It’s Time for an Intelligent Design Coalition

As a Pastafarian, I’m terribly upset. Scientists are meeting in Saint Louis and going on the offensive to take away our religious rights. Worse yet, they’ve invited a host of teachers. According to the Saint Louis Post-Dispatch:

Scientists aren’t just defending evolution anymore. Over the weekend in St. Louis, the nation’s leaders in science went on the offensive.

With the fervor of preachers and the drive of generals, scientists from across the country rallied against what they describe as religious pressure in public schools. And they enlisted the help of hundreds of teachers.

The situation is becoming critical. They are trying to teach heretical concepts like the Theory of Evolution, filling children’s brains with ideas that will forever seperate them from everlasting life secured beneath the noodly appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Perhaps it’s time to strike back. I’m merely afraid that there aren’t enough Pastafarians out there to combat this evil element in our society. Now is time for a host of organizations which support various views about Intelligent Design to join together so we can ensure that our children won’t be exposed to such radical views.

In order to implement effective change, I propose we call for a national conference (with C-Span coverage, of course) with panel discussions led by groups like:

      The Taliban (they’ve successfully kept such heresy out of the heads of women for years)
      The Catholic Church (Galileo and Copernicus were chump change, they’ve proven for centuries how to minimize dissension within the ranks)
      Nazis (most of those scientists are probably Jews trying to take over the world, anyway)
      Fred Phelps and his God Hates Fags Baptist Church (they really understand public relations and activism)

At the conference, we should form a new umbrella coalition organization, perhaps called S.A.R.E., which stands for Science Abuse Resistance Education. If we ever expect to keep our kids off science, we’ve got to work together — starting now.

50 Comments
  1. This is one reason I started the save small schools website. I actually think the government should get out of educating children.

    We have what I find to be two extremist groups who will not listen to any ideas. We have the creationist on one side and evolution on the other side. Neither side will give up and let private schools decide this issue because they have the government to decide it for them.

    I believe in creationism but I also will never use the government to try and force others to believe the way I do.

  2. I never know totally how to react to creationists when I meet them. I, personally, am an atheist. I acknowledge evidence where there is, and where there is not. As far back as 100,000 years, we can compare genetic records (if rarely and with poor results). This refutes the idea that the earth is around half that, or even less.

    This is not, however, the place to preach. I will finally say this however: In reason, life. In faith, strength. In belief, death.

    I believe in the Libertarian ideal because I see it as the most reasonable approach possible.

    And with that, I’m done.

  3. Living in Texas, you meet lots of fundies, and man, they’re not going to listen to these scientists. They’ve got so much Bible crammed into their gullible little heads that nothing else is getting in.

  4. Wow. That tirade from a supposedly “openminded” person is proof positive of why we should have separation of school and state. I may not want fundamentalist Christians controlling my daughter’s education, but I don’t want anyone who can’t see a distinction between Nazis, Fred Phelps, the Taliban and people of faith generally controlling it either. I’m not a regular churchgoer, but of those I know who are there are very few that I would lump in with the Nazis, etc. (It would be interesting to see you apply similar principles to matters of race, blaming every member of a racial group for the worst actions of its worst members. Or perhaps you could abandon collectivism altogether instead.)

  5. It should surprise no one that fundamentalist Trinitarian, Biblical literalists would attempt to hijack for their sectarian purposes any idea that questions the neo-Darwinists. But I think it is important to realize and admit that the sacred cow of evolution cannot be questioned at all within the scientific community for fear of censure and blackballing.

    What is truly ID cannot be reasonably equated with Biblical creationism. Those seeking to draw that parallel are misinformed or dishonest. ID dares ask the questions about accepted “science” that many in the scientific community have doubted for many years.
    Truth should be the only end of any investigation, whether it is into the realm of politics, economics or science.

    Sadly, a great number of scientists whom have built their professional reputations on the infallibility of evolutionary theory, adhere to old, outdated doctrines and threaten anyone who dares question them, regardless of how obvious their findings. These are fanatical zealots as surely as are the religious extremists you often take to task. It is clear why these scientists would engage in a Rovesque campaign to classify ID as backwoods Bible thumping.

    Another strengthening reason, as Jake and Tom pointed out, to get government the hell out of the education indoctrination business.

  6. This is one of the areas that I stray from the Party platform.

    While I do not necessarily believe that education needs to be done solely in publicly controlled facilities, I still support the idea of education to at least the secondary level being mandatory.

    An uneducated populace — no matter how poorly it is initially — is anything but a free populace. And the poor invariably never have access to the “finer” educations — but at least they can get “decent” ones when *that* much is spread around.

    It falls under my belief of free-choice and self-responsibility. You can’t attain those if you have no *choice* but to be ignorant.

    But that is all *my* stance. And yes, I already know the flaws in it with today’s system.

  7. Yeah, that it was satire was obvious. But lumping in the modern Catholic Church with the Nazis, Fred Phelps, etc. in your satire displays a closed-minded hostility to religion generally and a collectivist lumping together of anyone who professes any religion (other than atheism).

  8. Tom,

    This Catholic link goes back to the inquisition (and I mentioned Galileo and Copernicus). I’ve never been hostile to religion in general — merely religions and people who try to shove their religion down my throat (I grew up half Jewish in rural Alabama, so I know of what I speak).

    For the record, I don’t give a tinker’s damn about anyone’s personal religious beliefs; I do get pissed when they to try to force them on me or my kids.

    The deeper issue in this case is that there is a large movement which doesn’t wish science to be taught in science class.

  9. stephen G said:
    I do get pissed when they to try to force them on me or my kids.

    And yet… people wish to force their anti-religious beliefs and behaviors on kids at school.

    I agree with Jake, the government should get out of education so people that want to believe in God can do and learn so. People that want to believe in spaghetti monsters can do so.

  10. Hi Stephen,
    I enjoyed the flying spaghetti monster. I’m a believing Christian so recognise I have a vested interest in these things and know how tempting it is to jump on a bandwagon.
    However, if I’m right I understand that the ID isuue was
    commenced by scientists coming to conclusions based on their own scientific study. It seems that it is naturally being opposed by scientists who already hold an alternative view based on naturalism which excludes all possibility of
    intervention of intelligent origin. But should not true science hold the key. The purpose is to find that which is true. Their may be truth in evolution…their may be truth in I D . Would it not be worth finding out through scientific research but starting out with an open mind..Isn’t that what scientists are supposed to do ? I’m
    concerned when scientists reject possibility because of their own atheistic ( religious ) belief system. That is not
    a scientific position to hold. Best wishes……..Joe.

  11. “I’m concerned when scientists reject possibility because of their own atheistic ( religious ) belief system. That is not a scientific position to hold.”

    What are you talking about? Scientists aren’t in the game of influencing specific outcomes to suit their own personal agenda (although I’m sure you could find exceptions anywhere). That’s called politics.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

    “Scientists use observations, hypotheses, and logic to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories.”

    What is I.D. essentially, aside from saying that SOMETHING/SOMEONE created our existence (Deism, Unitarianism)? What can it bring to the table, and will the proponents go through the same peer journalism review scientists must go through to get their stuff published? Why do the people pushing I.D. seem to be overwhelmingly frustrated Christians?

  12. Peer review isn’t possible when a theory questions the validity of the sacred institution of evolution. The literature is immediately ridiculed and the author chased out of academia.

    Only those who agree with established Darwinian dogma are welcome to write, teach and lecture. Such is the exclusionary nature of modern “science.” It is run by an oligarchy of thugs unafraid to use threats and coersion to maintain their place at the top.

  13. What is I.D. essentially, aside from saying that SOMETHING/SOMEONE created our existence (Deism, Unitarianism)?

    Unitarianism? What has that to do with ID? ID is simply the theory that there was design, it doesn’t yet venture to guess to what degree, only that there are aspects of science that cannot be explained by evolutionary process. ID infers that design is better able to explain some things than is Darwinism. ID does not deny that evolution is possible, nor that it has occurred. It certainly doesn’t name the god of this religion or that as the designer. Indeed, it doesn’t claim a god at all. Design is all that ID is concerned with.

    The religious portion of the debate is fault of the Trinitarians who rushed to swear that it was their God who did the designing and the secularists in science who rushed to judgment before anyone could say the “g” word.

  14. I may not want fundamentalist Christians controlling my daughter’s education, but I don’t want anyone who can’t see a distinction between Nazis, Fred Phelps, the Taliban and people of faith generally controlling it either. I’m not a regular churchgoer, but of those I know who are there are very few that I would lump in with the Nazis, etc

    AND

    But lumping in the modern Catholic Church with the Nazis

    Perhaps you should read “Mein Kampf” to see the biblical relationship to the “nazis”. Also feel free to peruse some historical context if you will via No Beliefs feel free to gloss over the catholic churches involvement… most people do!

  15. stephen G said:
    I do get pissed when they to try to force them on me or my kids.

    Rick Rajter said:
    And yet… people wish to force their anti-religious beliefs and behaviors on kids at school.

    I dont seem to remember ever having any “anti-religious” beleifs and behaviors forced upon me during my years in school. School is not a place for religion, it is a place for education. Save the religion for “Sunday” school please. We can limit the educational schooling to actual facts and scientific knowledge. Maybe then the children can grow up and make more informed, rational decisions as to what they want to believe…Not that I am saying that all religious belief is irrational or simply a crutch for weak minded people. Because I would never say that. Oh wait…

  16. Alrighty, folks… just a minor interjection here.

    Darwinism was abandoned some time ago by the main scientific community. The term used now is “Evolutionary theory” and there’s a good reason for that; there were indeed a number of flaws and holes in Darwin’s thoerem. (I won’t get into them now.) Needless to say, however, the reason why ID is rejected by so many scientists is threefold:

    1) It is utterly non-falsifiable. There is no way to prove there was no great mechanism driving the evolution of species, regardless of wether it was aliens in their motherships or some guy with a penchant for beards and white robes.

    2) It is an unnecessarily complex solution to a simple problem.

    3) It contradicts what has been observed to occur in human lifetime. (Yes, I’m saying that evolution has occured within the scope of human recorded history. E.g.; The Hawaiian Banana Moth.)

  17. “Peer review isn’t possible when a theory questions the validity of the sacred institution of evolution. The literature is immediately ridiculed and the author chased out of academia.”

    There is NOTHING MORE a scientist would like than to prove someone else’s theory wrong. Your “sacred institution” doesn’t hold water here, sorry.

    I recommend watching this debate on Intelligent Design… (video link on top right)
    http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.1169,filter.all/event_detail.asp#

    Skip to Lawrence Krauss’s speech 3 hrs. 52 min. in.

  18. Referring to post 15…
    “It certainly doesn’t name the god of this religion or that as the designer. Indeed, it doesn’t claim a god at all. Design is all that ID is concerned with.”

    Doubtful. From Wikipedia’s entry on Intelligent Design…

    “Intelligent design deliberately does not try to identify or name the specific agent of creation – it merely states that one (or more) must exist. While intelligent design itself does not name the designer, the personal view of many proponents is that the designer is the Christian god.”

    From an older ID entry on Wikipedia (it’s been changed since)…

    “Most ID advocates state that their focus is on detecting evidence of design in nature, without regard to who or what the designer might be. ID advocate William Dembski in his book “The Design Inference”[1] lists a god or an “alien life force” as two possible options, however Dembski states explicitly elsewhere that the designer can only be the Christian God.”

  19. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

    “When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes… how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution.”

  20. I went to the King Tut exhibition here in Ft. Lauderdale over the weekend. It was amazing. I learned alot about their religious beliefs…
    http://moafl.com/kingtut/ (Tutankhamun: And The Golden Age of The Pharaohs)

    “Religion in ancient Egypt was an important part of everyday life. Priests attended daily to the needs of the gods, (who were thought to be manifested in their cult images), made offerings to them, and thus kept the forces of chaos at bay. Distinctions were sometimes made between the important state gods, such as Horus or Isis, and the local and “household” deities, such as Bes and Taweret. However in practice, the only major difference between these gods and deities seems to be the lack of cult places and temples dedicated to the local and household deities. State religion tended to focus on the concerns of the state and kingship, whereas local and household deities seem to have been popular with individual ordinary Egyptians. (continued)…

  21. What caught my attention the most (aside from Tut’s display) was the display of the Pharaoh, Akhenaten.

    http://www.ancient-egypt-online.com/facts-on-akhenaton.html
    “Akhenaten, one of many ancient Egyptian pharaohs, is perhaps best renowned for his loyalty to one deity at a time when the rest of the world, by and large, worshipped several gods. He is certainly the only one of the ancient Egyptian pharaohs to promote a monotheistic religion. This was not to occur again until the ROMAN EMPIRE TOOK CONTROL OF EGYPT AND CHRISTIANITY WAS INSTITUTED AS THE OFFICIAL RELIGION.” (My emphasis added).

    “His promotion of one deity has earned him the title of “The Heretic Pharaoh”. While the pharaoh had been raised, like many other famous Egyptian pharaohs, to worship Amun, five years after he took the throne he proceeded to make several important changes. The chosen deity of Akhenaton’s worship was Aten, the Sun god.”

    King Tut’s reign later reverted Egypt back to the traditional religion.

  22. So the Roman Empire took control of Egypt, and Christianity was instituted as the official religion? Wow, sounds more like a religious conquest to me. Egypt’s government lasted through 31 dynasties, and held their own wacky religious beliefs for all that time. Considering how long and ingrained the Egyptians religion was, I’m thinking maybe Christianity isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

    Here’s my advice to the LP, figure out how in the hell these religions horded up so many sheeple and replicate the experiment. Wait no, scratch that. That’s exactly what our government is currently doing. Invoke fear into the people that the world will crumble if you don’t listen to our specific dogma. Rinse, repeat.

  23. Rob D,
    I appreciate your civility. I have received much less from friends when discussing this issue. Let me clarify that I have no religious axe to grind and that my own deism is merely a product of my observation of the world—an observation not limited to science.

    There is NOTHING MORE a scientist would like than to prove someone else’s theory wrong. Your “sacred institution” doesn’t hold water here, sorry.

    Yes, they’d love to prove someone else wrong. I don’t recall stating that they wouldn’t. I was clearly referring to them having the opportunity. I’d love to outshoot Johnny Archer in four straight racks of 9 ball, but if I was chased out of preliminary competitions, I would never get to the table.

  24. There are very few unforgivable sins in science and academia. Questioning evolutionary theory is the most grave (I will henceforth confine myself to using the preceding term or the other accepted one: neo-Darwinism. I was not aware of your sensitivity on the issue). In the interest of holding water, I would invite you study to the completely dishonest attacks on Shattering the Myths of Darwinism author Richard Milton and the scientific community-wide assaults on Drs Jonathan Wells, and Michael Behe. In both of these cases, the critics were unencumbered by truth in their outright and vicious attacks. The only people in science and/or academia who write or speak in support of ID are those with tenure. There is a reason for that.

  25. Doubtful. From Wikipedia’s entry on Intelligent Design…
    “Intelligent design deliberately does not try to identify or name the specific agent of creation – it merely states that one (or more) must exist. While intelligent design itself does not name the designer, the personal view of many proponents is that the designer is the Christian god.”

    Many, if not most of the “proponents” mentioned by the infallible source that is Wikipedia are religious dogmatists eager to climb aboard anything that questions evolution. I think them disingenuous (they attack ID the moment its deviation from the Genesis creation account becomes clear) and suspect that the vast majority of those who would identify a deity are simply religious opportunists.

  26. I am unaware of Dembski’s claim but unconcerned with it. Why should it be suggested that his admitted Christianity plays a role is his research when the same is not said of atheistic scientists? Many Creationists who call themselves ID proponents are similar to Joe Scarborough or Ann Coulter calling themselves libertarians—it is an attempt to make them sound like something they aren’t and it diminishes the validity of those who actually are.
    In any case, my assertion that ID “certainly doesn’t name the god of this religion or that as the designer. Indeed, it doesn’t claim a god at all. Design is all that ID is concerned with.” It is hardly disproved or rendered “doubtful” by a Wikipedia entry.

  27. The Talkorigins quote you pasted is deliberately vague, confounding micro-evolution (which no one bothers to argue against) with macro-evolution (which is hardly settled science).
    As evolutionary theory admits it has its problems, I fail to see the harm in briefly teaching students that there is some controversy and that some theorize that design, rather than gradual change from Primordial soup to modern man played a role. Many scream, “It’s not science!” But in reality it is a theory, like evolution. It amazes me that the scientists who claim a n understanding of the vast complexity of life cannot imagine a way to teach ID without using the Pentateuch or mentioning the word “god.”

  28. Artus: It’s not that I am “sensitive” on the issue — but I appreciate the forethought nonetheless — rather, it is that I have seen far too many “Creationists” cling onto the flaws of Darwinian thought to poke holes that have already been “handled” by current evolutionary thinking. I will freely admit (yet again) that I am an atheist. With that in mind I will also point out that the trend towards a hominid appearance happened once before in the evolutionary chain. (Look at the progression of the “infamous” velociraptor. Braincase expansion, elongation of “forearms” with increased manual dexterity, and a tendancy towards upright stance. I offer no analysis.)

    The problem for most ID proponants is that it is not being used as science. It is being used for political reasons. (Faith/Religion over “reason” as I call it.) *IF* ID weren’t so closely tied to the religious right, it would be far easier to contemplate.

  29. I agree with you there. It is like so many other issues, the zealots scream the loudest and nobody else can be heard.

  30. (Corrolary, again)

    As it stands, ID hasn’t the backing sufficient to justify its being taught as a “mainstream” counter-argument, for whatever the reason. I freely admit dogmatic and even rabid response on the part of the established scientific community.

    When you get down to it, macro-scale evolution has been witnessed in human history. (Hawaiian “banana moth”, and along not-quite-yet speciation lines I posit the “Ostrich People.” http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/hemans/book/ch11a.htm )

    *IF* there were verifiable, conclusive evidence for ID, I’d take it more seriously. No one has ever posited any to my knowledge. Or the knowledge of any member of the scientific communities I even indirectly have come into contact with.

    With that, I’m out.

  31. ID is not science. It is unfalsifiable, unparsimonius, and has behind it an ulterior motive. You can believe whatever crazy crap you want, but don’t try to claim it’s science.

  32. The brush widens.

    Many promoting ID are doing so for mercenary motives. They have latched on to the scientific works of Behe, Wells, et al. in order to promote religious beliefs. These are people who would legislate their spirituality, if they could.
    I have not stated any of my beliefs, so I’m not sure how you can liken them to “crazy crap.”

  33. Galileo and Copernicus–funny, but the Catholic Church has retracted its former positions regarding these two men and their theories. Of course, any rational and informed individual would already know that. And for the other bigot, “biblical” and “Catholic” are not necessarily identical.

  34. Bryan:
    Galileo and Copernicus–funny, but the Catholic Church has retracted its former positions regarding these two men and their theories. Of course, any rational and informed individual would already know that.

    Yeah, and how long did it take them to retract their positions on these men?

  35. “care to explain how ID is scientific?”

    That’s easy. My son and I come across a large metallic disk with openings. Inside we find seats and control panels. I explain to my son that, over millions of years, due to erosion and oxidation, this complex metallic outcropping has formed randomly. It doesn’t mean anything.

    My son would say–Are you crazy? This flying saucer did not spontaneously generate over any amount of time. It was assembled by a consciousness, a sentient being. Let’s look for more examples of alien technology.

    Dad–I forbid you from telling anyone this is a flying saucer unless you can show me an alien.

    (Substitute life forms for flying saucers and who is more scientific?. Dad->evolution->forces of nature. Son->I.D.->intelligence->it means something. Remember, our minds exist in the spiritual world; our bodies in the natural world. Evolution doesn’t connect the two and, therefore, doesn’t explain life itself. I.D. tries to address this gap.)

  36. Spiritual world? You’re already talking religion. “Scientific” doesn’t just mean “easier to comprehend for the intellectually lazy”, it means falsifiable (which ID is not, it’s impossible to prove ID wrong because it is based on the tenet of “we give up, this is too complicated for our little heads”). You can’t do an experiment to prove irreducible complexity, and one of the oft-cited examples, blood-clotting, has been found in a reduced form in lampreys.

  37. Blair,

    The spaceship argument you used (a restatement of Paley’s “A watch implies a watchmaker”) is a false analogy.

    For its refutation see DAwkins ‘The blind watchmaker’.

  38. I can see this going badly already, gentlemen. So I’ll interject again.

    There’s a lot of problem in communicating here, so I can say only this. Blair, your original example is actually rather poor because it predicates the need for spontaneous genesis.

    *IF* the world were really aged in the thousands or even tens of thousands of years, then yes, it would require an omnipotent sentience (or as close enough to not matter). That designer would WANT his creations to disbelieve in him, however. (Else the world would not be created as it has been, with such overwhelming evidence *against* genesis history.)

    No one in the legitimate scientific community thinks the world is any younger than it is. With that being said, “irreducible complexity” is simply too complex a solution to what is mechanically a simple problem.

    (cont’d)

  39. (cont’d)
    (Fellow atheists & “rationalists” — STIPULATE the below)

    As to the matter of the mind in spiritual; evolutionary theory doesn’t need to reduce that. Stipulating the separation, I can posit this; a material vessel may contain a spiritual essence without requiring any explanation from the material world. Perhaps, even, in that line of thinking, one might postulate the following:

    Once a certain “threshold” is reached, the ‘neural net’ that is a cerebral cortex might actually reach a point where it can support and interact with a wholly non-physical existance such as the soul.

    That is just a postulation, but it isn’t even a difficult one; I’m hardly an expert on the matter.

    And with that, I’m sure, I’m starting worse than I’m finishing.

  40. Scientific method requires that a stated hypothesis must be subject to test. This is why ID is not a scientific theory- there is no way as of now to perform a test for the existence of a supernatural creator. The term “supernatural” really says it all, I guess.
    Because ID is not science, it is wrong for us to ask our science teachers to cover material which they may or may not be qualified to teach. Asking a science teacher to teach ID would be like asking a history teacher to teach Spanish.

  41. Not trying to be combatative here, but does any Christian on here want to respond to the fact that the when Roman Empire took control of Egypt, Christianity was instituted as the official religion?

    Is this how your religion became so popular, by military conquests?

  42. To use the powers of government to pass science off as religion or religion off as science is wrongheaded. A free and thinking people do not need government telling them that their faith in God is nothing more than a scientific theory or that their scientific theories must conform to another person’s religious beliefs.

    Within his first encyclical since being elevated to the Chair of Peter, Pope Benedict XVI uses some words that echo the United States Constitution’s 1st and 14th Amendment guarantee of freedom from State sponsored religion. In this moving epistle on the faithful leading lives within God’s gift of love, Deus Caritas Est, the supreme pontiff writes, “The State may not impose religion, yet it must guarantee religious freedom and harmony between followers of different religions.”

    Counter to this, some religious zealots are currently bent on pressuring local public school boards into requiring teachers to insert into their lesson plans a new certitude of these true believers, intelligent-design Creationism. They are free to believe what they will. However, this attempt to use government to promote their religious ideology should be troubling to all people who prize freedom of conscience.

    State-sponsored proselytization is a greater threat to our religious freedom than it is a mistaken sally into the domain of science. Science has and will continue to weather all sorts of misdirected and dead-ended efforts, however our freedom of conscience may not fare so well. The override of this liberty would mark the entry of our nation into an intolerant period in which all sorts of intellectual and spiritual pursuits were subject to suppression.

  43. Actually I’ve commented on this before. The fundamental confusion is not understanding that science is religion, a body of thought rooted in faith. Check this analogy: Evolution is to I.D. as kinematics is to dynamics in meteorology. Evolution describes what has happened and projects that into the future. I.D. looks for the invisible forces that “cause” a pattern change. Kinematics works fine most of the time, except wherever there’s stormy weather. Evolution is little more than historical taxonomy.

    Comments 21 and 27:
    http://www.corante.com/pipeline/archives/2005/12/22/poor_putupon_intelligent_design.php#comments

    (flippertie– the flying saucer analogy is false because the saucer is not a life form. But abscence of proof is not proof of abscence. Besides, how much proof do you need? If the saucer is on auto-pilot with “artificial” intelligence, would it have evolved naturally as other species have?))

  44. our minds exist in the spiritual world

    Hahahahaha! It’s a shame that you can not connect the two… perhaps that is why you have such a hard time using your ‘mind’!

    Not trying to be combatative here, but does any Christian on here want to respond to the fact that the when Roman Empire took control of Egypt, Christianity was instituted as the official religion?

    Is this how your religion became so popular, by military conquests?

    Any true historian can see that for themselves. Oh and… this is being combative…. the bible is NOT history… it is a compilation of stories… AND and the muslims love this… NOT the oldest accounting of the stories as the original form of what is today termed the “bible” was LOST!

    THINK!

  45. The most frustrating thing about the
    Evolution vs. Intelligent design debate is the voluminous research
    both sides have done. How can either side condense that information
    into a paragraph or sound bite in order to persuade the other side.
    When it comes down to it, the essential driving force of both groups
    is philosophy. It deals with two main branches of philosophy,
    epistemology and metaphysics. Epistemology deals with the theory of
    knowledge. In other words, how do we gain knowledge and how do we
    know it is true. Metaphysics tells us what kind of universe we live
    in. Your answers to these questions will determine the quality of
    your science and whether something should be considered science at
    all. Continued…