Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 11

message: ===Science versus faith===
Intelligent Design's most vociferous supporters and critics sometimes portray the debate as between science and faith. These advocates imply that to support ID is to support belief in higher power(s), while to oppose ID is to oppose belief in higher power(s). One example is a statement from 
Focus on the Family, which, holds that "Secularists have dismissed Christianity as an acceptable intellectual option."  and that "Intelligent Design" promote their views on Christianity. 
While science, faith and religion have been at odds throughout history, prominant scientists and religious leaders have tried to bridge that gap. Furthmore, critics of ID have not only questioned whether ID is good science, but also whether it is good theology. The Pope John Paul II issued the following statement  in an address entitled "Truth cannot contradict Truth":
:"The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans."
Here, Pope John Paul II suggests that science, philosophy and theology are not at odds, merely responsible for diffrent sections of human knowledge.
Moving this section to the movement article. Seems more appropriate there.--Tznkai 18:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placeholder 

message: Intelligent Design's most vociferous supporters and critics sometimes portray the debate as between science and faith. These advocates imply that to support ID is to support belief in higher power(s), while to oppose ID is to oppose belief in higher power(s). One example is a statement from 
Focus on the Family, which, holds that "Secularists have dismissed Christianity as an acceptable intellectual option."  and that "Intelligent Design" promote their views on Christianity. 
While science, faith and religion have been at odds throughout history, prominant scientists and religious leaders have tried to bridge that gap. Furthmore, critics of ID have not only questioned whether ID is good science, but also whether it is good theology. The Pope John Paul II issued the following statement  in an address entitled "Truth cannot contradict Truth":
:"The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans."
Here, Pope John Paul II suggests that science, philosophy and theology are not at odds, merely responsible for diffrent sections of human knowledge.
Moving this section to the movement article. Seems more appropriate there.--Tznkai 18:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Science versus faith

message: Anyway we can tighten up sections 5-8? (see also, further reading, external links, misclaneious) Its taking up a lot of space and it bothers me aesthetically.--Tznkai 18:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for not being able to pay more attention to them.  I do what I can later.--ghost 21:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOC 

message: Needs major work.  The 'Materialism vs. Spirituallity' section is basically 'Nature of the Designer' stuff.  But there's good stuff.  It could also use some of the 'Other' links from the former arguments section.  And a brief overview of "deck-stacking".--ghost 17:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Theological debates

message: :In general, arguments posed against Intelligent Design assume that the universe is the result of a chain of causality. However, quantum physicists point out that possibility provides a better explanation of the nature of universe than causality, and that consciousness cannot be separated from observation. If the universe is a field of infinite possibilities, then Intelligent Design cannot be defined in terms of causality unless the existence of a creator is assumed. However, since every consciousness is capable of affecting the universe(s), it is not inconceivable that some kind of super-consciousness exists in the form of possibility and free will. It seems the intelligence behind the design would be need to be a creative one, but only if the ontology used to define Intelligent Design is congruent with the paradigm of causality.
The above is the current version as of 6/16.  I moved it here because:
*It's not in English.  Yes, I understand it, but our goal is to make the article accessable to the average reader, and encourage them to learn.  Not make their head hurt.
*It smacks of Original Material. I've been thru the links, and this is new to me.
*It needs major Wikifing.
*It fits more logically in other sections, such as 'Fine-Tuned Universe'.
I'm all for reinserting after a major rework, but let's make sure it makes sense.--ghost 21:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Quantum physics

message: 24.64.223.203 has violated 3rr already with his repeated insertions in the intro, in case nobody noticed. I say give him one more chance to play ball, and if not, then report it. FeloniousMonk 19:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 24.64.223.203 & the intro

message: HARRISBURG, Pa. - Experts on both sides of the debate over whether public schools should teach "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution — a question already before a federal court — sparred in front of a state legislative panel. FuelWagon 05:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oy.  BTW, we never did get good stuff on the Kansas Board of Ed. controversy a couple months ago.  Takers?--ghost 05:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another School Board Attack