And, the separation of church and state if you actually look at it in depth it's purpose is not to keep religion out of the government or government ordained venues (schools, courthouses, parks, etc.) but meant to keep the government out of religious matters. Besides, ID is not a religious matter. If you look at the proposed theory of Intelligent Design there isn't a religious overtone about it. It doesn't say, "We see scientifically see that Brahama father god of the Hindu religion responsible for the world's inception." There's nothing like that. It merely states that there was something more than chance involved in the origins of the world.
56 comments
"It merely states that there was something more than chance involved in the origins of the world."
Thank you for summing up Evolution. Now please, go on about this ID...
"And, the separation of church and state if you actually look at it in depth it's purpose is not to keep religion out of the government or government ordained venues (schools, courthouses, parks, etc.) but meant to keep the government out of religious matters."
So you're saying the first amendment is about separation of state and church?
"It merely states that there was something more than chance involved in the origins of the world."
Yeah, an "intelligent designer." Nothing religious about that, no sir!
1. Lie
2. Lie
3. Lie.
4. Red herring
5. Lie
6. Straw man
If the government-run public schools teach a religious theory [i.e., not backed by reason or science], then they are supporting that religion.
They can't do that, so they only teach secular ... things...
My 3rd grader came home and told me what was wrong with the pledge having "under god" in it and how it's wrong to make the kids say it after hearing about the seperation of church and state.
My question is how come a 9 year old can get this and yet an adult doesn't? Is it maybe because the adult has an agenda?
And ID is thinly disguised religion.
ID is not a valid scientific theory because it cannot produce any data, nor does it make any predictions, It also leads to an infinite regress of who/what designed the designer. Ergo ID cannot be science.
"but meant to keep the government out of religious matters"
What would the government establishing a state church be to you: too much government in your religion, or too much religion in your government? Because, all in all, separation of church and state should not be violated, regardless of its original intent to protect one from the other, because allowing, for instance, state to be subjected to church, the other religious institutions are indirectly being affected by the state by not having an identical influence.
"ID is not a religious matter"
Bzzzzt. Wrong!
"If you look at the proposed theory of Intelligent Design there isn't a religious overtone about it"
Bzzzt. Double wrong! Intelligent Design is not a theory, and the religious overtone exists, (although it is actually an undertone). Intelligent Design is proposing that a nameless entity is responsible for existence, and that nameless entity, in the only conceivable nature that the "theory" could propose without being absurd and pointless (yes, even moreso) would have to be a creative force that is essentially a god. Which is a religious idea, and a proposition whose only support lies within the realm of semantics and bad philosophy, rather than evidence and actual science.
Tell me: HOW do you keep the government out of religion, if you don't keep religion out of the government? If the fingers of one are sticking into the other, you are GOING to get cross-contamination, period.
When evaluating the effect of government conduct under the Establishment Clause, we must ascertain whether 'the challenged governmental action is sufficiently likely to be perceived by adherents of the controlling denominations as an endorsement, and by the nonadherents as a disapproval, of their individual religious choice' (SCOTUS, Grand Rapids v. Ball)
It doesn't matter if it doesn't actually mention God. What matters is how it is perceived. Almost all support for ID comes from religious people with religious motivations. This is clear when communities get embroiled in the controversy. The supporters inevitably offer religious arguments, call people who disagree with them "atheists" and generally show that they support ID because they believe it confirms their religious beliefs. A great deal of evidence proving this was brought out at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial.
Ahh I see, so it doesnt specify a religion......I agree with that, however ID pertains to the christian God, because Hindus dont give a shit....
Intelligent Design is Creationism wearing the least convincing disguise since a giraffe in dark glasses tried to get into a polar bears-only nightclub.
(Thanks to Blackadder Goes Forth for the paraphrased metaphor)
Er, no, it's entirely religious, in that you propose teaching that Yahweh-god magically created everything 6,000 years ago.
there is no theory of intelligent design. I'd call it a hypothesis for lack of a better term, but even a hypothesis requires that it could be studied and tested. ID lacks any quality to make it anything at all in the field of science. ID is specifically theistic because it relies on supernatural occurences, something that is unwelcome in science as science is used to describe the natural and leave anything supernatural at the doorstep since it could never be measured, studied, or of any use to anyone, anwhere, ever.
"And, the separation of church and state if you actually look at it in depth it's purpose is not to keep religion out of the government or government ordained venues (schools, courthouses, parks, etc.) but meant to keep the government out of religious matters."
Uh, no. It's to keep each from fucking with the other. It's a "play nice" rule.
"Besides, ID is not a religious matter."
So saying "Goddid... err, a 'designer' did it" isn't religious? Right.
"If you look at the proposed theory of Intelligent Design there isn't a religious overtone about it. It doesn't say, "We see scientifically see that Brahama father god of the Hindu religion responsible for the world's inception." There's nothing like that. It merely states that there was something more than chance involved in the origins of the world."
Fine. What was the "something" then? It's blindingly clear what that "something" is intended to be.
Intelligent design is NOT science because they forbid investigation of the main item in their hypothesis.
ID posits an intelligent creator, with specific properties. They then say "we cant investigate or even discuss what that creator is.
The hypothesis would allow aliens from outer space, aliens from another dimension, humans via time travel, pygmy goats with special powers or demons.
Its a ploy to pretend a philosophical argument is science.
“”Try this experiment if you ever find yourself talking to a proponent of ID. Say, "OK, for the sake of argument let's say evolution is wrong and let's forget about it. Now tell me how intelligent design works." Having tried this a few times myself, I am confident that you will be met with nothing but an awkward silence."
And I'd also like to know who the ID folks think the "intelligent designer" is.
You didn't "actually look at in depth", you merely imagined it to mean what you want it to mean. The government can't establish or promote any church, and churches can't interfere in politics.
The Kitzmiller vs Dover verdict stated very clearly that ID is NOT science, AND that it's badly disguised creationism.
Why are you people so scared of chance?
"Besides, ID is not a religious matter."
I do love this. They always say it with a straight face.
"...It merely states that there was something more than chance ..."
That raises it to the level of an idle conjecture, a mere daydream. By what convoluted logic can you possibly call it a theory? I think we are going to need more than that before it's worth teaching to our children. When you have any evidence, be sure to let us know.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
