Intelligent? Design
- Started
- Last post
- 391 Responses
- mrdobolina0
Haha. Wow, and religious people are arrogant and ignorant?
You're just as much of a zealot as "those Christians".
Ooops, didn't mean to hit you with the 'hypocrite hammer'
=(
twooh
(Jan 2 06, 21:17)Twooh, I didn't say any of those things, not sure where you got that from.
And I am a zealot? Zealot for what?
You can do your religious thing all day and I could care less, just keep it out of the public schools. That is what this entire ID thing is about for me anyway. You can believe the moon is made of green cheese and teach your kids that for all I care.
- discipler0
Amazing that you equate Specified Complexity detection in biological systems with religious indoctrination, mrdobs.
Just keep shouting with your fingers in your ears... maybe it will just go away. ;)
- mrdobolina0
Do you think that Pat Robertson wants this to be taught in public schools because it is "current science", Discipler?
Answer that honestly.
You may honestly think this is current science and that is fine, BUT do not act like there isn't religious leaders in the US that want this in the classroom to advance their agendas.
- mrdobolina0
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9995…
How many followers does this guy have? Are they all "fake christians"?
- Bluejam0
Pat Robertson, the Rolls Royce of mankind. What a classic.
- discipler0
You're talking about 2 seperate issues, mrdobs. Pat Robertson has nothing to do with the science of Intelligent Design. I have no interest in what Televangelists are doing.
Now, if Pat Robertson has specifically said that he is interested in uprooting the philosophy of Materialism which is masquerading as science in our classrooms and as a consequence, is leading a generation to think they have no purpose for being here - then I'm behind him 100% on that and that alone. I don't think he has said that this is his agenda, however.
- mrdobolina0
so you arent going to answer that then. NEAT.
- discipler0
"Do you think that Pat Robertson wants this to be taught in public schools because it is "current science", Discipler?"
---------------
Don't know. Don't care. Why would I be concerned with a Televangelist's agenda?
- mrdobolina0
How about James Dobson, who you have said in the past you think is doing good for this country?
Does he want current science to be taught or is he advancing his agenda?
- mrdobolina0
My point is, to say this isn't a religious/political football is a flat-out lie.
- discipler0
Mrdobs, again, the reason that religious leaders are supporting the science of Intelligent Design is because it's implications are friendly to an theistic world-view. So, why wouldn't they support it!?
There's no grand mystery or conspiracy here.
- mrdobolina0
So then what exactly are you disagreeing with me about then?
- discipler0
and yes, I think James Dobson is an amazing man. As a psychologist, he has done more to promote the bond of love and unity and purity within the family unit, than scores of other counselors and therapists combined. His books on parenting and the marriage relationship have been used to transform countless families in a positive way. Anybody who would deny this, simply doesn't know anything about the man, or they have an agenda.
- discipler0
I don't know. I'm confused now.
- mrdobolina0
Dobson doesn't have an agenda?
How about reversing roe vs. wade?
- discipler0
Is that an "agenda" or a position on an issue?
I share his view on that issue. Call me crazy, but I value human life. (See the effects of Social Darwinism on a society?)
- mrdobolina0
Ok, so it is only an 'agenda' when you disagree with it. Gotcha.
- discipler0
If teaching people that human life should be valued and that science demonstrates that we are the result of purposeful design rather than a cosmic accident, is an agenda. Then so be it. I'm part of that agenda, no question about it.
- mrdobolina0
Is your real name Casey Luskin?
- ********0
200