|
willravel,
agreed and agreed. i think the problem with religion/theology vs. evolution/science arises from the fact that the religious texts / teachings seem to be not only repositories for spiritual information, but basic science of the civilizations they originated from. Now that we have better measurements/estimates/explanations, religous people may feel that to concede that a scientific portion of their relgious text is inaccurate necessarily invalidates the entire teaching, and thus one must protect the entire fort at all costs, or else lose everything. Thus the need to inject a shadow version of the religion into science, in order to bolster the claims of the religion.
Regardless, ID is not science and its sad to see deterioration of our scientific standards; particularly in light of the significant challenges we already face in our nation in skills involved analytical skills, mathematics, technology. The root problem I fear with the line of ID is the insinuation that some knowledge is beyond man, and is firmly in the realm of the God (the Designer/creator) so maybe we should just give up some avenues of research because they are too hard or too sacred (hi stem cell research, it sure is nice to see you over there in Korea. Take care!) Reminds me of the Pope asking Hawking not to look into the origins of the Big Bang, because that was the province of God.
I would also like to make it clear, that as far as I can see, ID does no better job of explaining the origins of life than evolution does. Neither do. Saying that some Designer created and designed the universe is just begging the question and forcing a quasi solution, which itself can't be explained.
I'm going to run off some of this annoyance.
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style
|