I'm asking why denomination has anything to do with open mindedness. You answer that ID is non-denominational.
Can you read?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
I'm asking why denomination has anything to do with open mindedness. You answer that ID is non-denominational.
Can you read?
Z10 is calling for ID to be taught in science classrooms. I'm debating Z10. If he agrees not to promote ID as an alternative to science, then I'll agree to drop Pastafarian.Quote from Teleologist:
James Bond:
According to Wikipedia:
ID doesn't posit a supernatural creator and leading ID proponents are not calling for ID theory to be taught in science classrooms.
ID/Creationism is denominational.
All denominations do not accept certain intelligent designs. The intelligently designed FSM, Jesus or Allah for example are not accepted by all denominations.
All denominations do not accept certain intelligent designs. The intelligently designed FSM, Jesus or Allah for example are not accepted by all denominations.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
All denominations I have seen accept intelligent design, so ID includes them all.
Science classes in high school don't teach every single aspect of Darwinism, or subtle aspects, they simply teach the basics.
Basic ID is non denominational, and all it does is provide alternative to ignorant chance.
Denomination has everything to do with it.
Teaching a denomination of a religion is religion, teaching ID, as I have defined it over the course of this thread, is simply teaching the opposite of ignorant chance. It requires no belief in God to teach ID, nor to accept ID as a possible explanation. We have been trough this ad infinitum...
ID doesn't exclude or include any particular religious belief, except dogmatic ignorant chance belief which is what people like you are proponents of.
Can't you read? I have been writing the same thing on this thread since the beginning....and you still can't grok it?
My preference is to teach neither ignorant chance theory nor ID theory in the public school system, but if we are forced to teach ignorant chance, then it is only fair to teach the opposite theory, which is ID.
Teaching a denomination of a religion is religion, teaching ID, as I have defined it over the course of this thread, is simply teaching the opposite of ignorant chance. It requires no belief in God to teach ID, nor to accept ID as a possible explanation. We have been trough this ad infinitum...
ID doesn't exclude or include any particular religious belief, except dogmatic ignorant chance belief which is what people like you are proponents of.
Can't you read? I have been writing the same thing on this thread since the beginning....and you still can't grok it?
My preference is to teach neither ignorant chance theory nor ID theory in the public school system, but if we are forced to teach ignorant chance, then it is only fair to teach the opposite theory, which is ID.
Quote from james_bond_3rd:
I'm asking why denomination has anything to do with open mindedness. You answer that ID is non-denominational.
Can you read?
Irrational and off point response.
My argument is that ID accepts all denominations, does not argue against any denomination, but that ID itself if non denominational.
Denominations don't accept each other, but that is not the point, nor the point I was making, nor is it relevant to ID.
All denominations accept theory of intelligent design over ignorant chance.
Now, if you are going to admit that ignorant chance theory is a religion and a denomination of atheism, then ID accepts all denominations and does not argue with them, with the exception of the denomination of ignorant chance which is a branch of Atheistic religion.
It would be nice, and intellectually honest, though I doubt that is very probably if at all possible, for the proponents of ignorant chance to admit they have an atheistic driven agenda primarily, not a scientific one. The goal is to use science as a tool to promote atheism, or as a tool to attack theism.
Slim chance that will happen though...
My argument is that ID accepts all denominations, does not argue against any denomination, but that ID itself if non denominational.
Denominations don't accept each other, but that is not the point, nor the point I was making, nor is it relevant to ID.
All denominations accept theory of intelligent design over ignorant chance.
Now, if you are going to admit that ignorant chance theory is a religion and a denomination of atheism, then ID accepts all denominations and does not argue with them, with the exception of the denomination of ignorant chance which is a branch of Atheistic religion.
It would be nice, and intellectually honest, though I doubt that is very probably if at all possible, for the proponents of ignorant chance to admit they have an atheistic driven agenda primarily, not a scientific one. The goal is to use science as a tool to promote atheism, or as a tool to attack theism.
Slim chance that will happen though...
Quote from stu:
ID/Creationism is denominational.
All denominations do not accept certain intelligent designs. The intelligently designed FSM, Jesus or Allah for example are not accepted by all denominations.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Denomination has everything to do with it.
Teaching a denomination of a religion is religion, teaching ID, as I have defined it over the course of this thread, is simply teaching the opposite of ignorant chance. It requires no belief in God to teach ID, nor to accept ID as a possible explanation. We have been trough this ad infinitum...
ID doesn't exclude or include any particular religious belief, except dogmatic ignorant chance belief which is what people like you are proponents of.
Can't you read? I have been writing the same thing on this thread since the beginning....and you still can't grok it?
My preference is to teach neither ignorant chance theory nor ID theory in the public school system, but if we are forced to teach ignorant chance, then it is only fair to teach the opposite theory, which is ID.
ID/Creation leads directly to God. There is no theory of ID/Creation which does not necessarily lead to a Creator God. The theory of ID/Creation implies a Creator God, since the word 'design' necessarily implies a designer. The only other possibilities are that the life on earth was 'designed' by the non-sentient forces of nature, by the laws of mathematics, which is evolution, or by sentient beings from another planet or galaxy or possibly a parallel universe.
At least you've changed your position on teaching ID/Creation in our public schools. It's nice to see that even though you'll deny it up and down, you are able to see the error of your past arguments and adapt.
Quote from traderNik:
The theory of ID/Creation implies a Creator God, since the word 'design' necessarily implies a designer.
Not to worry. The design was not meant to lead back to our Creator, but rather, to lead us away from Him. Examination of the design may lead to a 'designer' god, and this is what you are afraid of. But there is nothing to fear.
Jesus
Quote from james_bond_3rd:
Jesus is not God.
Right! I was created equal to God. What's the big deal? And I am one with my Father. If you have seen me, you have seen the Father. If you saw me in the flesh, you did not see me. This world was not created, but I have the power to "make" worlds like this.
Jesus