In God We Teach - documentary excerpt

[Guest Gadfly]

You contadict yourself. You say "It is a glorious world that God has given us", "You can still believe that God set things in motion-I do". FYI, what you're describing is ID.

While your behavior in this thread leads me to believe that you are dishonestly attempting to conflate the two positions, I will explain the difference between ID and theistic evolution.

Theistic Evolution is a philosophical position. I believe that evolutionary science is perfectly valid and that naturalistic explanations can fully explain the variety of life on Earth. I believe that this is because God set things up this way. The difference is that I realize that this is my belief and no one else needs to share it.

ID is a political/social/pseudoscientific philosophy that starts the same way then says "and I can prove it!" One of the primary claims of ID is that naturalistic explanations are not enough-you've been trying (incredibly poorly) to make just that claim about the evolution of the eye for quite a few posts now. ID leads to Bonhoeffer's "God of the Gaps" position-if you look for the things that science cannot yet explain then fill those gaps with God, you are doomed to have an eternally shrinking God as science fills those gaps. Your view of God has to keep stepping in and tinkering with the world because apparently you don't think God can get it right in one go.

You see a contradiction in my posts only because you conflate creationism with Christianity. That is why you believe anyone who accepts evolution must be an atheist. You are wrong.

[Guest Kearny Christian]

Another atheist raises his head out of the primordial soup and declares: Mother Nature, don't forget about me!

Great line. Love it!

[Guest 2smart4u]

While your behavior in this thread leads me to believe that you are dishonestly attempting to conflate the two positions, I will explain the difference between ID and theistic evolution.

Theistic Evolution is a philosophical position. I believe that evolutionary science is perfectly valid and that naturalistic explanations can fully explain the variety of life on Earth. I believe that this is because God set things up this way. The difference is that I realize that this is my belief and no one else needs to share it.

ID is a political/social/pseudoscientific philosophy that starts the same way then says "and I can prove it!" One of the primary claims of ID is that naturalistic explanations are not enough-you've been trying (incredibly poorly) to make just that claim about the evolution of the eye for quite a few posts now. ID leads to Bonhoeffer's "God of the Gaps" position-if you look for the things that science cannot yet explain then fill those gaps with God, you are doomed to have an eternally shrinking God as science fills those gaps. Your view of God has to keep stepping in and tinkering with the world because apparently you don't think God can get it right in one go.

You see a contradiction in my posts only because you conflate creationism with Christianity. That is why you believe anyone who accepts evolution must be an atheist. You are wrong.

Let me try to understand you. You believe "the variety of life on earth exists because God set it up this way". "Set it up this way" implies Intelligent Design, does it not?

You can't have it both ways, you either believe in ID or you believe in blind evolution, make up your mind.

[Guest Guest]

Great line. Love it!

Yeah, you would. It's amazing how these idiots think that wisdom resides in a slogan. They have no idea what it means to think logically or based on facts. If someone says it and they like the sound of it, then it must be true - and don't you dare challenge it because they believe it. No wonder the world is in such chaos. And these are the first people who will blame it all on someone else, and on all the things they don't understand. Since they understand almost nothing, they blame just about everything - except themselves. They're never wrong. They don't know a thing, they refuse to study or even consider any new information, but they're right about all of it. And they always have some idiotic comeback so they don't actually have to think about anything.

People like this should have bumper stickers on their cars: "I'm an ignoramus and proud of it - and I vote."

[Guest Guest]

While your behavior in this thread leads me to believe that you are dishonestly attempting to conflate the two positions, I will explain the difference between ID and theistic evolution.

Theistic Evolution is a philosophical position. I believe that evolutionary science is perfectly valid and that naturalistic explanations can fully explain the variety of life on Earth. I believe that this is because God set things up this way. The difference is that I realize that this is my belief and no one else needs to share it.

ID is a political/social/pseudoscientific philosophy that starts the same way then says "and I can prove it!" One of the primary claims of ID is that naturalistic explanations are not enough-you've been trying (incredibly poorly) to make just that claim about the evolution of the eye for quite a few posts now. ID leads to Bonhoeffer's "God of the Gaps" position-if you look for the things that science cannot yet explain then fill those gaps with God, you are doomed to have an eternally shrinking God as science fills those gaps. Your view of God has to keep stepping in and tinkering with the world because apparently you don't think God can get it right in one go.

You see a contradiction in my posts only because you conflate creationism with Christianity. That is why you believe anyone who accepts evolution must be an atheist. You are wrong.

And you're one smart cookie. You graduated from Kearny High last year? Yes or no, this is impressive. Good job.

[Guest Patriot]

Yeah, you would. It's amazing how these idiots think that wisdom resides in a slogan. They have no idea what it means to think logically or based on facts. If someone says it and they like the sound of it, then it must be true - and don't you dare challenge it because they believe it. No wonder the world is in such chaos. And these are the first people who will blame it all on someone else, and on all the things they don't understand. Since they understand almost nothing, they blame just about everything - except themselves. They're never wrong. They don't know a thing, they refuse to study or even consider any new information, but they're right about all of it. And they always have some idiotic comeback so they don't actually have to think about anything.

People like this should have bumper stickers on their cars: "I'm an ignoramus and proud of it - and I vote."

More appropriately, they should have a bumper sticker that says: I'm a democrat, kick me.

[Guest Guest]

Let me try to understand you. You believe "the variety of life on earth exists because God set it up this way". "Set it up this way" implies Intelligent Design, does it not?

You can't have it both ways, you either believe in ID or you believe in blind evolution, make up your mind.

Wrong, Stupid. There's nothing inconsistent about the idea that a god made the world and set up the evolutionary process, which then took place just as scientists say it did. There's no evidence that a god was involved but it's not inconsistent.

Gadfly already explained it to you but you don't have the brains to understand it. You're the one taking ID to a ridiculous extreme. You deny what we do know, which is evolution. That's worse because it's profoundly ignorant. Gadfly doesn't have a shred of evidence to support half his argument - the God part - but at least he doesn't make a fool of himself by denying the science. His position is the same as Ken Miller's.

[Guest Gadfly]

Let me try to understand you. You believe "the variety of life on earth exists because God set it up this way". "Set it up this way" implies Intelligent Design, does it not?

You can't have it both ways, you either believe in ID or you believe in blind evolution, make up your mind.

Didn't actually read the post I take it?

[Guest Guest]

And you're one smart cookie. You graduated from Kearny High last year? Yes or no, this is impressive. Good job.

56 years old and graduated last year?? That's impressive??

[Guest Guest]

It is a glorious world that God has given us to discover-why shutter your eyes to it? You can still believe that God set things in motion-I do. Just don't try to pretend that science can prove it. Evolution works without needing intervention from God. I believe that it is because God designed the universe incredibly well. You apparently think that God has to keep fine-tuning His creation.

If "God designed the universe incredibly well":

--- why is evolution part of the picture? Why not just start at the endpoint?

--- how do you explain why most of the sentient creatures have to kill and eat other sentient creatures to survive?

--- how do you explain genetic abnormalities like children born with the brain outside the head, or twins born joined at the chest or the head?

Doesn't all of that look more like natural forces, not directed by a purposeful and benevolent force? Is so, why believe in a god? I know you say it's a choice, and it is, but should beliefs be based on choice or on facts and reason?

[Guest 239]

A recent editorial in a Philadelphia paper reported that a native american has been appointed Bishop of Philadelphia. The 2 former Bishops covered up child abuse by priests and transferred them to other positions. Now, a grand jury has indicted priests and 24 have been suspended. If the priests believed in God, then why would they risk everything by molesting children?

[Guest 2smart4u]

Wrong, Stupid. There's nothing inconsistent about the idea that a god made the world and set up the evolutionary process, which then took place just as scientists say it did. There's no evidence that a god was involved but it's not inconsistent.

Gadfly already explained it to you but you don't have the brains to understand it. You're the one taking ID to a ridiculous extreme. You deny what we do know, which is evolution. That's worse because it's profoundly ignorant. Gadfly doesn't have a shred of evidence to support half his argument - the God part - but at least he doesn't make a fool of himself by denying the science. His position is the same as Ken Miller's.

I have this feeling I'm talking to 3rd graders. I don't deny evolution, it's in the fossil record.

You say "there's nothing inconsistent about the idea that a god made the world and set up the evolutionary process". Hello! That's called "Intelligent Design"!!

If a god "set up" (designed) the evolutionary process and set it in motion (that requires "Intelligence"), what is it that you don't understand.

If you still don't get this then I can't help you, you're doomed to roam the earth in a fog.

[Guest ko]

If "God designed the universe incredibly well":

--- why is evolution part of the picture? Why not just start at the endpoint?

--- how do you explain why most of the sentient creatures have to kill and eat other sentient creatures to survive?

--- how do you explain genetic abnormalities like children born with the brain outside the head, or twins born joined at the chest or the head?

Doesn't all of that look more like natural forces, not directed by a purposeful and benevolent force? Is so, why believe in a god? I know you say it's a choice, and it is, but should beliefs be based on choice or on facts and reason?

Simple, God is a sick bastard who loves to watch people suffer.

[Guest Gadfly]

56 years old and graduated last year?? That's impressive??

What? I'm not 56!

[Guest Melanie]

Let me try to understand you. You believe "the variety of life on earth exists because God set it up this way". "Set it up this way" implies Intelligent Design, does it not?

That depends what you mean by Intelligent Design. You're arguing for an ID that denies evolutionary theory. If you can only see it that way, then of course a view like Gadfly's wouldn't make sense to you, but that's only because you can only see things from your limited perspective. Gadfly is saying that evolutionary theory is true, all the way back to what you dismissively call "pond scum" but that there is a god that set the process in motion. So no, Gadfly's idea of God does not imply what you mean by Intelligent Design.

You can't have it both ways, you either believe in ID or you believe in blind evolution, make up your mind.

Not true, as explained above. A person can believe that God created what we call nature, and that life evolved all the way from amino acids and proteins to the cell to us. There's no evidence of a god but it's not inconsistent in content.

It is inconsistent in method: why follow the evidence until you don't want to follow it any more and just decide to believe in a god because you want to? That doesn't make much sense either but it's not inconsistent the way you claim it is.

[Guest Guest]

I have this feeling I'm talking to 3rd graders. I don't deny evolution, it's in the fossil record.

You say "there's nothing inconsistent about the idea that a god made the world and set up the evolutionary process". Hello! That's called "Intelligent Design"!!

If a god "set up" (designed) the evolutionary process and set it in motion (that requires "Intelligence"), what is it that you don't understand.

If you still don't get this then I can't help you, you're doomed to roam the earth in a fog.

You deny evolution in its particulars, which means that your argument isn't even coherent. You got your head handed to you arguing against the evolution of the eye, for example. That's evolution, and you said there's no proof for it. As usual, you're wrong.

[Guest 315]

A recent editorial in a Philadelphia paper reported that a native american has been appointed Bishop of Philadelphia. The 2 former Bishops covered up child abuse by priests and transferred them to other positions. Now, a grand jury has indicted priests and 24 have been suspended. If the priests believed in God, then why would they risk everything by molesting children?

The Church has a shortage of priests and let some individuals into the seminaries without doing proper background checks. Some were pedophiles and other were gay. The Church professes to be against homosexuals, but a percentage of priests are just that. If God made everyone, then he also made homosexuals so the Church should not be against them. Sex is a normal part of life so to continue to rule that priests must be celibate is against nature and leads to bad behavior.

[Guest Kearny Christian]

I have this feeling I'm talking to 3rd graders. I don't deny evolution, it's in the fossil record.

You say "there's nothing inconsistent about the idea that a god made the world and set up the evolutionary process". Hello! That's called "Intelligent Design"!!

If a god "set up" (designed) the evolutionary process and set it in motion (that requires "Intelligence"), what is it that you don't understand.

If you still don't get this then I can't help you, you're doomed to roam the earth in a fog.

These atheists remind me of Bubba Clinton debating the definition of "is".

[Guest Guest]

These atheists remind me of Bubba Clinton debating the definition of "is".

When you're not very bright, things that you don't understand might make you think of anything. The simpler you are, the more likely you are to go back to your favorite lines, images, stories, etc.

If you understood evolution, you might understand why it happens that way, and why in dynamic systems like life one thing relates to another, which relates to another, etc. But because you think that things just fall out of the sky magically, you don't understand how things work. That includes the human mind, including your mind - what there is of it.

[Guest Patriot]

I have this feeling I'm talking to 3rd graders. I don't deny evolution, it's in the fossil record.

You say "there's nothing inconsistent about the idea that a god made the world and set up the evolutionary process". Hello! That's called "Intelligent Design"!!

If a god "set up" (designed) the evolutionary process and set it in motion (that requires "Intelligence"), what is it that you don't understand.

If you still don't get this then I can't help you, you're doomed to roam the earth in a fog.

...but roaming the earth in a fog has served you so well!

[Guest Kearny Christian]

The Church has a shortage of priests and let some individuals into the seminaries without doing proper background checks. Some were pedophiles and other were gay. The Church professes to be against homosexuals, but a percentage of priests are just that. If God made everyone, then he also made homosexuals so the Church should not be against them. Sex is a normal part of life so to continue to rule that priests must be celibate is against nature and leads to bad behavior.

Let me guess ..... You dropped out of freshman year and have been holed up in your parents basement ever since. As long as they're alive, you're good, 3 squares and a bed.

[Guest 2smart4u]

When you're not very bright, things that you don't understand might make you think of anything. The simpler you are, the more likely you are to go back to your favorite lines, images, stories, etc.

If you understood evolution, you might understand why it happens that way, and why in dynamic systems like life one thing relates to another, which relates to another, etc. But because you think that things just fall out of the sky magically, you don't understand how things work. That includes the human mind, including your mind - what there is of it.

These Kearny atheists could have been on the OJ jury, they're that stupid. Wikipedia estimates there are 40 trillion life forms on the planet earth. Atheist "scientists" would have us believe they all evolved from something that crawled out of a puddle of primordal soup. 40 trillion life forms evolving with no help or direction, just blind evolution.

Come to think of it, I don't think the OJ jury would have bought it.

[Guest Guest]

These Kearny atheists could have been on the OJ jury, they're that stupid. Wikipedia estimates there are 40 trillion life forms on the planet earth. Atheist "scientists" would have us believe they all evolved from something that crawled out of a puddle of primordal soup. 40 trillion life forms evolving with no help or direction, just blind evolution.

Come to think of it, I don't think the OJ jury would have bought it.

You keep calling evolution the province of atheists, even though that has been disproved over and over. Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true.

It doesn't matter what you find hard to believe. What matters is the evidence and reason. If you wish to make a point, back it up with both facts and reason in answering these questions:

1. Where are you getting your information? I googled "40 trillion life forms" and nothing came up.

2. If your information is correct, what is it based on?

3. On what basis do you dispute the estimate, other than trying to make fun of things you don't understand?

4. If evolution has been going on for 3.8 billion years, why is it hard to believe that there are 40 trillion life forms? You paint it is absurd but on what basis, except your ignorance? To answer that question, or make any sense out of your statement, you have to define what you mean by a life form. Do you mean a species or something else? If something else, what? Do you even know?

5. Logic would dictate that as evolution progresses, and new variations appear, each variation can evolve. Given 3.8 billion years of evolution, why is 40 trillion life forms, whatever that means, hard to accept? More to the point, on what basis do you ridicule it, except as an appeal to ignorance?

Can you answer any of the questions? Can you answer enough of the questions to turn your sarcasm into a real critique? If your past behavior is any guide, you cannot.

Don't you ever get tired of making claims that are so easily shot down?

[Guest Guest]

These Kearny atheists could have been on the OJ jury, they're that stupid. Wikipedia estimates there are 40 trillion life forms on the planet earth. Atheist "scientists" would have us believe they all evolved from something that crawled out of a puddle of primordal soup. 40 trillion life forms evolving with no help or direction, just blind evolution.

Come to think of it, I don't think the OJ jury would have bought it.

My, but aren't you clever.

In the first place, anyone can post on Wikipedia. Do you have a specific link to support your claim? WikiAnswers contains an entry stating that there are 10 billion life forms, which would mean that you are off by a factor of 40,000 but that link is also meaningless because it provides no source, method of estimation or anything else - just like you. In fact, the person who posted it spelled the word "currant" incorrectly. MSNBC has an article by Andrea Thompson stating that scientific estimates of the number of species on Earth range from 5 million to 100 million but that is also unsourced, and anyway it refers to a number of species currently living.

Second, maybe you can explain your reasoning. What does the number of "life forms" have to do with whether evolution is a fact? You would expect to see a lot of them.

What is the basis for the estimate of "40 trillion life forms"? Did someone count them? Now there's a story for the OJ jury.

And what is the definition of a life form? What are you even talking about? Do you know? Or did you just do what you usually do and repeat something that sounded like it supported your point - which you don't understand anyway.

You call other people stupid and then post a ridiculous claim that you don't back up, and expect other people to buy it. It wouldn't occur to you that they're only going to buy it if they're as stupid as you are.

[Guest Guest]

These Kearny atheists could have been on the OJ jury, they're that stupid. Wikipedia estimates there are 40 trillion life forms on the planet earth. Atheist "scientists" would have us believe they all evolved from something that crawled out of a puddle of primordal soup. 40 trillion life forms evolving with no help or direction, just blind evolution.

Come to think of it, I don't think the OJ jury would have bought it.

And you expect us to take your word for it? You must think we were on the OJ jury.