A Test for Intelligent Design Proponents

Faith was the first to address church/state separtation. Why? Because it was in response to the OP statement below. It's not easy to address the topic aside from these issues, especially when the view of the OP author on church/state is expressed. Is his viewpoint suppose to prevail with no oportunity for response/debate?

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

I am a proponent of intelligent design.1. Which God? Jehovah, Allah, Brahma, et al? God, perse is not a religion. The students of various religions may apply the designer to whatever they wish. It's a given that any designer of the universe would be a supreme intelligent and powerful being. In our nation, most proponents of ID worship and believe in the god, Jehovah to be the supreme designer and the Biblical record to be the history of origins. If this were set up in Iraq, I suppose Allah would be that designer god and the Quran the record book. In India perhaps the designer would be Brahma.Edited to add that in a class of mixed ID proponents, the student could apply the ID argument to their respective personal persuasion as to the designer.2. ID would be a form of creationism, yes.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-29-2005 11:44 PM

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

I'll try again. God is a generic word in the original Biblical manuscripts denoting deity. The Biblical proper name of the Biblical god is Jehovah/YHWH/Yahweh. So if you're referring to a classroom in the US the majority in the class would consider god to be the Biblical god, Jehovah, Jehovah being his proper name in the English language. God is not the meaning of Jehovah, which means, 'the existing one.' The Muslim god's name, Allah does actually mean "god," so to answer the first half of your question literally, the answer is no, because literally, as per definition, you're asking whether the majority in the US class would consider the designer to be Allah. The answer to that, of course is no for the first half of your two part question.Had you asked whether the designer would be the Biblical god or the god, Jehovah, to the first half of your two part question, I'd have answered straight out, 'yes.' The above is an edit in from my last message. What I was trying to convey also is that ID does not necessarily need to apply to a god. A secularist person might apply the designer to Captain Marvel or Batman. In debate and classroom discussion where there are mixed proponents of ID, the designer need not be designated or specified. The discussion and/or debate would be concerning whether or not a designer would be involved, leaving the application as to the designer up to the individual. That is not to say, imo, that discussion on the merits of any given designer would be out of order.So to answer the second half of your two part question, no, no specific designer need, necessarily, to be introduced into the classroom by including ID into the curriculum.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

No problem atol, friend. I'm slow at respnding myself often, being a business sole proprietor with no employees and other responsibilities.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Jehovah=modern English translation of Hebrew YHWH, pronounced YAHWEH.
My point in this was that ID in the classroom does not introduce Jehovah, the Christian/Jewish Biblical god into the classroom if that proper name of the Biblical god's name is not mentioned in the discussion. No specific god needs necessarily to be introduced into the discussion, even if the majority in the room are Christians. The intelligent designer could be simply referred to as "the intelligent designer," leaving the students to apply that according to what they wish. I was using Batman, et al, rather facetiously, but to make the point that the ID application need not be made in cases where there is adversity to reference to a god. 1. Why is my statement incorrect?
2. We've gone full circle and you still aren't getting it. Please go back and read me. I've explained why no god needs necessarily be introduced into the classroom discussion to discuss ID vs Evolution, et al.
3. We've been admonished by admin to keep church and state out of the thread so I won't get into that except to say that I disagree with your understanding of this.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-02-2005 11:50 PM