American Way Of Birth, Costliest In The World...

[Jaredberryman]

Evolution and intelligent design are not incompatible. Now, as far as someone saying that evolution (which I agree with) is 100% proven, then they have issues. It's nothing but a theory that is widely accepted and is very likely to be true. Now as far as why did this turn into an abortion debate... Well, someone brought George Carlin into the picture. This was about the cost of having babies in the US, which is totally out of line like every other medical expense. And again, I don't know who brought up religion but it wasn't anyone in the pro life side of the story. The angry pro choicer started talking about moralists, insulting us Texans and all that.

Actually, the first poster made the assertion that permitting more access to abortion would somehow help the medical costs in the United States. You can see that in the first post. In addition to being morally reprehensible more abortion won't help our medical costs one bit.

 

[Jaredberryman]

The problem is one is science the other is mythology. They are not multiple interpretations of the same thing. When you equate them, you invite ridicule.

Sure, they could compare and contrast purely rationalistic belief systems against religion and traditional (e.g. indigenous) ones. But that's a different subject, and a tough distinction for someone who literally believes the Biblical creation myths.

I think maybe you mean young earth creationism? That's the idea that the earth is 5000 years old. Most physicists and cosmologists believe the earth is 13.6 billion years old. You would be hard pressed to find a cosmologist/physicist that believes otherwise. However, intelligent design, or at least this is my understanding, is more of a philosophical/cosmological argument in conjunction with science. Are there really people in Texas that are trying to promote that we replace the theory of evolution with young earth creationism? I would like to know that...

 

[Dublin2BuenosAires]

Intelligent design has nothing to do with evidence based science. It's modern construct whose sole purpose is to appease the christian right in the U.S.

There, I said it.

 

[internationalguy]

What HARD evidence can you provide for evolution /and/or big bang. There I said it. This was all about getting my opinion out on abortion, now this is turning into a debate that will never end. Way to go.

 

[Jaredberryman]

Intelligent design has nothing to do with evidence based science. It's modern construct whose sole purpose is to appease the christian right in the U.S.

There, I said it.

I don't think you understand what the argument for intelligent design is. In reality, what has happened recently is that science and philosophy have become extremely intertwined. If in a science class you are going to delve into the origins of the universe, then you must teach students what options there are for the origins of the universe, and what different scientists and philosophers believe about these things. Among philosophers and scientists, you have atheists, deists, creational monotheists, and pantheists. All of them make their arguments about the origins of the universe based on scientific fact. Some within these different fields accept the general theory of evolution (human beings mutated over time from lower organisms), while others in all fields do not (pretty much everybody accepts the special theory of evolution). Among the scientific community, not all scientists accept the general theory of evolution (they are not necessarily theists though), though they might be a minority. What are their criticisms, etc.? Anyway, my point here is not to make an argument for intelligent design, but just to point out that yes, there are crazies in Texas, but I find it highly unlikely that they are trying to push the viewpoint that the earth is 6000 years old into science textbooks. That sounds a bit over the top. I don't live in Texas anymore, but the perception by those outside of the state is that they are bunch of farmers or something. While there are farmers in Texas, there are also some of the largest and most important cities in the United States. When I tell people in Argentina that in Texas I rode a horse everywhere when I was growing up, they believe me.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Intelligent Design is just a fancy way of saying Lame Brain. IMHO,... Not much intelligence there...
Not somebody who has ever picked up an astronomy book, or considered the immensity of our Universe.

 

[internationalguy]

Intelligent Design is just a fancy way of saying Lame Brain. Not much intelligence there...
Not somebody who has ever picked up an astronomy book, or considered the immensity of our Universe.

I don't get it. It's EXACTLY because of the immensity of our Universe, the complexity of life and planets, galaxies, etc, that should be an argument FOR some kind of intelligent design (by this I don't mean like God the way the Bible describes it, that's a specific religious view). Intelligent design means nothing other than trying to make science and the idea of a CREATOR a compatible idea. If atheists have a problem with the idea of God because most religious people can be superstitious, irrational, unreasonable... well that's not my case, but I can't accept that the Universe in all it's greatness and perfection was just something that happened randomly. There has to be some sort of design behind it. Something. It didn't JUST HAPPEN. Now if atheists can't accept the unlikelihood of something like that happening randomly then they're being as unreasonable as those southern religious fundamentalists. Intelligent design is nothing but an idea that everything science theorizes, happened because there was some force or intelligence behind it. Maybe most won't get it, even if they say they're open minded. To be honest if you tell me you're agnostic I will totally respect that, not that I won't respect an atheist, but the concept behind agnosticism makes so much more sense than anything else. We simply don't know. We haven't even sent men to Mars and here we are pretending to know the origin of the Universe. That's stupid.

 

[Dublin2BuenosAires]

"[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]I don't think you understand what the argument for intelligent design is. In reality, what has happened recently is that science and philosophy have become extremely intertwined. If in a science class you are going to delve into the origins of the universe, then you must teach students what options there are for the origins of the universe, and what different scientists and philosophers believe about these things. Among philosophers and scientists, you have atheists, deists, creational monotheists, and pantheists"[/background]

Classic Intelligent Design obfuscation. Let's simplify a few things here.

Science and philosophy have not become interwined, they have coexisted for thousands of years however there are important boundaries to both.

Science is evidence based and peer reviewed, the proposal of theory based on evidence. Intelligent design is a philosophical prediliction towards the need to find the hand of a creator, not based on evidence or peer review.

Among Scientists, you have scientists. You have people who examine theory based on evidence. There is no room for philosophical musing in biology class, only inspection of evidence. No need for obfuscation, misdirection or slight of hand.

Evolution is a theory, supported by evidence. That evidence is overwhelmingly accepted by the international scientific community. Intelligent Design is a religious philosophy. The Big Bang is currently one theory for the start of the Universe, in the realms of theoretical physics there are many. It is extremely important that we understand the Big Bang and Evolution are separate theories with different levels of acceptance and peer reviewed evidence which drives that acceptance in the scientific community

Tossing them in together is a cheap slight of hand trick, a transparent attempt to introduce doubt. "Well, if we aren't sure about the Big Bang them we aren´t sure about this Darwin chap...right,. right?"

Intelligent Design, keep it in philosophy and or religious studies classes. Please, don't insult my intelligence with "you must not understand it"..I do, and based on what I understand I confidently categorise ID as a religious philosophy. Until they submit themselves to the rigours of evidence based science and peer review that is clearly the correct categorisation.

 

[Dublin2BuenosAires]

I don't get it. It's EXACTLY because of the immensity of our Universe, the complexity of life and planets, galaxies, etc, that should be an argument FOR some kind of intelligent design (by this I don't mean like God the way the Bible describes it, that's a specific religious view). Intelligent design means nothing other than trying to make science and the idea of a CREATOR a compatible idea. If atheists have a problem with the idea of God because most religious people can be superstitious, irrational, unreasonable... well that's not my case, but I can't accept that the Universe in all it's greatness and perfection was just something that happened randomly. There has to be some sort of design behind it. Something. It didn't JUST HAPPEN. Now if atheists can't accept the unlikelihood of something like that happening randomly then they're being as unreasonable as those southern religious fundamentalists. Intelligent design is nothing but an idea that everything science theorizes, happened because there was some force or intelligence behind it. Maybe most won't get it, even if they say they're open minded. To be honest if you tell me you're agnostic I will totally respect that, not that I won't respect an atheist, but the concept behind agnosticism makes so much more sense than anything else. We simply don't know. We haven't even sent men to Mars and here we are pretending to know the origin of the Universe. That's stupid.

More obfuscation.

We don´t know the origin of the universe, but we have several theories supported by scientific research in the fields of maths and physics.

We do have an accepted theory of evolution, backed by evidence in the field of biology

What you postulate above is a long list of musts and gottabe's based on a rejection of the process of scientific investigation.

 

[scotttswan]

I don't get it. It's EXACTLY because of the immensity of our Universe, the complexity of life and planets, galaxies, etc, that should be an argument FOR some kind of intelligent design (by this I don't mean like God the way the Bible describes it, that's a specific religious view). Intelligent design means nothing other than trying to make science and the idea of a CREATOR a compatible idea. If atheists have a problem with the idea of God because most religious people can be superstitious, irrational, unreasonable... well that's not my case, but I can't accept that the Universe in all it's greatness and perfection was just something that happened randomly. There has to be some sort of design behind it. Something. It didn't JUST HAPPEN. Now if atheists can't accept the unlikelihood of something like that happening randomly then they're being as unreasonable as those southern religious fundamentalists. Intelligent design is nothing but an idea that everything science theorizes, happened because there was some force or intelligence behind it. Maybe most won't get it, even if they say they're open minded. To be honest if you tell me you're agnostic I will totally respect that, not that I won't respect an atheist, but the concept behind agnosticism makes so much more sense than anything else. We simply don't know. We haven't even sent men to Mars and here we are pretending to know the origin of the Universe. That's stupid.

There's nothing intelligent behind intelligent design. Its bullshit and isn't compatible with evolution at all.

Many scientists are Christian and believe that there is a "creator", but that that "creator" started everything by setting the laws of physics that have allowed evolution to occur. Intelligent design has nothing to do with science. It is a load of crap created to try and shoehorn the bible stories into schools.