Articles like Weiss's current one on really bring out the "there is too a God, and I can prove it!" contingent, all with variations on the same loopy arguments or appeals to the same shuck-and-jive apologists. On the one hand, you hate to let their nonsense go unchallenged, but on the other, it's like a nightmare arcade where you're playing an endless game of whack-a-mole.

When states like Louisiana pass legislation meant to allow the inclusion of creationist tripe in science classes and have Senators referring to ID as an equal scientific theory to evolution....yes, it's absolutely worth it.

When 27 states amend their consititutions to institutionalize the denial of equal civil rights to people because they don't like their sexual orientation and the organizations and people who support this base and justify much of their bigotry on that 'God'...hells yes, it's absolutely worth it.

As we have witnessed over and over again, left unchallenged it becomes 'fact by default' in the minds of many...see the current 'teach the controversy' attempts with ID as an example of that.

Honestly, I'm beginning to worry about reverse evolution. Fewer people believe in evolution now than 5 years ago, so it may be the first stark evidence of a decline in our cognitive ability. While countering the nutjobs seems like an endless and thankless job, treating them as is they were entitled to conjure an opinion out of thin air or resurrect some medieval voodoo is a dangerous course for a democratic nation. Ignorance is a pernicious ailment, regardless of whether its roots are religious or not.

It's absolutely worth it.

This IS "Faith Based"

;-)

How does it go? 3 steps forward 2 steps back.

Only I'm beginning to think it's more like 1000 steps forward 999 back. If we could get to 3 and 2 we would be doing good.

Keep the faith.

We're all somewhat cracked to keep this up. But it has to be done.

oh, and lumpy - when I say "keep the faith" I mean something specific

(It's a phrase closely associated with a certain UK rock band I'm a fan of)

But since when has that stopped anyone?

Perhaps.

But it has to be done.

To make things perfectly clear. I'm only here for the IDers.

Wrenn:

I'm only here for the IDers.

You mean, you're leaving the free pizza and beer for the rest of us? That's damn noble of you.

I'll steal some pizza. You can have the beer. I don't drink it.

Wrenn:

I'll steal some pizza. You can have the beer. I don't drink it.

Touch the cognac though and you'll find out if the ID'ers are right ;)

I'm not sure that we're the ones to do it, and that this is the correct forum. To anonymous, too limiting. Where's a good documentarian when you could use one?

I'm okay with the general principle of ID and a non-chaotic universe. Father Philip's freshman biology class saw no conflict between the idea of God using Evolution as a sort of biological compiler (Is that a good anology?), and so neither do I. It's the ones that use it as a cover for blatant creationism that give me gas.

Lyger:

I'm okay with the general principle of ID and a non-chaotic universe. Father Philip's freshman biology class saw no conflict between the idea of God using Evolution as a sort of biological compiler (Is that a good anology?), and so neither do I. It's the ones that use it as a cover for blatant creationism that give me gas.

A person believing that -the guiding hand of God, the invisible purple gnomes, the pink space unicorns from the 9th dimension, or Xenu - is clearly behind what we see, observe isn't an inherent conflict, except that such an interventionist entity could at any moment and for any reason 'change the rules' and to date we have no evidence of such things.

But in general yes, the less something is defined the easier it is to reduce conflict with any specific situation.

Lyger:

I'm okay with the general principle of ID and a non-chaotic universe. Father Philip's freshman biology class saw no conflict between the idea of God using Evolution as a sort of biological compiler (Is that a good anology?), and so neither do I. It's the ones that use it as a cover for blatant creationism that give me gas.

*nod*

Except it's not the 'general principle' that is being pushed by those who are being funded, to the tune of millions of dollars. By that I mean AIG and the Discovery Research Institute. I, also, was taught that there was no conflict between believing in God and accepting Evolution as science, when I was in Catholic private schools.

However...

AIG and the Discovery Research Institute believe there is. If you accept Evolution, you are, therefore, an athiest.

I

Wrenn:

I, also, was taught that there was no conflict between believing in God and accepting Evolution as science, when I was in Catholic private schools.

The conflict is with the natural human desire to have our beliefs be "right", and when we have many many many pages of documents giving us things we have been taught are exactly a certain way (Pick a religion...any religion) it can be hard to let go of those if they are found to be incorrect. Now, while I don't personally believe in deities of any type, I will be the first to say that the answer to such a conundrum is easily answered with the understanding that it isn't "God" being shown not to exist, only a given understanding of "God"...and why would that be a bad thing?

If someone 5,000 years ago said 'And God sayeth unto him, I hateth purple. Those who wearest it, are teh suke!' and it turns out maybe some guy 5,000 years ago just didn't like purple....does that in any way change the actual nature of God?