Intelligent Design is not creationism

agree, except where they promote Totalitarian thought and extremism... as in "The Wedge Document" for instance

 

what has religion got to do with hutu and tutsi. Western religion did not cause the slaughter. From what I read they could have quite easily have been the same religion.

Your point does not reflect on zzz statement about western religion.

hutu and tutsi is about - economic class-genetics- and/or noses.

Apparently the Belgians and other europeans were impressed by the white looking noses.

I am far from an expert. If I am wrong point me to the information that shows that they were killing based on religion.

 

Dark Matter: Blacklist at Iowa State

by Michael Egnor


It’s clear from the ideologically motivated attacks on Dr Guillermo Gonzalez, an assistant professor of astronomy and co-author of The Privileged Planet, that scientists who acknowledge the evidence for design in the universe are not welcome as tenured members of the Iowa State University faculty.

Anti-design scientists and bloggers have admitted publicly that they will continue to exclude intelligent design scientists from academia. Yet in the 20th century many of the advances in the understanding of our universe were accompanied by vigorous open discussion of the design implications of cosmological theories.

From the Enlightenment to early the 20th century, virtually all astronomers believed that the universe was eternal. When solutions for Einstein’s tensor equations were proposed in the first decades of the 20th century, it was evident that they were compatible with an expansion (or contraction) of the universe. With Edwin Hubble’s observation of the redshift that showed evidence for an expanding universe, some astrophysicists proposed that the universe had a moment of creation. Many other astrophysicists were troubled by the theological implications of a “moment of creation,” and proposed a Steady State (eternal) model of the cosmos.

There was a vigorous free discussion of the scientific, philosophical and theological implications of the expanding universe by scientists in the early and mid 20th century. A “moment of creation” — the Big Bang — implied a creator, and implied design. Based on the evidence, design won, and the advocates of the steady state model showed integrity and grace in acknowledging that the Big Bang theory, despite its design implications, was the best theory to explain the emergence and structure of the universe.

As agnostic astrophysicist Robert Jastrow famously said:

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

As the blacklist at Iowa State shows, 21st century atheists lack the integrity and grace of their predecessors. This time, they intend to make sure that theories that invoke even the possibility of design in the universe are excluded, and theorists who are open to the possibility of design are blacklisted.

Modern atheists know that they lost the scientific debate about the Big Bang in the 20th century. This time around, they are making sure that there will be no debate.

Please contact Iowa State University President Gregory L. Geoffroy (515-294 -2042 or president@iastate.edu) and ask him to grant tenure to Dr. Gonzalez, and to end the blacklisting of scientists who support intelligent design at Iowa State.

 

For all the talk about intelligent design which follows there has to be a designer which would be a god or gods or some type of alien or aliens or some type of intelligence and power we can't comprehend. For all this talk there is no evidence of a designer or god. The fact that scientist (or we) cannot understand how the universe could have just happened does not prove in any way their assumption that thus there had to be a designer or god or creator aliens. Of course because they can't prove there isn't a designer or god doesn't prove there is not one either. It is bad science to assume a designer without concrete evidence, just not understanding how the universe works is not good enough to argue the issue. It is good science to argue that there isn't a god or designer without concrete evidence. If evidence is presented then the discussion about intelligently design becomes science until then it is religion or superstition or just playing what if.

 

teleovangelist is going to heaven..

in a handbasket.

i'm jealous. really jealous

god bless him

:/

 

It is good logic to argue from ignorance? Is it good science to argue from ignorance?

 

Is that sarcasm or are you asking a real question? If it's a question you'll have to reword it, it doesn't make sense to me. If your just being a smart ass then never mind.

 

Oh, it is a real question...as assuming non design is based on an argument from ignorance.

 

It isn't, it is based on lack of evidence.

 

Without knowing there is not a design element at work, or knowing what a designed universe would look like compared to a non designed universe, there is no way to gather evidence of non design...and there is no logical reason to assume non design on that basis. No one in this forum, or anywhere else has falsified design, either logically or scientifically.

That is why there is endless debate...

Doh!

Arguments and science from assumptions based on ignorance, is absurd.

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