SCEPCOP Forum

My understanding is that even in court the ID witnesses would not state that ID is science. There have been other court cases where the legal system did not agree that ID was science. Scientists do not consider ID to be science.

Not exactly ID, but this video explains how Creationists present their viewpoint and the difference between science and religion.


If you don't want to watch here is a synopsis:
Creationist makes wacko claims.
Scientist attempts to correct the issue.
Creationist continues to make wacko claims.
Scientist makes a wrong claim and is corrected.
Scientists uses the corrected statement, but makes more errors.
Creationist corrects again and repeats same wacko claims.
Creationist never changes. Scientist changes.

About the only thing "Intelligent" about the "Design" stems from those self-appointed theologians who invented this fraud for the sake of manipulating the sheep that keep throwing money at them and votes towards the candidates they want in power. I know that may sound paranoid but then I've studied a great deal about "church" history and seen it's tradition of such manipulation and abuse of influence. As much as it goes against one side of my character to say so, until organized religion is abolished this sort of sick treachery is going to continue so that the followers stay dumb enough to control by the status quo.

Understand, I'm only pointing criticism at the "organized" and "formalized" corporation of religion not personal spiritual studies and/or beliefs... but that's the catch, they are personal and not something a congregation is spoon fed in the manner ID has been set into play over the past twenty years.

As I pointed out elsewhere here, even the Genesis story of Creation was borrowed from a far older source found in India, it is not even remotely Hebrew in any way other than being plagiarized by Jewish scribes and set into their cultural oratory as religious fact. The other holes set within the Genesis account could include the fact that you have at least two different creation myths set under the same banner which contrast to one another as well as follow-up inference in other books of the Old Testament that reveal alternative creations and even major foul-ups by "God" through which various Abominations came into being... giants, masculine & demanding women, and an array of things Mr. Barnum would probably have welcomed into his parlor... We even find the classic father & child conflicts tossed in as Mr. Perfect (God) tosses his kids out of the house for disagreeing with them... he disowns them and condemns them... sorry, but I don't think that's a great demonstration of a loving, forgiving, benevolent, all knowing, omnipotent being... a Republican Politician or Evangelist maybe, but not any kind of Divine Being that's intelligent enough to make it all in six days and in the process, make certain that there was a devil in the picture who had a time machine that allowed him to go back and create tons of false fossil records and other such "discoveries" that would cause humankind to doubt that such an amazing magician really existed.

There, did I hit all the nails on the head?

Craig, reminds me of the joke where the ecumenical council is discussing collecting money.

Three religious figures offer how they split the money with god.
"I draw a line and straddle it. I throw the money in the air. What lands on the right side of the line god keeps. I get the money on the left side."
The next theologian says, "I draw a circle. I throw the money in the air. What lands close to me inside of the circle is mine. What lands outside the circle is god's"
The last of the three (fill in your personal religion here) says, "I stand in the middle of a room. I throw the money in the air. What god wants he keeps. What falls to earth is for me."

Bottom line is:

Religion was developed as a way to control the filthy masses.

I think religion was developed to describe where people came from. Later on it became a means of controlling the masses.

The stories of religions tell us how we got to where we are and how things work. Later on comes the establishment of people responsible for religious affairs. This happens in civilizations, well after the original myths have been made up. During the shift to civilization comes the ability of a people to support a gang of subjugators. You need the group of people to advance to the point where you can support people that do not work.

I certainly agree that getting the conquered on your side is to bring in their ideas into the fold. I think that it is easier to copy some other person's idea than to reinvent the wheel. So grab their ideas and label them as your own. A little sweet talking and the game is won.

The early Christians "borrowed" traditions, symbols and even modified the meanings of several such things so as to fit their own dogma, from numerous "Pagan" sects. Here's the interesting thing to look at; The Black-Hispanic culture of the Western Isles, Caribbean, etc. practice a mix between their Native shamanic thinking and Catholicism... go to the far east (Asia) and you find a melding of Buddhism & Catholicism and in some instances, forms of Protestantism... for that matter Lord Buddha is actually on record as a "Saint" within Vatican records, just so "they" could get more souls (a.k.a. tithes) from that part of the world with less challenge.

About the only thing "original" and "exclusive" to Christianity is the fact that it is the only religion guilty of stealing 90% of its "Gospel" from everyone else on the planet and too, it's "slow chameleon" willingness to adapt with absorption. For example; when I was a kid anyone that played hard rock and sported Tattoos, long hair, dreadlocks, etc. were obviously not "good Christians"... today several major Rock bands are credited for "the New Gospel" music for young people. Many sport "religious" tattoos, piercings, etc. Then of course we have the whole technology evolution within the church element; phonographs & teletypes were proof of the devil until religious leaders figured out how to use said resources to their advantage... Radio, Motion Pictures, Television and most recently the Internet have all known this same course of "contempt prior to investigation"... yet, we still have those TV Evangelists that preach doom & gloom, inferring that the Internet is the device that the Anti-Christ will use for keeping tabs on everyone, etc. (don't you just love extreme paranoia?)

"They" irritate me... as I say often, "I have no problems with people that want to follow Jesus, it's the one's that go to church that scare me."

Well not being a fan of dogmatic religion myself I can actually agree with that article. In fact I've read quite a few related articles about evolution and abiogenesis. In fact I'm probally one of the few theists who accepts abiogenesis. When all matter is broken down whether it's living or nonliving break matter down enough and you find that everything that exists is made of the same quantum particles/waves. Maybe the creator evolved itself. Maybe the creator created itself. This still does not prove there couldn't be a pre-existing conscious intelligence that set the big bang in motion. According to Sir Roger Penrose the chances of a universe capable of creating the conditions to form even nonliving matter let alone life randomly are around the number the size of a 10 to the 123rd power. The total amount of atoms assumed to exist in the entire universe are around a 10 to the 80th power. Oh I forgot about the 'Anthropic Principle' and the 'Many Worlds Theory' that explains the existence of a near infinite amount of parallel universes where every condition that could occur does just that. Has the 'Many Worlds Interpretation' been proven? This article does not disprove the existence of an intelligent designer but is a short version of much better articles which shows that evolution is a fact not a theory and that abiogenesis is very possible and could have occured to evolve life within the time frame of less than 14 billion years.

Maybe if there is a creator the creator itself while having immense power is not omnipotent (like many religions claim) but has to follow a certain set of universal constants itself to ensure the continued existence of the universe. I try not to hold on to a rigid belief in what the creator is. My belief in intelligent design however is personal and I would never support teaching it in public schools at least at this point in time.

From what I understand while there some math supporting the many worlds hypothesis, as of yet there is no experimental evidence to support it.

And one can never disprove that there is some creator that simply set things in motion. that is unfalsifiable.