:thumb: Those that follow the way of the Navajo (in name, at least) are few, fire-haired one.

I'll take that as a compliment, though I don't feel real confident that's how you meant it.

Bah... I imagine we are arguing over a short mention of ID in science class. I don't see that as a stumbling block to scientific prowess.

I'd have thought someone railing against the Catholic church and the disservices it's done to humanity would recognize the slights to women not only in the Christian tradition but in most societies.

It doesn't seem you fully get where many intelligent believers are coming from. I don't feel limited by Christian arguments that seem to fall short. Humans have had their grubby little hands on the word of God for some time and I think have been in some cases quite devious with it. I also don't feel that Christianity is the only group that has anything worthwhile to say on the matter of God so I really don't feel limited by all Christian tenants.

Only spreading ignorance seems too strong. There aren't enough realized facts in the universe to satisfy me. I don't mind embracing my intuition and imagination. I think there is a lot of truth in creativity and imagination, though we may not be able to prove it at the time. Even if the truth presented by concepts and imagination isn't fully accurate or specific. There is way more to life than logic, and it is only logical to accept that logic is limited.

Science may be based on facts, but science is not the whole picture. The biggest reason I can see for not talking about intelligent design in a science setting is that it may lead us down a slippery slope, but I think the slippery slope argument is considered to be fallacious.

You say if we don't have facts there is nothing to build on, but I think you're glossing over the very important role that creativity and imagination play in scientific exploration and discovery. Facts play a key role, but I don't think facts are the only thing that should be considered. And I think it is important to remember that all facts are relative, no matter the intricacies used to prove them.

Imagination argues the way things could be and sometimes dreams are realized.

It don't know what intelligent design teaches - does it specifically contradict evolution?

Do you know how Intelligent Design is presented in the classroom?

Aren't all facts relative? We only know what we've observed, and science has observed only a small amount of history. Everything could change tomorrow.

In this instance, I'd say Wikipedia is a tiny bit biased. Not that they're wholly wrong.

I just imagine not a lot of time would be spent on ID and that the teacher wouldn't go into great detail. This is how I see it... "Some people believe in something called ID. This is a very brief summary of what ID is. Now let's get back to the skeletal system." I just don't see that as very threatening to the scientific method.

A fact is something that really happened; reality; truth. When you get into the concept of relativity, truth and reality can start to blur pretty quickly.

What you think is a fact today may not actually be a fact tomorrow based on new information, which seems to allow us to question what seems to be a fact without imperiling our intellectual honesty.

I thought that might eat at you, and you're right, I am a lazy debater. This one seems to present both sides more fairly... http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/july-dec05/evolution_8-05.html

Another issue I have with this bill is that it is going to be struck down by the Supreme Court after a lengthy and expensive challenge by the ACLU and other groups, and in the end Louisiana is once again going to be on the national stage as the educationally backwards State that it is. But Jindal knows this, and doesn't seem to care as long as it gets him votes. I wonder what the total taxpayer bill is going to be once this is all over?

ID is religion. You can't teach religion as an alternative to science in a public school. 1st Amendment and all... The Supreme Court has already ruled the teaching of creationism as science in public schools to be unconstitutional. Intelligent design has also been ruled unconstitutional by a lower court.

You stay classy, Louisiana. Good job.

Cool, then we agree on more than the fact that A. Busch beer sucks :lol:

So you are saying the standards of proving that something exists do not apply to the supernatural. I disagree but I understand what you are saying now.

Yes. However, is it really just as silly to insist on evidence of a concept, than it is to try to force a concept against evidence?

So how does one learn of the immaterial? It had to have come from somewhere...

Nah, I'm good.

I agree. Good thing I didn't really call anyone irrational crazies. You are taking some specific criticisms I have offered on Fundamentalists, and applied it to all believers. I criticize the idea, not the messengers. I go to church, and enjoy it as well.

Pointing out flaws in an idea is not an attack on the people who believe them. Theist often have a hard time listening to criticisms of their beliefs because they hold them to be sacred. But religious ideas are not above criticisms, and it is hard to not sound rude when the implication is that if someone is following what I think are foolish ideas, then that someone is a fool. I don't think that people are fools for being religious. But I think that's why people think Atheist are arrogant. It's just part of the territory when criticizing sacred beliefs. So far I don't know of a way around it other than walking on eggshells.

If we were talking about Communism, you wouldn't expect me to say "you cannot prove Communism works, so I do not support it". I would do just as you say I do, and say "Communism doesn't work, so I don't support it, and this is why it is foolish for you to support it". It is a debate forum, isn't it? What fun is it to offer a counterpoint without being specific?

Supa, I'm sorry if it is a sensitive topic to you, but I am going to point out flaws in the ideas of religion whenever I feel that it contributes to the topic at hand. Despite what you may think, I really enjoy hearing from the people who strongly stand behind their convictions, whether I agree or not. You are one of those people that is consistent in his beliefs and opinions, and you like to clearly state your points without apology. I do appreciate it, and hope you don't think I'm on this board just to be an ass because I am doing the same, although from a different perspective.

If you can point out any specific places where I attacked a specific person, and not the ideas that that person believes in, then I will surely apologize and retract. Unless they deserved it

I don't know much of Dawkins' work. I find Hitchens to be entertaining, though.

Yeah. I bet we could have a good time knocking back some good Belgians.

I am saying the scientific method is suited for the observable. Our understanding of the supernatural is so small that to test it using the scientific method would be useless.

I think alot of the immaterial can be reasoned. Thomas Aquinas surmised that if there had been no divine revelation we could still determine the existence of a creator God. I tend to agree.

I guess I don't see a distinction in the two.

I see a completely different tone in this than in your previous posts, and I think you are being sincere. Maybe it is the humility inherent to Christianity that inhibits me from arguing from the same vantage as you.