Nothing in science discredits intelligent design, because intelligent design is unfalsifiable. And because it is unfalsifiable, it is not science. And because it is not science, it should not be taught in a science class.

I'd believe God started it all, even that he planned how it would develop from that single cell. I won't, however, believe he's had his hand in since it started, only that he wound it up and let it go. :D

Sorry, Wolf, I searched up the King Features Mallard Fillmore and they didn't have anything newer than about mid December 2005. At a guess without looking, is that Bruce Tinsley's site?

Right you are, Happy Monkey, and well nutshelled.

I'm a believer myself, Noodle -- because I don't know for certain
why the Big Bang went and banged. You could say God did it, and speak no worse nonsense than anybody else. However, don't ever mistake science -- a way of knowing -- with a belief system of any kind. This is the intellectual failure of the anti-science religionists, and the pitfall you can fall into if you have never studied science, but only belief systems -- philosophy and metaphysics, if you like. These people mistake, or purport to mistake, a method of knowing for a manner of believing. Then they purport to be puzzled when they are laughed at.

This is the sort of thing Unitarians and Episcopalians, to name two religious brand-names, come up with, trying to interface spirituality with natural history -- a via media. There's dumb religion and there's smart religion, which leads me to...

Is there not a big-D Divine wisdom in a Creation that goes of itself? Look at all the trouble it saves, not having to bust a miracle for every species, and having been at that for 650 million terrestrial years straight. It's also the most divinely ethical way to do it -- miracles, after all, look suspiciously like God is cheating, fudging with the established natural laws. You could allege that God isn't really cheating but instead following some "higher-order law" or something. This is less an explanation than a dodge.

I can't tell the difference between this and intelligent design. Both get so far in the explanation and then use God to fill in the hard part.

That's just it. Much of science is belief. Sure, there are lots of things that are scientifically proven. But even certain empirical data relies on the opinion of the observer as much as it does hard fact. Pick any newspaper on any day of the week, and you'll find a story of a researcher who has found new evidence (that was there all along) that completely refutes earlier beliefs about something. Not something like "grass is green because of chlorophyll". But almost everything else that's not so cut and dried.

It's almost like scientists who are also atheists are bound and determined to find a pattern, but deny that this absence of chaos could have anything but a chaotic origin. I personally believe that it's vanity in many cases -- they want to feel like they're discovering things alllll on their own, and there's no intelligence higher than theirs in the cosmos. It would be humbling to have to admit that all of the "Eureka!" moments you had were merely moments of enlightenment that allowed you to see someone else's bigger picture.

All that aside, my main point is: some may have you believe that science is purely a game of facts, but if you stripped away the conjecture, theory, wishful thinking, and yes, pure faith, you'd be left with very little.

The real problem, mrnoodle, is not intelligent design as you see it. The majority of Christians see it your way, that 'science is busy figuring out God's incredibly complex design, and though they'll never get all the way there it is worth it to the species to try to understand the mysteries.' You'd be surprised how many high-level scientists actually do believe in God, insomuch as it explains the consistent patterns found in the universe through science.

The PROBLEM is people who believe intelligent design is literally, exactly the way it is in the Bible. 6,000ish years, not a day more. There is more than one concept of intelligent design out there, and the minute you allow one in the schools, you have to allow them all.

That's what separates the different definitions of "belief" between science and religion. Scientists don't believe in theories in the same way religious people believe in God - if a new experiment throws doubt on an old theory, and it is reproducible and verified, the old theory is out the window, and science is none the worse. In fact, it is some the better. That's not a weakness of science, it's a strength.

Here is an example of how to go about changing a theory that was untestable from the beginning.

Church Tradition of Limbo Heading for, Well, Limbo

Before you pagans begin celebrating, note that they have not decided what will replace limbo. They could send the babies to heaven and everyone else to purgatory.


What kind of cynic would propose that theological judgements are politically motivated?http://www.cellar.org/images/smilies/omg2.gif

Even if we are worthy, per catholic church doctrine, els and I would not qualify for limbo. You have to have died a pagan before the time of Christ to qualify on that one.

Everybody born after The First Year of Their Lord is S.O.L.

As a lapsed Catholic, I suspect that there is a special place in Hell reserved for me.

We Episcopalians get quite a few, mostly Hispanic, former Catholics.

Watch it, Nood; in your first four sentences you're in the very pitfall I warned against.

Now your last sentence is better thought, but what all that is for is to find new lines of inquiry, when you give it a good look. From conjecture and/or wishful thinking comes the quest to truly know, by in large part finding facts and proof thereof.

As others have put it, really a godly endeavor.

We have as great a hunger for knowledge as for religiosity -- just look at how much intellectual effort has been spent at each.

1. Ever wonder where all that stuff that falls into black holes goes? I like to pretend that it comes out in another dimension. Maybe it accumulates in a big cosmic garbage bag until the bag breaks like the wimpy one in the Hefty commercials, creating another Big Bang there.

2. Until Science matured enough (note I didn't say 'evolved'...that would have been like making a bad pun) to explain many things, religion *was* politics. Every political system is nothing more than a set of rules and regulations with someone at the top of an hierarchy anyway. So, instead of Freedom and the Constitution, substitute God and The Bible, and - voila'! Religion as Government!

3. Just because Science can't explain everything yet doesn't mean that Religion can...and vice versa. Both are fallible. Both have merits. Yes, there, I've said it. I'm a religious pragmatist, and I like it that way. I want my science and my deities and invisible powers too. If this was a free country, I could believe this without anyone trying to make me do otherwise by teaching me their unprovable crap. I'm not trying to teach anyone my unprovable crap.

Teach what is verifiable as Science, teach the rest as Philosophy, or Religion, or Sociology...whatever. Use it as Show and Tell, maybe.

It makes the black hole bigger. Black holes are the katamari of the universe.