ideas, your system seems narrow-minded.
Disclaimer: I am part of the 'religious right'
I don't usually bother to respond in slashdot political/religion debates, because of the strong anti-Christian sentiments here. However, I feel compelled to explain the viewpoint of an intelligent design proponent - I certainly don't think of our believers as rubes or idiots.
"Intelligent Design proponents no more believe in their so-called theory than any other critically thinking human. ID is simply fundamentalist's latest attempt into having evolution taught in highschool science classes. They have been knocked back time and time again on this issue, and now are trying to beat science at its own game."
I am sure you meant to say that we are trying to teach creationism in the classrooms rather than evotluion. That point aside, there is a dual argument that the ID proponent has againt current educational standards.
The first is an attack on evolution itself. It is simply not true that evolution has been proved beyond doubt - in fact, most illustrations of evolution given in classrooms are known by scientists to be incomplete or erroneous examples. Haekel's embryos, Darwin's tree of life, the Miller-Urey experiemnt are all 'evidences' of evolution that in themselves do not stand up to scientific rigor. I could go into details, but I would suggest that you google these topics independently. Simply speaking, Darwin maintained that future science would justify his research and his theory. He thought that the many gaps in the fossil record would be filled in the years to follow. This has not happened.
The fact that evolution is taught in classrooms as mere fact is an affront to many Americans (85% believe in literal creationism/intelligent design guided evolution).
The second argument of ID proponents is that we need a system that will offer a view of the rise of life separate from Darwin's model of selective evolution. Although I personally question whether our public education is mature enough to handle an argument that a designer is the answer for the unbelievably complex systems of life and universe, I certainly do not argue against the merits of intelligent design (Lee Strobel's Case for a Creator gives several excellent examples of nature that seems complex beyond chance). I certainly think that it is time a critical challenge was waged against Darwin's evolution, so that people can make a decision on their own. I was spoon-fed Darwin's model of life through high school (from the liberal Bay Area), but came to see its flaws after going into biochemstry at UC Berkeley.
One more point:
"Normally I would espouse a policy of "attacking the message, not the messenger." But in the case of ID, the problem is the messenger."
Yes, there is a validation of ID if you try to attack the message. But just the same, unless you try to attack the message, you are simply closing your eyes to the arguments (and beliefs of a majority of Americans), unwilling to even consider that they may be right. Why is Darwin's theory so invincible, that you automatically dismiss any attempts to discredit it? Have you researched both sides of the Darwin argument?
I got Microsoft streets and trips for use with my GPS device. The nice thing about these maps is that they are meant to be used down to the street level and even let you select every available address in America.
Within the US, you can view the entire nation and zoom in as much as you need. Imagine how PDF files work - the information is stored in database and is not pixelated by maginifcation. This would help for any US maps.
For international, the same suite (Streets and trips 2004) works on the city level, but only has major streets. You would have to find the speicific maps you are looking for.