home
RSS
May 17th, 2012
04:36 AM ET

Belief Blog's Morning Speed Read for Thursday, May 17

By Laura Koran, CNN

Here's the Belief Blog’s morning rundown of the top faith-angle stories from around the United States and around the world. Click the headlines for the full stories.

From the Blog:

The campus of Ohio’s Franciscan University of Steubenville.

CNN: College drops health care plan over religious objections to new law
A Catholic college in Ohio has apparently become the nation’s first to drop its health care plan because it opposes parts of the federal health care law signed by President Barack Obama. The Franciscan University of Steubenville posted on its website last week that it is discontinuing its health care plan.

Tweet of the Day:

Belief on TV:

Enlightening Reads:

The Guardian: Lady Gaga denied permit for Indonesia concert after religious protests
Lady Gaga's show in Jakarta next month looks certain to be cancelled. The Indonesian authorities have refused to grant a permit for the concert on 3 June, citing security concerns following protests by conservative Muslim groups. "She's a vulgar singer," said Salim Alatas, from the Islam Defenders Front. "[She] wears only panties and a bra when she sings and she stated she is the envoy of the devil's child and that she will spread Satanic teaching."

Religion News Service: Church softball league calls a foul on bisexual pastor
The scene on Tuesday night couldn't have been more American — teams from the local churches, decked in matching T-shirts, faced each other on the softball field as their fellow congregants cheered from the bleachers. But in the last two weeks, this league of six church softball teams shrank to five when the pastors of three Baptist churches told one of the participating churches that their teams would no longer take the field against that church's team. The problem was not pine tar or steroids, it was the sexual orientation of the new pastor of St. John United Church of Christ.

The Houston Press: San Benito Teacher Replaced After Bizarre Classroom Rant About Jesus, Mary Magdalene, UFOs & The Apocalypse
A ninth-grade teacher at San Benito's Veterans Memorial High School has been replaced for the remainder of the year after her lesson plan went badly awry last Tuesday and her 12-minute rant was filmed by a student and uploaded to YouTube. Before the teacher was done, she told a roomful of alternately jeering and frightened public school students that Jesus Christ impregnated Mary Magdalene just before his crucifixion. Then she switched to Spanish and over the objections of her students, elaborated at great length on her beliefs.

The Belfast Telegraph: More Northern Ireland teenagers crossing religious divide to make friends
Teenagers are forging friendships across the religious divide in Northern Ireland as never before, according to new research published today. A survey of 16-year-olds reveals that just one in five (22%) has no friends from the other main tradition compared to one in three (33%) in 2003, when the annual study first got under way.

The Jewish Journal: L.A. rabbi, running for U.S. Senate, draws fire for anti-Islamic comments
A rabbi based in Southern California who is running for U.S. Senate has come under fire for anti-Islamic comments that were captured on video. In the video, Rabbi Nachum Shifren, who is known as the “Surfing Rabbi,” was seen telling a cheering audience in San Mateo, “I am an Islamophobe, and everything we need to know about Islam we learned on 9-11.”

Religion News Service: N.T. Wright asks: Have we gotten heaven all wrong?
The oft-cliched Christian notion of heaven - a blissful realm of harp-strumming angels - has remained a fixture of the faith for centuries. Even as arguments will go on as to who will or won't be "saved," surveys show that a vast majority Americans believe that after death their souls will ascend to some kind of celestial resting place. But scholars on the right and left increasingly say that comforting belief in an afterlife has no basis in the Bible and would have sounded bizarre to Jesus and his early followers.

Quote of the Day:

Where's the Church? The Church is suspiciously missing and we're looking forward to changing that. We need to get in this battle. This is a battle for human dignity. We should have been in this battle a long time ago and so this is a call to action. It's really a mission field for people of faith across the world.

Anti-bullying expert Paul Coughlin on why the religious community should get involved in anti-bullying efforts. Read more here.

Join the conversation…

CNN: My Take: What the Bible really says about homosexuality
Daniel A. Helminiak who was ordained a priest in Rome, is a theologian, psychotherapist and author of “What the Bible Really Says about homosexuality" and books on contemporary spirituality. He is a professor of psychology at the University of West Georgia.

- CNN's Laura Koran

Filed under: Uncategorized

soundoff (115 Responses)
  1. Chance

    @ Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son
    I've been debating with three others on this blog and the message got across because we have been going back and forward. Not sure how to help you out. The conversation is spread out in this blog. Basically I'm saying I believe in ID and it doesn't sit well with some people...

    May 23, 2012 at 11:23 pm |
  2. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things

    May 17, 2012 at 9:00 pm |
    • Jesus

      Prayer doesn’t not; you are such a LIAR. You have NO proof it changes anything! A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn't work and their children died. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested.

      An article in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the deaths of 172 children from families who relied upon faith healing from 1975 to 1995. They concluded that four out of five ill children, who died under the care of faith healers or being left to prayer only, would most likely have survived if they had received medical care.

      The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs!

      May 18, 2012 at 11:05 am |
  3. Chance

    @ momoya

    Your statement above is true about scientific theories and ID theories; we don't have all the answers either way. Disbelief is attached to both theories see what I mean. Both responses lead us to many questions so why does that exclude one from the other?

    May 17, 2012 at 8:14 pm |
    • momoya

      Science describes HOW not why.. Science describes the most accurate puzzle that can be assembled from the known facts.. Sure, the universe may have started differently the model we currently have, but the model we currently have makes the most EFFICIENT use of all the available data.. If you're putting together a puzzle, and all the pieces that fit together so far imply that the puzzle is a picture of horses, it's not like the rest of the pieces are going to make the puzzle an airplane hanger instead of just a glossy equine photo.

      May 17, 2012 at 8:48 pm |
    • Chance

      I agree; we have pieces to a puzzle and ID can make a case with the available pieces we have.

      May 17, 2012 at 8:53 pm |
    • momoya

      No, ID has no testable hypotheses.. Anybody can say that god bugabuoto did it or any other name.. It adds nothing to our current understanding of the data..

      Science uses the word "Theory" to describe the growing and changing body of knowledge.. Science changes and adapts and if the incoming data invalidates the old way of thinking then the theory changes to match the new knowledge.. Science uses specific words with precise meanings to assemble better ideas.. "Design" is a loaded word that increases confusion rather than clarifies..

      May 17, 2012 at 9:03 pm |
    • Chance

      @M
      ID does have a way to be dis-proven; that's why science has resorted to the mulit verse. Infinite possibility with infinite universes; which the hypothesis itself is considered more extreme than ID by conservative scientist. So the hypotheses argument is non existent; because if you can disprove fine tuning you can disprove ID...M-V hypothesis is about the last resort to remove ID...

      May 17, 2012 at 9:06 pm |
    • Chance

      Remember ID is founded on fine tuning that is they hypothesis...that a designer fined tuned the universe for us. If science can disprove the magnitude of extreme precision that was required for life on earth to exist ID has no strong case. Your making the hypothesis to be about the designer when the design is argument for the designer. The hypothesis is the design. We can validate if the universe had to be engineered for life. The multi verse is the counter answer to fine tuning because it states that out of infinite possibly and infinite universe it is no surprise we got lucky and ended up in the universe that worked. Just by the need to invent such a hypothesis validates the case for fine tuning. This Multi Verse hypothesis is very speculative and evidence needed to prove it is out of reach. Its untestable, MV hypothesis requires test that aren't possible.

      May 17, 2012 at 9:16 pm |
    • momoya

      Chance, ID proponents have not provided any testable hypotheses nor have they listed any falsifiable factors.. The multiverse theory is simply an educated guess based on what we know of this "leaf" of the universe, if indeed there is more to the cosmos than this universe.. We KNOW for a fact that 95% of the universe is invisible to us, so that implies that our universe is also part of another system of energy and matter.. The multi-verse theory has absolutely nothing to do with ID, because "design" can't be proven.. You're not saying that some things were designed and others weren't, you're saying that everything was designed because a few things seem very complex.. Nobody can come up with a way to test that..

      But science doesn't have any motives like religion/ID has.. It's just a neat idea.. Nobody is asking you to make laws or be bigoted towards alternative lifestyles because of it.. MV is just a nifty idea..

      But how would you suggest we disprove something that's not been suggested by the evidence?? You're stuck in a poor pattern of thinking here.. You think that complexity means design, but that's a bad assumption on your part.. Complexity is proof of all sorts of things, but unless we can work with "non-design" portions of the universe and compare them to "designed" portions of the universe, it's a moot point.. If everything is designed, then we have no idea what non-design even looks like.. If you grew up in a world that was entirely white, you'd not have any way to test whiteness just like you'd have no concept of what "white" was..

      May 17, 2012 at 9:21 pm |
    • Chance

      I like your response but you dismiss the evidence of ID as normal functions of the universe. This is your view based on hypothesis no greater than mine. If its so normal why is the hypothesis M-V needed?

      "But how would you suggest we disprove something that's not been suggested by the evidence?? You're stuck in a poor pattern of thinking here.. "

      again if evidence didn't suggest ID why make a educated guess of M-V; M-V was invented to remove ID...call it for what it is. Fine tuning is evidence and we have a universe of galaxies to measure our galaxies up to its peers...

      The idea of ID is that out of nothing came something; it's not a religious notion it's based on science. Your thinking is your vantage point. We have a universe of galaxies to measure Earth against. So your argument being in a all white world is flawed. I would ask you to open your mind not to agree with ID but see that science is not against it.

      May 17, 2012 at 9:49 pm |
    • momoya

      @Chance

      I'm not dismissing evidence.. There is no evidence.. Complexity is evidence of complexity NOT design.. "Design" is a loaded word and science doesn't use those because they don't help understanding.. The MV hypothesis isn't needed, it's just another option that seems to make a lot of sense based on what we know of this universe.

      MV provides us just one possible method out of a potential trillions and trillions of ideas.. We don't know, so it could be anything, including some designer dude.. The multiverse theory is implied by what we know, design isn't, but you can believe whichever you wish..

      I've never heard the idea that ID explains that nothing came from something.. So you're saying that the whole universe was NOT designed, but just our one planet?!?!?! That's bizarre.. How do you intend to go about making a testable hypothesis and proving your claim?

      Science isn't "against" ID, it just has no way to test ID.. Science isn't against the idea that a massive unicorn farted out the universe, they just recognize that there's no way to currently test that theory–exactly as there is no way to currently test ID.. Science deals with things that can be expressed in numbers to prove or falsify a plausible idea.. If you can't express what you intend in numbers, and show how a certain result would prove your theory correct or a certain result that would prove your theory wrong, then it's not science.. You can't blame science for something that isn't science.. That'd be like blaming the Holocaust on Mathematics or some equally asinine thing.

      May 17, 2012 at 10:00 pm |
    • Chance

      Your alright momoya; you have good points but you yourself claim "Science deals with things that can be expressed in numbers to prove or falsify a plausible idea.." The numbers tell us for Earth to have been afforded the opportunity at a shot of life improbable conditions where needed. You say "Complexity is evidence of complexity NOT design.. "Design" is a loaded word and science doesn't use those because they don't help understanding." the complexity points away from randomness and points to planned creation. That's my point that the mathematics of the universe point to a plan not random apparition thus pointing to a planned creation.

      May 17, 2012 at 10:23 pm |
    • Chance

      You say -->"ID explains that nothing came from something.. So you're saying that the whole universe was NOT designed, but just our one planet?!?!?! That's bizarre.. How do you intend to go about making a testable hypothesis and proving your claim?"

      You misunderstood me. Science tells at the beginning of the universe we had singularity; in other words nothing, science tells us from this singularity came everything, in other words out of nothing came everything. This is essentially the start of the big bang; nothing bizarre this is what scientist have built a case for...ID gives the answer to "how could nothing produce everything we know." Science responds with theories on top of theories with NO evidence to these theories to full circle.

      May 17, 2012 at 10:54 pm |
    • momoya

      @Chance

      You're not too bad yourself..

      The numbers really aren't all that impressive.. Every time you get dealt a hand of cards, the hand you end up with had massive odds against its forming, but there it is.. The sheer number of galaxies and stars and planets actually makes the reverse true; we would be extremely shocked if no planets had similar compositions.. The recent discovery of extremophiles makes it likely that life is all over the place on billions and billions and billions of planets or moons with any number of conditions similar or very different to ones we know of..

      Maybe for you, complexity points to "planned creation," just as for seasoned science the conditions of our universe points to a multiverse, but they're both just guesses.. (The reason MV theory is taking off is because the model of quantum mechanics points to multiple "layers" of existence.. The math says that these multiple layers must exist, and the "microscopic" multiple layers suggest that the universe itself is part of "macroscopic" multiple layers in a larger "bulk.")

      I agree with you that the universe does not appear to be "random," but that's just a feeling.. Our brains are machines that sort information into patterns.. We are puzzle solvers because that ability has served us in our survival (recognizing the signs of an illness, say).. Thus, to us, everything seems like a pattern to be decoded, but that doesn't mean that everything is.. This fact drives our scientific endeavors, but it doesn't mean we should assume certain qualities for a particular puzzle maker that may or may not exist and who may or may not be a who or what.. It's just too large an assumption.. It's unreasonable.. We don't know, and we have no way to test for "design.". If we ever come up with a way to test for "design" then science will be the first on the scene digging around all over the place–just like we've done with math, chemistry, and engineering and the rest of it.

      Out of the trillions and trillions of possibilities, we've talked about two possibilities: "Designer/God" and "Multiverse/Bulk" We don't even know how many possibilities there might be, but it would be stupid to assume either one without further evidence.. We've talked about the god hypothesis for a few thousand years, and it's had an effect on social dynamics but not on understanding the fundamental nature of the universe.. We use testable and verifiable methods for making useful things like computers and lasers and MRI machines.. Our current understanding of physics seems to imply that we only see a small "slice" of our own universe, and by looking into other "slices" of our universe (QM) it seems likely that our universe is itself a "slice" of a larger construct.. Nobody's asking anyone to assume anything, yet.. When someone can come up with methods of investigating a "designer" and characteristics about this "designer" then we'll be on it like white on rice.. Don't you worry. :)

      May 17, 2012 at 11:11 pm |
    • momoya

      @Chance

      I am combining our two threads with this reply, here.

      You need to pay attention.. I wasn't comparing the idea of unicorn fart with the idea of a designer.. I was telling you that there's no way to test for either theory.. The ideas are equally untestable.. Don't put words in my mouth..

      I'm not saying that conditions on earth are common.. I'm sure that most planets and moons are not like the earth, but we simply don't have enough data yet to know how many earth-like planets there are.. And, with every passing day, it seems life shows us just how resilient it is.. We could have life on several moons in our own solar system because of the nature of extremophiles.. There might even be water-based life on some of our many moons.. If we find life on Europa or traces on Mars or Io, then it's probably all over the place..

      When I say that we don't have a way to measure the fine-tuning, what I mean is that we simply don't know how many universes there might be.. Until we can look at a ratio of "life-possible universes" to "non-life-possible universes" then we don't know if ours is finely-tuned or not.. And more importantly, you're missing the bigger picture: We don't know if there is any other way the forces can split in a "big-bang" inflation.. Perhaps every time you inflate a dense point of energy you get the same "fine-tuning.". What if every time a big bang occurs, the same "fine-tuning" is the result.. That's what happens when we split an atom, right?? It sets up a very predictable chain of events.. If every inflation of every dense energy point turns out the same qualities as are in this universe, would that really be that big of a shock??

      Your main problem is that you can't get past your own wording.. When you use loaded terms like "fine-tuning," you're already assuming a "tuner," that you have no business assuming.. You have go to science with an att.itude of humility-to learn.. You can't approach science with the att.itude that there must be some tuner-dude or designer-robot already in mind.. That's not science.. That's myth building.. Decide which one you want to do, but don't mix them.. That's only going to confound you while everyone else moves on ahead.

      May 17, 2012 at 11:29 pm |
    • momoya

      @Chance

      One final note on "fine-tuning.". Most stars we can observe are "red-dwarfs.". (I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure). Anyway, these stars burn for a fairly long time, giving the planets that orbit them plenty of time to evolve life, if it does happen occasionally as we think it might–some of those "life-giving" chemicals sure do like to form up when they can!!. On these planets, the plants would have leaves that are almost completely black and they would be very large.. On such a planet, the argument for design would look completely different, yes?. You'd be saying, "If our sun weren't so reddish-orange, and if our planet weren't so scalding hot, (or if it weren't so freezing cold), and if our planet wasn't snuggled up right next to our sun, why there'd be no life at all!! A designer must have given us this perfect orange-red sun and put us right next to it and made our leaves so black and large..... " You get the idea.. It's a matter of perspective, I often find.

      May 17, 2012 at 11:36 pm |
    • momoya

      @Chance

      Watch this vid.. This is how scientists talk.. You need something to measure, and you need to know (from previous data from previous experiments) what that measurement means and if there's any way your measurement could be off (and by how much and how often) and what measurements might confuse things more and what measurements are accurate and how accurate..

      There's a lot of measuring and second-guessing going on, and you don't declare an idea valid that you and others have not totally tried to debunk a couple of thousand times and been unable to do it, so it must mean________.
      .
      .

      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iimom5WPrSA&w=640&h=390]

      May 17, 2012 at 11:49 pm |
    • Chance

      For some reason all my post are not registering...Hopefully in pieces it will work.

      In general my belief in ID is founded on the laws of the Universe. The very laws that explain things that in the past people would answer “only God knows why”, such as our solar systems planets being on the same plane and the Earth being in the Habitual zone. We have theories based on physics that explain the reason and function of planetary alignment among other things that were once only attributed to the hand of God. The laws and the precision of the Universe adhering to them for me point to a planned creation. In other words a designer brought to existence physics along with the elements needed for our Universe.

      May 21, 2012 at 5:36 pm |
    • Chance

      this blog is not working with me...I'll have to catch you guys on another post...it will not accept long post...
      This is my main point against the scientific method argument; it is consensus in the scientific community that most of our Universe is unseen. In other words we haven’t figured out how to prove its existence; for example dark matter. So science brings them into existence with theories, some testable and others we have no means of testing. If we can’t see most of the creation through scientific methods, how could we possibly see the creator under a microscope? I respect your skepticism; you have your point of view and I have mine. Nor through science or religion do we have all the answers to the origin of the Universe or how mankind was brought to existence.

      May 21, 2012 at 5:48 pm |
    • Chance

      As far as the Higgs B I understand billions of dollars have been put into looking for it and no major breakthrough yet. Some scientists have given up on it but the search continues because the HB is important and if its there it will hopefully open things up.

      May 21, 2012 at 5:49 pm |
    • Chance

      Let me explain "fine tuning"; in general it refers to the delicate/complex calculations required of the physical constants that give life an opportunity to rise. For example let’s look at the rate of expansion of the Universe. If the expansion rate had been higher than it is today, then matter would have spread too thinly and the galaxies could not have assembled themselves.

      May 21, 2012 at 5:50 pm |
    • Chance

      . On the other end of the scale, if expansion had been to slow the Universe would have collapsed back on itself before the stars, planets and humans had time to develop. It is a very narrow range of values around our current rate of expansion that a Universe with galaxies and stars and planets can form and even more specific range of values for human life to have been given a chance at developing. The mathematics tells us that the vast majority of possible Universes are sterile, specifically to life as we know it.

      May 21, 2012 at 5:51 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @Chance

      Here's the thing. An appearance of design does not equal design. Complexity does not imply design, it just means that the thing is complex.

      May 21, 2012 at 5:52 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      Also you said something very important, "life as we know it". That does not mean it is the only kind of life, or that life is unable to form under other conditions.

      May 21, 2012 at 5:54 pm |
    • Chance

      The complexity for me is the key, to many things went our way for me to dismiss a planned creation.

      May 21, 2012 at 5:57 pm |
    • Chance

      Yes! thats right; as we know it; not a theory but as we know it. Not a hope, not a chance but as we know it and see it.

      May 21, 2012 at 5:59 pm |
    • Chance

      This is my main point against the scientific method argument; it is consensus in the scientific community that most of our Universe is unseen. In other words we haven’t figured out how to prove its existence; for example dark matter. So science brings them into existence with theories, some testable and others we have no means of testing. If we can’t see most of the creation through scientific methods ie dark energy, how could we possibly see the creator under a microscope?

      May 21, 2012 at 6:04 pm |
    • Chance

      I respect your skepticism; you have your point of view and I have mine. Nor through science or philosophy or religion do we have all the answers to the origin of the Universe or how mankind was brought to existence.

      May 21, 2012 at 6:05 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @Chance

      And that's the difference between us. You look at natural complexity and jump straight to ID, then to god. I look at complexity and thinik "What could explain this, and how can we test that." We have come up with hypothesis for this, and have tested those hypothesis, and found them to be not only accurate, but useful in practical terms. You deal in a maybe, and I deal in what is demonstrable.

      May 21, 2012 at 8:20 pm |
    • Chance

      @ HG
      At the moment you deal with the theoretical and hope someday to be demonstrable. Remember somethings will never be able to be recreated and other theories have little ways to currently test them and some hypothesis are untestable.

      May 22, 2012 at 10:35 am |
    • Chance

      @HG furthermore the "maybe" you claim I believe in is based on the "demonstrable" complexity for the origin of the Universe to give human life a chance.

      May 22, 2012 at 1:12 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @Chance

      The maybe that you deal with is that some higher being created the universe. It's a maybe because there is no evidence of such a being, and complexity is not evidence of design, no matter how much you might like it to be.

      May 22, 2012 at 4:13 pm |
    • Chance

      @HG no matter how much you avoid the evidence of a planned creation its there. You have plethora of theories to comfort you though.

      May 23, 2012 at 12:49 am |
    • Chance

      As much as it pains you HG the complexity does point to a planned creation

      May 23, 2012 at 12:51 am |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @Chance

      This is obviously not going to get anywhere. You take science, then find a place to inject your god without reason or evidence, instead of actually being intellectually honest you take the bits of evidence you like and say "See goddidit". Planned creation? Then why is it that the arctic cod and the Notothenoids have similar proteins to prevent the freezing of their blood, yet they are indeed different? What would be the point of two distinct but similar proteins that do the exact same thing? Like I said before, what would a non-designed world look like? If this one is created, who created it? How can you demonstrate an intelligence behind creation?
      If life was designed, then it is a poor design.

      May 23, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
    • Chance

      @HG You say if "If life was designed, then it is a poor design."
      Obviously life was intended to be finite; just as evidence suggest this universe is finite. Poor design? we are apex on the planet...

      May 23, 2012 at 3:57 pm |
    • Chance

      Let's agree to say God is real for a moment to debate your comment "why is it that the arctic cod and the Notothenoids have similar proteins to prevent the freezing of their blood, yet they are indeed different? God doesn't answer to you or me for approval of design. Your debating the design without knowing the purpose. How could we understand the designer if we cant fathom the creation?

      May 23, 2012 at 4:01 pm |
    • Chance

      In general my belief in ID is founded on the laws of the Universe. This includes all evidence with no exclusion!!! The very laws that explain things that in the past people would answer “only God knows why”, such as our solar systems planets being on the same plane and the Earth being in the Habitual zone. We have theories based on physics that explain the reason and function of planetary alignment among other things that were once only attributed to the blind saying "God did it". The laws and the precision of the Universe adhering to them for me point to a planned creation. In other words a designer brought to existence physics along with the elements needed for our Universe. Now we can see the way "God did it" without blind assumptions. Try again HG...

      May 23, 2012 at 4:06 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @Chance

      Apex? Then why is it that a gene that in other animals synthesises vitamin C for them, is flawed in human beings. Exact same gene (pointing to common anscestry) but a small flaw that makes it useless. We aren't the apex of anything except the ability to think and reason. We are not faster or stronger than most animals our size, and even our eyes are incredibly flawed compared to other animals.
      In answer to the cod thing, there is no difference in function between the two proteins. They are different proteins with the exact same function. How is that intellegent?
      Like I said earlier, this is going to get nowhere. You look at the way things are, and jump straight to the conclusion of "goddidit". Sorry but that doesn't fly when it comes to logic, or science. Believe what you want, but don't take the dishonest path of saying that existence and complexity just point toward an intelligent designer, because it doesn't.

      May 23, 2012 at 4:13 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      You're just going with the "god of the gaps" mentality. God used to be put in here, now that we know the real mechanism you stick god somewhere else. It is a flawed system, and it is illogical. There is no evidence of A god, let alone YOUR god.

      May 23, 2012 at 4:16 pm |
    • Chance

      HG well if your think your theories are better have at it, by the way your theories have no evidence to bring them to full circle. So stop with the you don't have no evidence like you have all the evidence. Get real HG; complexity shows purpose and your complaint about vitamin C reminds me of a child crying "no fair"...In all the Universe nothing living is more remarkable than us.

      May 23, 2012 at 11:13 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I tried like h3ll to figure out your posts, Chance, dear, but they're not even close to being decipherable. Care to translate?

      May 23, 2012 at 11:16 pm |
    • Chance

      "You're just going with the "god of the gaps" mentality." is your statement. I say your just going with the "theories of the gaps" that have no evidence. Remember top scientist say if you don't accept the M-Theory which has no evidence and is impossible to prove, your only option is God. You act like you have all the evidence. HG I don't claim to have all the answers no religion, philosophy or science theory has all the answers. What I'm saying is complexity points to purpose; mathematically our universe has purpose.

      May 23, 2012 at 11:19 pm |
    • Chance

      @ Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son
      I've been debating with three others on this blog and the message got across because we have been going back and forward. Not sure how to help you out. The conversation is spread out in this blog. Basically I'm saying I believe in ID and it doesn't sit well with some people...

      May 23, 2012 at 11:32 pm |
  4. Chance

    HG like you and MOMOYA said I don't know is acceptable in science.

    Why is it not acceptable in ID?

    May 17, 2012 at 8:08 pm |
    • momoya

      Because ID isn't a science.. ID is a statement.. When ID has some testable hypotheses that can be falsified or verified, science will take a look.. Simply saying that big magic sky daddy spoke a spell doesn't help science at all.. If muttering "goddidit" helped experiments give more consistent results or provided them in half the time, every scientist would be an IDer..

      So far, the ID folks haven't provided any hypotheses that are falsifiable or testable.. You can't do science if there's nothing to test or discover.. If there's nothing to test, there's no science that can be done.

      May 17, 2012 at 8:51 pm |
    • Chance

      ID does have a way to be dis-proven; that's why science has resorted to the mulit verse. Infinite possibility with infinite universes; which the hypothesis itself is considered more extreme than ID by some. So the hypotheses argument is non existent; because if you can disprove fine tuning you can disprove ID...M-V hypothesis is about the last resort to remove ID...

      May 17, 2012 at 8:57 pm |
    • momoya

      How can we test to see if a "designer" "fine-tuned" the universe?? Any ideas?

      The "extreme precision" you mention isn't testable either.. Imagine a puddle thinking, "Wow, look at the shape of this hole!!! It's perfect!! it was "fine-tuned" for me and me alone!". No, the puddle formed itself into the shape of the hole.. Likewise, life in this universe could only work if it worked within this universe.. Until we can figure out how universes are formed, we won't know if there's any sort of "tuning" involved..

      No, we can't "validate if the universe had been engineered for life.". That's silly.

      The MV theory is just one theory that would account for some universes being dead and some being filled with life and some pretty full of life, and some with just a little bit of life–like ours.. It's just one possibility out of billions that might be true.. You say it could be design, and it might be, we just don't know.. It could also be MV, we just don't know.. When people start demanding that you live your life in a certain way over the MV theory then you can use all the arguments against them that atheists use against god and you'll be in the right.

      May 17, 2012 at 9:28 pm |
    • Chance

      You say -–> "Science isn't against the idea that a massive unicorn farted out the universe, they just recognize that there's no way to currently test that theory–exactly as there is no way to currently test ID.."

      above is not the same idea behind ID its a mere attempt to disservice the complexity of the universe and the incredible odds of intelligent life on Earth.

      Again you say -–>"The "extreme precision" you mention isn't testable either.. Imagine a puddle thinking, "Wow, look at the shape of this hole!!! It's perfect!! it was "fine-tuned" for me and me alone!". No, the puddle formed itself into the shape of the hole.. Likewise, life in this universe could only work if it worked within this universe.. Until we can figure out how universes are formed, we won't know if there's any sort of "tuning" involved.. "

      This is the same type of irrational thinking trying to disservice the precision needed to just give life a chance on Earth. You say we don't have means to measure the fine tuning that's also incorrect. We have good theory in place the Big Bang that give a look at what the universe was in the beginning. Thus we can model the events that needed to take place to get to where we are now; the modeling show that no room for error is given to produce Earth as we know it today. Again your idea of being unable to measure scientifically fine tuning is wrong.

      May 17, 2012 at 10:37 pm |
    • momoya

      See the other thread for my reply.. I've comgined the two..

      May 17, 2012 at 11:37 pm |
  5. A Serpent's Thought

    Societal sicknesses considered. Condom centralities rendered. Hate fills the commoners' needs. Dwell on, dwell! I hate you and you can hate me! It's a position of being free. Cling to one's hatred of religion even though the religious do not hate the abnormal Actors but rather they hate the abnormalisms' Actor-actions! To make a short story a bit longer;- the tallywaggles do their wiggling ways in plain sights with hardly no remorse. Enjoy your Life you bigots against religion and take cares to ever be an abnormality Actor of perverted actions! Love God or hate God for it makes no difference to God! Only the hate for bigoted mankind is of all peoples' doing! God knows all truths! Even the bad truths!

    May 17, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
  6. Pretty Much Sums you all Up

    "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." Psalm 14:1

    May 17, 2012 at 9:39 am |
    • LMAO!!

      I do find it comical that the Bible mentions atheists and atheism yet they somehow think their beliefs are new and enlightened. They can't stand it when the good book references them.

      May 17, 2012 at 9:40 am |
    • blooddump

      You mean the retarded book full of ancient fairy tales that gullible adults believe in. All religion is rife with contradictions and lies. What a joke. You people are so fvcking stupid. No god, watching your every move, or listening to your useless prayers.

      May 17, 2012 at 9:49 am |
    • Yikes

      Well if blooddump didn't prove that verse to be true then I don't know what does!

      May 17, 2012 at 10:07 am |
    • ME II

      "new" no
      "enlightened" yes

      May 17, 2012 at 10:14 am |
    • blooddump

      There is just no point in debating people who have had lies and stupidity engrained in them from an early age. Science disproves almost all religious mumbo jumbo, yet with all the evidence in the world religious types still try to squirm around it with some b.s. circular reasoning or an out right idiotic retort like " well you haven't received the spirit of god", which is utterly insane. Physics and science can be proven over and over. They are truths. All religion is subjective and you must be indoctrinated into it. Religion is so full of holes, out right lies and contradictions, and that is true.

      May 17, 2012 at 10:41 am |
    • TruthPrevails :-)

      All quoting buybull scripture proves is the lack of ability to think for yourself.

      May 17, 2012 at 10:46 am |
    • HeavenSent

      blooddump, actually, science is proving Jesus' wisdom to be true. True Science has always been in harmony with Jesus. You just don't want to accept it because you refuse to accept responsibility for your thoughts, words, actions and sins in life. How convenient! Ugh.

      May 17, 2012 at 11:03 am |
    • momoya

      Yes, but that's coming from a book that describes dragons, co.ckatrices, talking snakes and donkeys, mass zombie outbreaks, and a god who's so stupid he has to continually adjust his "perfect" plan by finding loopholes so that he can sacrifice himself to himself to appease himself so that he doesn't torture more than 99.999% of his creation in a never-ending torture pit he made for his own enjoyment.

      May 17, 2012 at 11:11 am |
    • youth in asia

      Hellsent,

      That is absolutely not true in any sense. Science contradicts religion in every facet. For you to believe what you just posted goes to show the amount of ignorance religion has drilled into you. I accept responsibility for all I do and say, on the contrary, religion blames everyone else, or the devil, or not having faith...the list goes on and on. Your flat out wrong.

      May 17, 2012 at 11:14 am |
    • HeavenSent

      youth in asia, science is in agreement with Jesus on the issues they are just finding out .. for example ... stating that sperm + sperm does not produce, neither does egg(s) + egg(s) does not produce.

      May 17, 2012 at 11:24 am |
    • youth in asia

      Lol, that is not proof! That's basic logic you dipsh•t. That has nothing to do with "Jesus" and shows no correlation between science and religion. Your fvcking delusional.

      May 17, 2012 at 11:34 am |
    • sam stone

      The fools are the ones who take edited, translated bronze age hearsay and preach that it is the word of god.

      May 17, 2012 at 11:59 am |
    • The Appropriate Quotation

      "It is always best to recognize the insanity of total morons who believe that the truth only comes from ancient peasant superstitions from the Middle East"

      May 17, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
    • Chance

      @youth of

      You say science has ruled out religion, in other words God is mythical. What science do you have that is the end all say all about God? If we go to the “Big Bang” science tells the origin of the universe starts out in singularity ie nothing. So in other words out of nothing came something. If there was nothing how did everything begin? This question leads us to two solutions a) supernatural event ie intelligent designer or b) further theories. So science again theorizes and stacks theories on top of theories till we have the “many worlds” theory. This hypothesis is extreme and goes against a rule in science the Ockham’s Razor, which explains we should not multiply causes beyond what is necessary to explain effect. The universe we know aligns with intelligent design “out of nothing came something” ie the Big Bang; to refute intelligent design we must bring to life an infinite number of universe and infinite number of possibilities. You see to disservice the fine tuning of the universe that made possible our intelligent life requires ideas that are highly improbable and extreme in nature. You see science must bring to life new theories to negate the improbable fine tuning we observe in the universe. Yes science has evidence to begin theories but it doesn’t have the prof to bring theories to full circle and at times no way of examining theories because of their extreme nature. I enjoy science and especially to keep up with the new findings that come our way but to say science killed the idea of God is misleading.

      May 17, 2012 at 3:40 pm |
    • Chance

      @ youth

      To be clear the prof of an intelligent designer is in the fact of improbable fine tuning that me and you enjoy that allow us to live. I'm not talking about religion I'm talking about science. Science that has evidence to hold up a theory like the Big Bang; not science that is extreme and unproven. Science is not the enemy of God (the intelligent designer).

      May 17, 2012 at 3:51 pm |
    • ME II

      "improbable fine tuning "
      improbable, really? and you know the probability of the alternatives happening?

      May 17, 2012 at 4:00 pm |
    • Chance

      @ME

      Yes, through science we know the conditions that allowed life a chance where extremely fined tuned. The odds of the right ratios of gravity and so on are calculated as extremely unlikely to happen by chance. Even though these condition gave life a chance they didn't guarantee life. The odds of life let alone intelligent life are also extreme, science tells us this as well. That's why a hypothesis as extreme as a multi verse is needed to refute the highly improbable fine tuning we live in. We need a theory so great that we need room to allow for every possible universe to exist. You bring up an excellent point; what are the chances of a multi verse? Who knows the idea of believing in a multi-verse is extreme. To test such a hypothesis science doesn't have the means to verify everything we would need to...

      May 17, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
    • Chance

      @ ME
      Further more to believe in a multi verse with the evidence and the knowledge of the cosmos we have today some consider more extreme than the idea of a intelligent designer. Science is great; hopefully we can get a clear picture of our theories in place with the different upcoming space missions.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chance,
      "The odds of the right ratios of gravity and so on are calculated as extremely unlikely to happen by chance."
      Only if you as.sume that all ratios are equally likely, which is not known, because we don't know exactly what caused the current ratios to be what they are.

      Science does not "know" what the odds are of life occuring, becuase it does not know how exactly it did occur or what the alternatives are and the odds for them.

      The odds of rolling a 2 on a six-side die is 1 in 6, but how do you calculate the odds of rolling a 2 if you don't know how many sides there are or whether all sides are equal. Not to mention whether or not 2 is the only value that works.

      May 17, 2012 at 4:55 pm |
    • Chance

      @ ME

      You refute odds and say we don't have a clue through science the probability of life and further more the reason/occurrence of why we have life but your trying to build a argument against the idea of an intelligent designer through science. How are you helping your argument? Your diminishing science...your coming across as saying all we have is speculation.

      May 17, 2012 at 5:09 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chance,
      In science, "I don't know" is not a crime. It is an honest answer.

      May 17, 2012 at 5:18 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chance,
      That being said, there are promising hypotheses that are being investigated such as, an 'RNA world' and 'metabolism first', but nothing is yet definitive and speculation is not the right answer.

      Religion claims to have all the answers, science does not.

      May 17, 2012 at 5:22 pm |
    • Chance

      I'm not sure of what religion your talking about that claims to have all the answers to the universe.

      Further more I totally agree science doesn't have all the answers; that was my point. I also agree science doesn't claim to have all the answers; but people still are saying it killed God like science has it all figured out. In no way does it kill the idea of GOD that was my main point. I cant say it any better than you "nothing is yet definitive and speculation is not the right answer". Hopefully science can speed along and clear things up. Its funny how people say God is running out of places to hide but we haven't even scratched the surface of the secrets of the universe. Science isn't the enemy of the intelligent designer belief. We sure have speculated a lot but like you said speculation is not the right answer.

      One little nugget for you:

      you say "we don't know exactly what caused the current ratios to be what they are"; I can agree with that but we do have an idea of what they had to have been through modeling the Big Bang, yes it is theoretical but we come up with the magnitude of precision needed to give life a chance which results in us being able to quantify the probability of these conditions formulating to support life. Either way if you believe this little blue planet we live on is insignificant and there are plenty others out there is speculation. Based on what we do know this little blue planet was befitted by extreme precision; helping the argument of an intelligent designer.

      May 17, 2012 at 5:40 pm |
    • Chance

      @ ME
      your alright; its good to have a discussion civilly and be able to agree to disagree. No one has all the answers to how this awesome universe got started and what force started it.

      May 17, 2012 at 5:46 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chance,
      "Based on what we do know this little blue planet was befitted by extreme precision; helping the argument of an intelligent designer."
      I disagree, lack of scientific knowledge does not increase the argument for an intelligent designer, that's a false dichotomy fallacy. You misunderstand me, what I'm saying is that your probability calculations are incorrect and therefore cannot, currently, support you hypothesis. In other words, the fact that we don't know how the universe formed or how life first began is *not* evidence supporting an intelligent designer, just as not understanding electricity and lightening 1000 years ago was not evidence for an intelligent designer.
      There is no scientific evidence for an I.D.

      May 17, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
    • Chance

      @ME
      I'll if you say no science befits intelligent design then you must agree no science refutes intelligent design. Or am I wrong?

      May 17, 2012 at 6:09 pm |
    • Chance

      I will disagree though about scientific evidence even top scientist like Stuart Clark present the possibility for God lies in the ideas of a find tuned universe. We know this universe is fined tuned for life ie we exist; we through the lens of science speculate that this planet isn't special but have yet to prove it. Science is about facts; yes our knowledge is limited but not abysmal; based on what we know this place is special.

      May 17, 2012 at 6:17 pm |
    • ME II

      Correct, there is no scientific evidence that God, or an ID, does not exist.

      Although, inferentially one might hypothesize that as our knowledge of the universe grows the probability, of god(s) being necessary, is reduced. But with the as.sumption that we will never know everything, it that probability may approach, but will never reach zero.
      In other words, as unlikely as god(s) may be or get, we can never absolutely say that god(s) don't/didn't exist.

      May 17, 2012 at 6:25 pm |
    • ME II

      "We know this universe is fined tuned for life ie we exist; "

      Again, I disagree. First, "fine tuned" implies a guided selection, which is not a supported even if this universe is highly improbable. High improbability does not necessarily mean it was designed, just unlikely. Second, as I said before, we don't know the probabilities therefore don't know how "tuned" it is. Perhaps, given the conditions prior to the big bang, if that is what occurred, the current gravitation ratios are the only possible outcome. Third, given how little life has been found, claiming it is fine tuned "for life" is quite a stretch. Yes, that puts you in a catch 22 position: if it was fine tuned for life, why isn't there more life, but if it's not fine tuned what need is there for a tuner? Difficult position...

      May 17, 2012 at 6:39 pm |
    • ME II

      given how little life has been found: only on this one planet so far, when most of the universe is nearly empty.

      May 17, 2012 at 6:44 pm |
    • Chance

      @ ME

      I'll give you this you have a stronger belief in the theoris of science then some believers of God. You admit science doesn't know the origins of the universe but whole heartily believe God isn't the force behind creation. You don't claim Science rules out God and affirm science will probably never rule him out. You claim I'm in a catch 22 if I believe this universe was fine tuned for life; that's not the case. Your rebuttal is actually a strength of intelligent design. Yes the universe was fined tuned for use; fine tuned for Earth. That's the point of an intelligent design that it was made specifically for us. That's why intelligent life hasn't been discovered outside of Earth.

      May 17, 2012 at 7:01 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @Chance

      So I take it you don't believe in intelligent life anywhere besides earth. Why do you think it is impossible? Why create an entire universe if it is supposed to be fine tuned for only us? Why not just create our solar system or even why not create the earth with the sun orbiting us? Why bother with the rest of the universe in that case? Why attribute a supernatural cause for the universe just because we don't know the actual cause?

      May 17, 2012 at 7:05 pm |
    • Chance

      @ ME

      You see your ideas the universe not being "fine tuned" are actually positives for the claim of intelligent design.

      May 17, 2012 at 7:11 pm |
    • Chance

      Hello HG,

      I don't claim to know all the answers but I aim to refute the notion science is the enemy of God. I like science. Your statement is more of a attack on God and really I don't know if other life is out there it would be cool to meet other intelligent life and get their point of view.

      May 17, 2012 at 7:18 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @Chance

      I was making no attacks against "god". I was merely addressing what you wrote, and posing questions to you.

      May 17, 2012 at 7:19 pm |
    • Chance

      My bad HG; well to answer the question I most liked why not just create our solar system. This is pure speculation but I would say the intelligent designer knew we would advance beyond our solar system; speaking on investigative grounds. Plus if we are to believe in ID why would the ID not captivate us with the beauty of the universe.

      May 17, 2012 at 7:27 pm |
    • momoya

      The answer "We don't know" is always better than the answer "goddidit.". When you say that goddidit, all that does is add MORE questions about this god fellow and what he does and doesn't do and why.. To say, "We don't know" is a better answer..

      Why did a small point of energy inflate in a continuing expansion that IS our universe? We don't know.
      How did life begin and was it on this planet or another place? "We don't know.
      Does any god at all exist? "We don't know/"
      What is the default stance when a thing/being/concept can't be tested for its veracity? Disbelief–because we don't know.

      See how that works?

      May 17, 2012 at 7:37 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @Chance

      And yet even stating that there is an intelligent designer is pure speculation. Omniscience in a supernatural creator also brings up a whole host of other questions depending on the creator that you think is there. ID is merely a philosophical thought with no real evidence behind it.

      May 17, 2012 at 7:40 pm |
    • Chance

      Put this in the wrong thread...

      HG like you and MOMOYA said I don't know is acceptable in science.

      Why is it not acceptable in ID?

      May 17, 2012 at 8:08 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @Chance

      Because you're already going with a presupposition of "there is an intelligent designer". This is not acceptable scientifically, because no one has yet come up with a way of testing for a designer. The untestability of the hypothesis makes it completely invalid in science. The first step would be proving a designer, then "I don't know" when it comes to the questions about that designer would become valid. You can't start out with a mystery and answer questions about it with even more mysteries.

      May 17, 2012 at 8:12 pm |
    • Chance

      Sorry wrong thread again....

      @ momoya

      Your statement above is true about scientific theories and ID theories; we don't have all the answers either way. Disbelief is attached to both theories see what I mean. Both responses lead us to many questions so why does that exclude one from the other?

      May 17, 2012 at 8:14 pm |
    • Chance

      @ HG
      "You can't start out with a mystery and answer questions about it with even more mysteries." is your rebuttal to ID. HG this is being narrow minded. Do you know scientific theories of the universe are stacked on upon theories upon theories? leaving us with mystery after mystery. We have some extreme theories that we will never be able to fully test; science will not allow us. Why do scientific theories get a pass if it too creates exponential questions?

      May 17, 2012 at 8:25 pm |
    • Chance

      @HG To be clear the prof of an intelligent designer is in the fact of improbable fine tuning that me and you enjoy that allow us to live. I'm not talking about religion I'm talking about science. Science that has evidence to hold up a theory like the Big Bang; not science that is extreme and unproven. Science is not the enemy of God (the intelligent designer).

      May 17, 2012 at 8:27 pm |
    • Chance

      @HG
      I say to you what evidence do we have that disproves fine tuning? The fact that you have to resort to extreme unproven theories is positive for the case of ID.

      May 17, 2012 at 8:30 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @Chance

      A scientific theory is based on a testable hypothesis. The hypothesis is tested thoroughly with the best minds and equipment available at the time. That is what makes scientific theories valid. How is ID in any way scientific? Your hypothesis is that there is an Intelligent Designer, so how will you test this objectively? What is the methods used for this? When a hypothesis moves on to become a theory, it has predictable results based on natural laws that we observe daily. How exactly is this a mystery? You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding on what a scientific theory is.
      The word theory is used much to loosely outside of the scientific community, mostly because of a misunderstanding of the word when applied to science.

      May 17, 2012 at 8:31 pm |
    • Chance

      @HawaiiGuest
      Your ignoring the evidence I'm giving you...prof of an intelligent designer is in the fact of improbable fine tuning that me and you enjoy that allow us to live. I'm not talking about religion I'm talking about science. Science that has evidence to hold up a theory like the Big Bang; not science that is extreme and unproven. The evidence of ID is in the magnitude of the extreme fine tuning that gave life a chance. That from nothing came something.

      May 17, 2012 at 8:37 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chance,
      "That's the point of an intelligent design that it was made specifically for us. That's why intelligent life hasn't been discovered outside of Earth."
      So, it's not fine tuned for life anymore, just life on Earth?
      What happens when life is discovered on Ti.tan or A. Centari?
      That is sometimes called 'moving the goal post'.

      May 17, 2012 at 9:04 pm |
    • Chance

      @ME II

      If life is discovered out side of Earth then the case for ID "just for Earth" is shot. This is a big if @ ME II; but scientifically not out of the realm of possibility. Like scientific theories its back to the drawing board but this time ID wouldn't be the same, unless that intelligent life had more answers to complement ID...We are speculating into sci-fi stuff but as it stands ID stands strong.

      @ ME II you claim we have no way of knowing the odds of life being here on Earth is not being truthful. Calculation have been made through modeling how many galaxies are in the universe and the odds of life calculated from those numbers; yes its theoretical but because it helps my position you ignore it @ ME II.

      May 17, 2012 at 9:25 pm |
    • momoya

      Chance,

      Even if "fine-tuning" were proved, it wouldn't prove a designer, it would prove fine-tuning.. Let's say that you and I somehow prove fine-tuning.. How would we know whether it was due to a cold, non-thinking gear-like mechanism or a personal, caring "designer?". You see, even if we take fine-tuning for granted, it doesn't get us anywhere meaningful.. Science attempts to work with as many known factors as possible and test just a few unknowns.. You want for science to work with all unknowns: designer, fine-tuning, intelligent-design.. As far as science is concerned, you might as well be attempting to work with fulijd, nwarghpe, and wihofnd.. Do you see?

      May 17, 2012 at 9:33 pm |
    • Chance

      @ momoya
      yes i agree if fine tuning was proved it wouldn't prove God; but it would strengthen the ID position. Yes fine tuning would not be the end all tell all for skeptics. Still ID stands in good position despite the scientific method argument; when all the evidence is on the table and all the excuses put aside ID is very possible.

      May 17, 2012 at 10:13 pm |
    • momoya

      The problem is that "fine-tuning" is already assuming way too much to be useful as a primary hypothesis.. You're assuming a "tuner" exists.. You can't do that.. We have to say, "We don't know what caused the conditions to be as they are, let's look and do experiments.". You can't say, "Well, there must be a tuning mechanism, so let's all hunt for it.". That's not science; that's a description of what you want to find.

      The same problem with ID.. It assumes way too much at the outset.. If you think ID "stands in good position" then set about proving it.. What are your hypotheses and how will you test for verifiable evidence and what will that evidence look like and how will it definitively prove both a "design" and a "designer?"

      I really don't want to continue to discuss it in this thread.. Let's stay on the main one with just you and me.

      May 17, 2012 at 11:57 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      The entire case for ID is summed up by irreducable complexity as defined by Beehee. However, his definition would put everything under the IC heading, and was made to lead to ID. To really run the probability, first you must take an organism, and know what it looks like when it is designed and undesigned, then you can calculate probability. The thing is, that given 3.5 billion years of natural selection, fine tuning seems almost a given, at least from a certain perspective. You must also look at what allows for life. The distance of earth from the sun, and the composition of elements allowed merely for carbon based organisms, but this in no way discounts other life based on a different element. Everything that happens in our universe that we have observed so far is able to be explained through purely natural means and laws. To say something may be more probable does not make it true.
      So first off, what would a universe without intelligent design look like? Without that contrast you cannot even begin to say it is more likely. I can say with certainty that there are many things that, if designed, could be designed better in this world, and since it is not designed to an optimum level says that either A) It wasn't designed or B) The designer is flawed.

      May 18, 2012 at 12:06 am |
    • ME II

      @Chance,
      "you claim we have no way of knowing the odds of life..."
      Not "no way of knowing" just that we don't know them currently.

      "Calculation have been made through modeling how many galaxies are in the universe and the odds of life calculated from those numbers; yes its theoretical but because it helps my position you ignore it"

      First, I don't think it helps your position. No matter how unlikely life actually is, in order to claim evidence for your position, I think, you would need to either 1) eliminate all other possibilities or 2) identify the actual probalities for all alternatives, including those we aren't aware of, or 3) show evidence of an actual designer. Again, your inferences are not evidence.

      Second, what calculations? Let's look at them. In other words, what research are you referring to?

      May 18, 2012 at 12:53 pm |
    • Chance

      The scientific method isn’t an argument against “fine tuning” which is the foundation for ID; the argument to “fine tuning” is M-Theory – essentially stating our Universe isn’t anything special, we just happened to evolve in the best suited Universe out of the infinite possible Universes, thus no cosmological need for God. The scientific method argument could be used against the M-Theory because some of the required evidence to prove the theory has no possible testing. You keep going back to the scientific method argument. This argument is essentially a diversion from the evidence we have today such as the rate of expansion.

      May 21, 2012 at 6:08 pm |
    • Chance

      In general my belief in ID is founded on the laws of the Universe. The very laws that explain things that in the past people would answer “only God knows why”, such as our solar systems planets being on the same plane and the Earth being in the Habitual zone. We have theories based on physics that explain the reason and function of planetary alignment among other things that were once only attributed to the hand of God. The laws and the precision of the Universe adhering to them for me point to a planned creation. In other words a designer brought to existence physics along with the elements needed for our Universe.

      May 21, 2012 at 6:10 pm |
  7. AGuest9

    Dropping health coverage at a college over contraception. Unwed co-ed mothers, or will they just be expelled, like they used to at catholic high schools?

    May 17, 2012 at 7:31 am |
    • TruthPrevails :-)

      That whole issue only affects 10% of the students. Hopefully some day the catholic cult of pedophiles learns to clean up their own mess before sticking their noses in to people private lives. I'd like to know why they are not educating people on the true benefits of birth control outside of prevention of pregnancy.

      May 17, 2012 at 10:49 am |
  8. Uncouth Swain

    Oh yeah. Oh heck yeah. IN THE BUTT.

    HARD.

    MMmmmmmmmmmmm Delicious.

    May 17, 2012 at 6:28 am |
    • Kalessin

      Gotta love the crazy name stealers in the morning :)

      May 17, 2012 at 6:36 am |
    • momoya

      Keep on posting your insane stupidity, you fvcking disgusting liar disph1t.

      May 17, 2012 at 11:12 am |
  9. Kevin Brundage

    If I were a polygamist, I'd have four wives. And they'd share.

    Each other.

    And oh yeah. I want to be a mormon!!!!

    May 17, 2012 at 6:18 am |
    • hard on

      Would you make them cu m swap? Or you could skeet in ones butt hole and then she could push it out into another's eagerly waiting mouth and the she could pass it by kissing another wife!

      May 17, 2012 at 11:43 am |
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.