Or should we even entertain the subject?

Or should we even entertain the subject?

Bahamian society already embraces Intelligent Design. Bible thumpers have recently come up with calling the "creation story" by this new name only as an attempt to lend scientific credibility to their beliefs. (In the US, they were rejected in their bid to offer this theory as a counter-argument to evolution.)

We all know what the overwhelming view is in The Bahamas - almost all of our schools are indeed "pro-Intelligent Design." Religion is deeply embedded in our psyche due to our ancestral history.

From a strictly scientific standpoint, Intelligent Design has no ground to stand on, so it should not be embraced as a scientific theory. Some argue that if we find life on other planets, then many of our religious theories instantly will be shattered. Religions were written from the standpoint that we are the only creatures worthy or intelligent enough to necessitate the "saving" of our souls.

This Bahamian society is not yet ready to discuss or even debate the idea of teaching something other than Creationism/Intelligent Design in our schools. The accusatory screams of "blasphemy" which would eminate from the churches in this land would quickly drown out any intelligent rationalizations regarding other concepts, such as evolution. Change is difficult for a relatively uneducated society, and also bear in mind that religion is a primary tool of control over our citizens.

Bahamian society already embraces Intelligent Design. Bible thumpers have recently come up with calling the "creation story" by this new name only as an attempt to lend scientific credibility to their beliefs. (In the US, they were rejected in their bid to offer this theory as a counter-argument to evolution.)

We all know what the overwhelming view is in The Bahamas - almost all of our schools are indeed "pro-Intelligent Design." Religion is deeply embedded in our psyche due to our ancestral history.

From a strictly scientific standpoint, Intelligent Design has no ground to stand on, so it should not be embraced as a scientific theory. Some argue that if we find life on other planets, then many of our religious theories instantly will be shattered. Religions were written from the standpoint that we are the only creatures worthy or intelligent enough to necessitate the "saving" of our souls.


You’re deep.

No more "religious" convection and everything is open; a field day or life I guess.

Perversion would be the name of the game.
People marring dogs, children and old people getting rapped because age doesn’t mean crap. Well I guess you can use your imagination.

There has to be some standard and if you believe and “prove” you are on a rock traveling in space for no reason, forever with no where to go will not bring it so I guess its what your agenda is.

You’re deep.
No more "religious" convection and everything is open; a field day or life I guess.
Perversion would be the name of the game.
People marring dogs, children and old people getting rapped because age doesn’t mean crap. Well I guess you can use your imagination.
There has to be some standard and if you believe and “prove” you are on a rock traveling in space for no reason, forever with no where to go will not bring it so I guess its what your agenda is.

Your response attempts to rationalize a world without religion in a way that is itself perverse. Perhaps it is persons like yourself who do need religion to prevent them from harming their fellow brothers and sisters. Each to their own.

Note that I did not say that there would be a "doing away" of all rules and guidelines. Religion deceptively has staked its claim as the sole moral compass in this world and proponents over the years have made the masses believe that without it, the walls of society would crumble. It is not scientifically proven that without religion man would be a barbarian. In fact, the opposite proves quite true; it appears to be the case that religion is what holds man back from changing his world for the better. Look at the early discoveries of science that in earlier times were declared acts of sorcery and black magic. Cures for every disease lie within the realms of this earth, but in many instances the only thing stopping scientists from developing them are entities who bear the flag of religion.

You've clearly misinterpreted the following sentence: "From a strictly scientific standpoint, Intelligent Design has no ground to stand on, so it should not be embraced as a scientific theory." This simply means that science decided not to include in its tried and tested database what amounts to nothing but a belief system. Science has its requirements for inclusion and currently the theory of Inteligent Design does not meet them.

I got a question, what exactly is tafi meaning by Intelligent Design??
Whats the point of this topic? Did i not read a book everyone else did??
Is this some Shockwave Flash thing, or a Windows GUI ... ??

call me curious if ya will .. :p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

In summation for rory's sake, the theory like all other theories, beleive in the omni-life force so to speak, a supreme life force that started evolution and the whole shabang off!

Sounds ok to me...seeing that everything else is just theory.
Christians are just playing the "game" satanist's and secularist are playing, and aside from a few "rogue" judges the theory is receiving wide acceptance.

In my opinion, it is logically consistent to beleive that there is one single life force holding this earth together...whether it be whatever you guys want to call it I would prefer to call it "God"....
If we begin to date back hundreds and thousands and millions and billions of years ago...we can still detect structure and formations that can still be dated back to that period.

Just because we cant see it doesnt mean it isnt there!!
Scientist fail to understand the concept of "intangible theory"..and that is to me the understanding or knowledge of concepts allbeit not in your present colm of nderstanding but for what it is to the entire spectrum of being.

That is a dangerous place for scientist's "who say they want the truth", but limit themselves to what they have discovered....It is laughable to see them stop at a certain point; then claimed to have worked hard on discovery; then argue the point of ending exploration without knowing the full detail or any reason for their TOTAL summation....then call themselves the great explorer's!!
:titongue: .....

Christianity my friend, never limits....it is all to be explored to its fullest, even God is available to be explored to his or her fullest..NO CAPPING!!
So called scientst ned to think about that..and these judges had a better mind to keep out of affairs of learning.
I can understand scholars having it out..but for a judge or the legal system to step into a social debate and in turn make injunctions on thought is downright totalitarian, and it is outrageous!

Christianity my friend, never limits....it is all to be explored to its fullest, even God is available to be explored to his or her fullest..NO CAPPING!!
So called scientst ned to think about that..and these judges had a better mind to keep out of affairs of learning.
I can understand scholars having it out..but for a judge or the legal system to step into a social debate and in turn make injunctions on thought is downright totalitarian, and it is outrageous!

Christianity never limits? What about its current views on abortion or even stem cell research? Better yet, what about this part of the world even being inhabited because of one man's blasphemous adventure to the ends of this FLAT earth?

Science is tangible and is everywhere around you. From the time you wake up, turn off your alarm clock, brush your teeth, take a shower, microwave your breakfast, jump in your car, sit at your desk and type on your computer, you are experiencing what science has done.

What is outrageous is the attempt to take a belief system and pass it off as a scientific theory. This clearly shows a lack of understanding of the well-defined scientific principles by members of the religious community. The general public tends to only use their emotions in this debate and the next thing you know someone is preaching about going to hell. That's not science, anyway you look at it.

Christianity never limits? What about its current views on abortion or even stem cell research? Better yet, what about this part of the world even being inhabited because of one man's blasphemous adventure to the ends of this FLAT earth?
Science is tangible and is everywhere around you. From the time you wake up, turn off your alarm clock, brush your teeth, take a shower, microwave your breakfast, jump in your car, sit at your desk and type on your computer, you are experiencing what science has done.
What is outrageous is the attempt to take a belief system and pass it off as a scientific theory. This clearly shows a lack of understanding of the well-defined scientific principles by members of the religious community. The general public tends to only use their emotions in this debate and the next thing you know someone is preaching about going to hell. That's not science, anyway you look at it.


Unfortuntly science is a method to attempt to describe exsistence. We have to be clear on this it is not set in stone it is a theoritical argument and nothing more, If you dont read you wont know these things please see the Philosophy of science you can look it up on the web. Science is a theortical exercise that attempts to make sense of this thing called exsistence. Societies have always had their own particular ways of making sense of exsistence.:dancer2:

Christianity never limits? What about its current views on abortion or even stem cell research? Better yet, what about this part of the world even being inhabited because of one man's blasphemous adventure to the ends of this FLAT earth?
Last time i checked Columbus killed the Arrawaks becasue of christianity...
lol..to be honest columbus is a bad example on all fronts!

Science is tangible and is everywhere around you. From the time you wake up, turn off your alarm clock, brush your teeth, take a shower, microwave your breakfast, jump in your car, sit at your desk and type on your computer, you are experiencing what science has done.
We do not dispute this..
In fact i will claim that through the power of God it was possible!

What is outrageous is the attempt to take a belief system and pass it off as a scientific theory.
Goes to show you the ability of modern day christians to be flexible..and in fact jewish scholars and muslim scholars are accepting this theory as we speak.
So this isnt really a Christain secular issue...this is an issue of learning and understanding.
The first and last time i checked, all scientific discovery was made possible through theory and hunch's....
What is not "scientific" is to not allow these theories and hunch's to be explored in an ethical manner with observance to human rights!

This clearly shows a lack of understanding of the well-defined scientific principles by members of the religious community. The general public tends to only use their emotions in this debate and the next thing you know someone is preaching about going to hell. That's not science, anyway you look at it.

They have an will preach about hell until we die..you can not get around that.
What you must understand that this world is for all of us....
In the western world in paticular, you have the right to make such "in my opinion" stupid statements...with no fear of persecution.
Try that in aother country without the tolerance of the Western democratic standard, and see what happenns.

All we ask is for fair standard, "which we have given you" to be observed for all!

You cant have it that only YOUR way of understanding and acheivment be explored and recognized, whereas everyone esle should not be allowed!
It is against even your principles...and tis another reason why i dislike liberals and humanist types.
It is beyond hypocritical!
:cool:

Last time i checked Columbus killed the Arrawaks becasue of christianity...
lol..to be honest columbus is a bad example on all fronts!
We do not dispute this..
In fact i will claim that through the power of God it was possible!
Goes to show you the ability of modern day christians to be flexible..and in fact jewish scholars and muslim scholars are accepting this theory as we speak.
So this isnt really a Christain secular issue...this is an issue of learning and understanding.
The first and last time i checked, all scientific discovery was made possible through theory and hunch's....
What is not "scientific" is to not allow these theories and hunch's to be explored in an ethical manner with observance to human rights!
They have an will preach about hell until we die..you can not get around that.
What you must understand that this world is for all of us....
In the western world in paticular, you have the right to make such "in my opinion" stupid statements...with no fear of persecution.
Try that in aother country without the tolerance of the Western democratic standard, and see what happenns.
All we ask is for fair standard, "which we have given you" to be observed for all!
You cant have it that only YOUR way of understanding and acheivment be explored and recognized, whereas everyone esle should not be allowed!
It is against even your principles...and tis another reason why i dislike liberals and humanist types.
It is beyond hypocritical!
:cool:



Its amazing but when you dont study you really dont know what you are talking about. One of the fundamental teneths of science is that there is an obsever and there is an object/subject that can be observed and the two are separate. This is one of the fundamental principles of science. If you have been falling quantum physics you will be aware that this fundamental axiom is underassult. The creation of technological devices is not a proff of the exsistence of science, lol, please stop being so lazy and study these things:dancer2:

Go to the source some times:driving:

Its amazing but when you dont study you really dont know what you are talking about. One of the fundamental teneths of science is that there is an obsever and there is an object/subject that can be observed and the two are separate. This is one of the fundamental principles of science. If you have been falling quantum physics you will be aware that this fundamental axiom is underassult. The creation of technological devices is not a proff of the exsistence of science, lol, please stop being so lazy and study these things:dancer2:
Go to the source some times:driving:


Hahahaaahaaha.....

Perhaps it is persons like yourself who do need religion to prevent them from harming their fellow brothers and sisters. Each to their own.


Or perhaps not?

Your statment toward me is a perfect example of how my fellow brothers and sisters bring harm to me; an insult (one of many ways of course to bring ham but the suggestion does). Each to their own.
Religion does not equal God.
Religion is of man.


Note that I did not say that there would be a "doing away" of all rules and guidelines.


I never said you did. But a life with no meaning has no need for "rule of law". Thats what laws do; enforce meaning.


Religion deceptively has staked its claim as the sole moral compass in this world and proponents over the years have made the masses believe that without it, the walls of society would crumble. It is not scientifically proven that without religion man would be a barbarian. In fact, the opposite proves quite true; it appears to be the case that religion is what holds man back from changing his world for the better. Look at the early discoveries of science that in earlier times were declared acts of sorcery and black magic. Cures for every disease lie within the realms of this earth, but in many instances the only thing stopping scientists from developing them are entities who bear the flag of religion.
You've clearly misinterpreted the following sentence: "From a strictly scientific standpoint, Intelligent Design has no ground to stand on, so it should not be embraced as a scientific theory." This simply means that science decided not to include in its tried and tested database what amounts to nothing but a belief system. Science has its requirements for inclusion and currently the theory of Inteligent Design does not meet them.


I agree with your points on religion.

But I still support the rule of God and not religion. The One whom all are laws and "relgions" have stolen from.

What is not "scientific" is to not allow these theories and hunch's to be explored in an ethical manner with observance to human rights!
They have an will preach about hell until we die..you can not get around that.
What you must understand that this world is for all of us....
In the western world in paticular, you have the right to make such "in my opinion" stupid statements...with no fear of persecution.
Try that in aother country without the tolerance of the Western democratic standard, and see what happenns.
All we ask is for fair standard, "which we have given you" to be observed for all!
You cant have it that only YOUR way of understanding and acheivment be explored and recognized, whereas everyone esle should not be allowed!
It is against even your principles...and tis another reason why i dislike liberals and humanist types.
It is beyond hypocritical!
:cool:

You're not looking at it from a scientific point of view. If you did, you would understand that the manner in which the theory was proposed does not meet the scientific standard.

Think of it this way: Just as I cannot come up with a new religion and expect it to be recognized by established religious leaders, is the same way religous bodies cannot expect their view to be automatically accepted by the scientific community. It's all about respecting the organizational standards in place. The primary problem is that many religious persons cannot separate emotion from intellect. This is a fundamentally important point that must be stressed. If the religious community can sufficiently back their theories in the proper manner, then acceptance by the scientific community will be considered and most likely given. So far religious bodies have not been able to do this with the theory of Intelligent Design.

Is that really too difficult for you to understand?

You're not looking at it from a scientific point of view. If you did, you would understand that the manner in which the theory was proposed does not meet the scientific standard.
Think of it this way: Just as I cannot come up with a new religion and expect it to be recognized by established religious leaders, is the same way religous bodies cannot expect their view to be automatically accepted by the scientific community. It's all about respecting the organizational standards in place. The primary problem is that many religious persons cannot separate emotion from intellect. This is a fundamentally important point that must be stressed. If the religious community can sufficiently back their theories in the proper manner, then acceptance by the scientific community will be considered and most likely given. So far religious bodies have not been able to do this with the theory of Intelligent Design.
Is that really too difficult for you to understand?



This is funny, ideas in the scientific/dogmatic community are not just embraced because they follow the scientific method. This is the problem with the lack of study, this is why we have so few thinkers in the bahamas. science is as dogmatic as religion just study for example the idea of chaos, study for once get of your butts and your dogma and study the world around you just stop ape-:jawdroop: ing the west.

This is funny, ideas in the scientific/dogmatic community are not just embraced because they follow the scientific method. This is the problem with the lack of study, this is why we have so few thinkers in the bahamas. science is as dogmatic as religion just study for example the idea of chaos, study for once get of your butts and your dogma and study the world around you just stop ape-:jawdroop: ing the west.

Would you for once stop being so critical of Bahamians?

The point that I was making was pursuant to the proposal of Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. It was shoddily done. Point blank. Which is why it was rejected.

But obviously you didn't follow the details of that proposal and instead berate and accuse me of aping the west because of my pointing those facts out. Sometimes you should just keep your fingers off of the keyboard and pay attention to what others are saying, instead of jumping to your own ridiculous conclusions.

Keep in mind that everything that you read on this forum is a only snapshot of what each member has to offer, intellectually or otherwise. Give other people some respect and stop announcing that they need to read this or study that as if you are the sole authority on all things intellectual.