Doesn’t that fit the criteria for Intelligent Design.

(And to the nitpickers: humanity is assumed to be a “wolfling” race whose patrons abandoned them millennia ago, which is a serious offense in Galactic civilization. And while the long-gone Progenitors, the founding race (or races) of the Uplift culture, are revered for their accomplishments, no orthodox member of that society thinks to ask: “So who uplifted THEM?”)

Have you seen this ?

Intelligent design not science, says Vatican newspaper article

from:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0600273.htm

Cordially,
Paul F.

Well, there is that silly one about not bearing false witness. It’s often construed as not lying, but even in the narrowest definition I think it still applies to court testimony.

Exactly right. I will be the first to admit that many religious people are not 1) “stupid about their beliefs” and/or 2) intentionally deceptive like some of the creationists who’ve posted here.

Despite my atheism, I have many close friends and colleagues from a wide variety of religious backgrounds, and we get along wonderfully. Oh yeah, and they *all* see no contradiction between religion and the science of evolution, just like the 10,000+ signatories to the Clergy Letter Project…

http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/clergy_project.htm

The ID-creationist folks (like those at http://www.reasons.org and the Discovery Institute) are liars… they lie about their true motives, they lie about science, and (probably a worse sin to the religious) they lie about religion too. I have very little respect for them in this regard — to them the ends justify the means, and they have no respect for truth, honesty, or rational thinking. They merely seek to assert their authority by any (legal) means possible, including lying — oops, perjury *is* a crime. You know, like how some of those former Dover school board members (creationists) could face perjury charges for lying to the judge in open court. Which Commandment did they violate there?

But I have great respect for those who take their heartfelt religious beliefs (though I don’t accept them and I find them confusing and illogical) and strive to reconcile them with the reality of science. Kudos to them.

Cheers – Mattus

Hmmm… so Grant *admits* that the website he directed us to is, in his own words, “blatantly old-earth creationist” — yet in the next breath he states that “they DO care about scientific integrity.”

Hunh?! Sounds like hogwash to me… Folks, this is one of the most goofy contradictions I’ve ever seen posted to *any* blog or message board, but it is par for the course for the creationists. They’ll try to rope you in by constantly talking about how they really do care about science, right up until the point where they insist on literal interpretation of this and that in the Bible.

It took me about 5 seconds to see through Grant Miller’s arguments here. And what’s worse is that he did it in his own words — I suppose it’s true about what they say can happen when you give some people enough rope. They hang themselves… just like what happened in Dover, PA.

And one last thing — how does Grant Miller suddenly go from a discussion of “scientific integrity” directly into talking about “misconceptions about the Bible”? I thought this was about *science*, not religion, right?

As for the Bible, I’ve studied it extensively for many years — its writings, its origins, its history, and how it has been edited repeatedly and interpreted every which way over the centuries. I must agree with Irishman when he states that there are a great number of Christians who are completely ignorant of the historical nature of the Bible. For those of you who are interested in a very good historical background & scholarly analysis of the Bible (without the proselytizing), check out these resources as a good place to start:

“Secret Origins of the Bible” by Tim Callahan and

the following lectures on CD by Dr. Bart Ehrman (available via The Teaching Company at http://www.teach12.com)

“The Historical Jesus”
“From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity”
“Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication”

And here’s a good website which points out numerous flaws in a literal interpretation of the Bible (like that pushed at http://www.reasons.org and by Grant Miller) by exposing the fallacies and contradictions therein…

The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

But now we’re talking about religion again… oh well, I suppose that’s how Grant Miller wanted it, seeing as how he made the magical transition from real science to religiously-based poppycock “science” by trying to convince us that groups pushing old-earth creationism are actually concerned about scientific integrity.

Yup, that and he also has some swampland for sale in Arizona – cheap

Cheers — Mattus