Skip to main content

View Diary: Let's Teach the Controversy of Evolution vs Intelligent Design **Updated with Poll question** (365 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, in this I agree: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cybersaur, JerryNA, malie
    science is a cold, “faithless” perspective of the universe.
    True dat.  Science explores what is, and how it got that way. A scientist will change his views immediately in the presence of new evidence- the religionist clings to his faith in spite of evidence.

    Religion, as you state, is based upon and requires faith.  Faith is belief in the unbelievable. (If it is believable, one doesn't need faith.)  

    Personally, I would rather live in a world which operates by the laws of physics, and not one where "miracles" can defy the laws of physics at any time at the hands of a capricious and malignant "god".  Imagine a world where the sun really could stand still in the sky- and the chaos that would create.

    Fortunately for us, God apparently stopped doing the really impressive miracles around 2,000 years ago- coincidentally coinciding with the development of science and the ability of people to give other than Bronze age explanations of the world around them.

    As my father used to say,"We have the best government money can buy."

    by BPARTR on Mon May 06, 2013 at 04:49:46 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Faith is no more an unknown, or a belief, (0+ / 0-)

      than hope or love.  Faith is the “substance” and “evidence” of things not seen. Over 90% of the world’s population acknowledges this fact.  It is the intentional denial of this fact within the science curriculum that is the problem.

      The very acknowledgement of laws (that which governs) of physics is enough evidence of a Creator. Randomness would be the only alternative to a godless universe, and randomness does not produce order by its very definition.

      “Miracles", or the ability to defy the laws of the universe, are the proof that a person is who they claim to be.  I am very glad to know that that which governs the universe is good, merciful, and faithful, not "capricious" or "malignant". Just imagine a world without a good governor, just the randomness of individuals living according to their own desires, and the chaos that would create. We don't have to imagine that world; we live on it.

      Fortunately, the best is yet to come!

      •  um, no (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JerryNA

        Faith is blind acceptance of authority with no accompanying evidence. Hope and love are essentially just emotions.
        There is no aspect of the universe that requires that one posit the existence of any gods. None.
        Miracles are fictions ascribed to god(s). There is no such thing as a miracle.

        +++ The law is a weapon used to bludgeon us peasants into submission. It is not to be applied to the monied elite.

        by cybersaur on Tue May 07, 2013 at 08:42:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Faith is complete trust, not blind acceptance. (0+ / 0-)

          Real faith, real hope, and real love, are not emotions, they are choices.

          "There is no aspect of the universe that requires that one posit the existence of any gods. None."

          Yes there is, I exist.

          As far as miracles are concerned, you are entitled to your choice on the subject. I will choose to disagree, and trust the accounts of eye witnesses to the events that did and still do happen.

          •  Keep making assertions (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JerryNA

            And this is why it isn't possible to argue with true believers.
            Your existence doesn't require a god. Just parents.
            That miracles don't exist is a fact. People see things all the time that they ascribe to the supernatural that are easily disproved like water stains on over passes and burn marks on grilled cheese.
            Can you share with the rest of us an example of a modern day miracle?

            +++ The law is a weapon used to bludgeon us peasants into submission. It is not to be applied to the monied elite.

            by cybersaur on Tue May 07, 2013 at 11:21:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I suppose the same could be said (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Joieau

              about the choices of non believers, in a general sense.

              I am curious how the smallest of building blocks that make up my parents just suddenly, randomly came into existence.  Logically speaking, something can never come from nothing, but in order for a godless universe to exist there must be an event where nothing became something. In my opinion that requires much, much more faith, but that is your choice to make.

              I would not classify your examples as miracles; I would classify it as a very small attempt to delegitimize my faith by using absurd examples.

              Providing an example of a miracle to a person that has made their choice that they do not exist would be a fruitless endeavor.

              •  And yet (0+ / 0-)

                You believe that your god has always existed and conjured the the heavens, the Earth and all the flora and fauna out of nothing.
                Your god has First Cause problems that you simply fail to recognize or admit.

                +++ The law is a weapon used to bludgeon us peasants into submission. It is not to be applied to the monied elite.

                by cybersaur on Tue May 07, 2013 at 01:19:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  It's a choice per explanatory power, (0+ / 0-)

                that's all. Any phenomenon for which there is no possible (or just current) physical explanation can be considered 'miraculous' by one person, or simply 'natural-by-unknown- process' to another.

                Spontaneous remission of advanced cancer is a pretty good example. Back in the olden days there were NO treatments for cancer other than surgery to remove tumors. If you had a cancer that didn't involve tumors - like, say, leukemia - you were shit out of luck. Yet in those days when there was no radiotherapy or chemotherapy with which to try and defeat such cancers, the phenomenon of spontaneous remission did noticeably occur. Medicine had no explanations any more than they had treatments that might account for the fact that someone literally on their deathbed got up one morning and went on home, no sign of disease at all.

                Miracle? For many who experienced it, that explanation was plenty good enough to suffice. Even doctors called it that. Others without belief in miracles might choose to believe in a natural (but rare) phenomenon of gene expression suiting that happened to kick in all of a sudden and managed to get rid of the cancer before it killed the patient. Unknown, but not "miraculous." And who knows? Perhaps someday we'll actually know enough about human physiology and cellular processes to produce Spontaneous Remission In A Bottle and it would be worth all the money in the world.

                The "miracle" explanation fits Occam's razor - nothing further is required. The "Natural but Unknown" explanation begs further research in order to try and quantify. Not possible these days when we do have treatments (themselves extremely harmful to physiological processes, but sometimes effective against the immediate threat). So there will probably never be Spontaneous Remission In A Bottle, and that phenomenon will remain a "miracle" by Occam's measure.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (152)
  • Community (59)
  • Baltimore (38)
  • Civil Rights (37)
  • Bernie Sanders (33)
  • Culture (29)
  • Elections (29)
  • Economy (28)
  • Law (25)
  • Texas (23)
  • 2016 (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Environment (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Education (18)
  • Hillary Clinton (18)
  • Racism (17)
  • Politics (17)
  • Media (17)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site