International Aspects of Creationism/ID

they would most likely continue to think as they had before. those that predate christianity might be amused by it's presumptions, those that lived under it's more harsh hands (do I need to say galileo?) would not.and those from the enlightenment might wonder why it is still an issue.what do you think?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I will also remember that "religious experiences" can be manufactured.see Holy visionsand look for the yellow motorcycle helmut.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

aren't you assuming that they could recognize such a lack in us while suddenly being subjected to all the knowledge that has been {accumulated\dicovered} since their time?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

hey, you're talking to someone who walked the Haight Ashbury district when the Doors were unknown. and I got the posters to prove it ...

legitimate.but I don't think all religions can be 'ruled out' by darwinism: there are a lot of deeply religious people that have no problem with evolutions mechanisms, because they aren't "wedded" to any specific creation belief.and I don't see it becoming a "crime" to believe whatever you want. you may get held up for ridicule (aka flat-earthers), but we all get that to some extent eh?and on that note I will also say that I think the YEC position is fast becoming the next 'flat-earth' position as the evidence becomes more and more solid that life on earth is old.see my thread on {age correlations and an old earth}
EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

look at my sig and see if you can be a little more inclusive of your fellow humans.science cannot eliminate what it cannot know. the most it could possibly insist on is professional agnosticism.but smoke all you want in private.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

that one becomes one with the being that is not being?do all animals have souls? or is there a quantum soulon and different beings get different quantities? do all the soulons combined reconstitute god?I don't believe you can know. that the only evidence is what you can know from this universe in this life.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

there are several versions. I tend to prefer god becoming the universe, emulating self in the process and exhaling the words "surprise me" ... but I was a deist before I knew what it meant the predominant theme is that what we can know is from natural means and that there is no revealed truth.wikipedia has a fairly good article (and lists some famous deists) and you can also google to find some websites for some different flavors.the zen part is the path: zen as an approach originally to buddhism, but now to 'motocycle repair' etc.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

it appears you have added this in your edit (or I missed it the first time): I answered that in greater detail on the {Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem}
http://EvC Forum: Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem.
thread (now closed, but you could ask to have it opened)I can believe that the only evidence we will see is the natural evidence of the universe and all that is in it, while still believing that it was created. I can also recognize that the logical position is agnostic but still choose to believe.to bring this back to the topic more or less, I would say that I consider ID to be a poorly considered form of deism, and that deism had it's roots in the age of enlightenment, as much in europe as here in the USof(N)A.I pursue this theme in greater detail in my {Is ID properly pursued?} thread
EvC Forum: Is ID properly pursued?and we can take this discussion there if you are interested.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

um, what is " "a Darwinian worldview" in your worldview?I rather look at {the whole enchilada} as a universe that was created as diverse as possible and primed for the {abiogensis} of life in as many places as it can find a toehold to live and {evolve} and become more complex and diversified with the passage of time.We just happen to be one species on one planet. One privileged to look at the stars with wonder and excitement, but not necessarily a planned outcome (unless evolution with sufficient time and resources tends to result in conscious thought, in which case we should not be alone).And this certainly is not inconsistent with evolution.This message has been edited by RAZD, 05*15*2005 05:34 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Perhaps the problem is that the religions are inconsistent with reality.{{added by edit}}I have no problem with inconsistencies between my religious views and science and I know of many christians that also do not have such conflicts. I think you are conflating the problems of certain sects into a bigger {worldview} issue than it is.I certainly can understand that people who believe in a flat earth at the center of the universe would have problems with inconsistencies between their views and science.I can also understand that people who believe in a young earth have similar problems.But these are problems of inconsistency between the beliefs and reality, not with science per se, just the results that have been discovered through science.People are welcome to their beliefs, but they do not get to say their beliefs are more valid than reality, regardless of what the belief involves.This message has been edited by RAZD, 05*15*2005 05:57 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

it's because they have unprotected sects.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

heh. I should clarify: they get to state what they want, but it doesn't give it any more credibiilty than the ravings of a madman at the reflection of the moon in a well and listening to his own echoes without independent evidence that reality substantiates the position.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}