If 'Intelligent Design" Is True, Why So Many Lies?

by Nate Merit 47 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Nate Merit

  If True Why So Many Lies ?

  The following is a snippet from a New York Times article on the closing arguments in the Intelligent Design trial.

  Closing Arguments Made in Trial on Intelligent Design

  By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
  Published: November 5, 2005

  HARRISBURG, Pa., Nov. 4, 2005 In his blunt closing argument, the plaintiffs' lawyer, Eric Rothschild, accused the intelligent design movement of lying, just as he said the school board members had lied when they testified that their purpose for changing the science curriculum had nothing to do with religion.

  They lied, he said, when they testified that they did not make or hear religious declarations at board meetings, and when they claimed they did not know that 50 copies of an intelligent design textbook were bought for the school with money collected at a church and funneled through the father of a school board member, Alan Bonsell.

  This week, the judge himself grew agitated as he questioned Mr. Bonsell about whether he had lied about the books. Mr. Rothschild reminded the judge of that interchange and said that the board's dishonesty "mimics" the intelligent design movement.
  http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/05/science/sciencespecial2/05design.html

  Once again, we see that Fundy Christians must resort to lies and deception to defend their "truths". Times have certainly changed. Back when I was a Fundy Christian, we were always told that "as cream rises to the top, so also would the truth" and that truth, REAL truth, never ever would need lies and deceptions to defend it. In fact, if someone HAD to resort to lies, that was a sure sign they didn't HAVE the truth. Like I said, times have changed.

  The Fundies driving the "Intelligent Design" movement have religion, and ONLY religion, as their motivating factor. Period. Anything else is a blatant and self-serving LIE. Therefore, any Christian that tells you his interest in "Intelligent Design" has nothing to do with his religion is automatically a BAD Christian, a FALSE Christian, someone who sees no problem in "lying for the truth", which used to be a policy used by the Watch Tower organization but apparently adopted by Fundies now.

  Before these Fundies try to push their religion down our throats, they should learn how to live it themselves. Lies and deception only go to indicate that their REAL "heavenly father" sure as HELL (hint hint) doesn't live in heaven. www.jcnot4me.com
• 

  jstalin

  Therefore, any Christian that tells you his interest in "Intelligent Design" has nothing to do with his religion is automatically a BAD Christian, a FALSE Christian...

  I agree 100%. In practice, it sounds tantamount to denying Christ.
• 

  VM44

  Religion need not be the motive for considering Intelligent Design.

  Life on earth could be the result of Intelligent Design by an Extraterrrestrial Source!

  Under that possibility, Teaching ID does not imply teaching any religion or belief in God at all.

  --VM44
• 

  Qcmbr

  What's wrong with the motivating factor being religion anyhow? In the world I know most motivation for anything is sex, domination, money and pleasure. Don't tell me that some evolutionists motivation isn't aethism and a desire to break down religion. Evolutionary support has its fair share of liars as well but that doesn't make all evolutionists liars.
  
  Some religions support evolution with the caveat of God being in overall charge - what strikes me is a lack of balance on the side of the most fundamental evolutionists who are unwilling to even entertain the idea that something in this universe could be smarter than them and could have taken an active hand in shaping life on this planet.
  
  There are some extraordinary things in the recent history of mankind that are hard to explain by simple brute force (the pyramids, alignments of ancient mega cities, Nazca lines etc..) all designed by intelligence but hard to understand how they were made (the available technology doesn't seem to match) - there is so much we don't know that to dismiss any intelligence other than our own is something I would hope scientists don't do - verbally closing doors on possibilities is not scientific. Sometimes its OK to say - 'I don't know but if I ever find out I'll tell you.' Currently we seem to have a lot of unscientific rhetoric and bluster ending in personal attacks on 'fundy's', 'idiots', 'the unenlightened', 'fools' etc..
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  What's wrong with the motivating factor being religion anyhow?

  If I understood the point, it's not about what motive it has. The point is that the motive is religious, but they deny that this is the motive. It's not the real motive that's under fire, it's the lying about it.

  Sort of like the Society's "Creation" book. (Have you ever seen this little treasure, Qcmbr?) It's so full of lies and deceptions, the book describing them could easily be bigger than the book itself. One has to ask, if they are presenting me the truth, why do they need to lie about it?

  Dave
• 

  jstalin

  AlmostAtheist is right. No one's saying that a religious motive is bad. What is being said is that the far majority of ID supporters do so because of religous belief, but then deny that their motivation is religious. They're attempting to make ID mainstream by watering down their theological motivation and make it look like they're entering the scientific realm.

  Most ID supporters will then steer interested parties to the Bible for their explanation as to what exactly the "intelligent" in intelligent design stands for. Heck, it might be ETs, it might be the flying spaghetti monster. That's where the problem comes in. Which designer do you choose when teaching intelligent design? I can argue that I created the universe and no one can disprove it.

  The original article from Nate makes the point that those christians who support ID but then deny that religion is the motivating factor are in fact bad christians because they are denying their own religion. If they truly love Christ, why are they denying him?
• 

  Nate Merit

  Religion need not be the motive for considering Intelligent Design.

  Life on earth could be the result of Intelligent Design by an Extraterrrestrial Source!

  Under that possibility, Teaching ID does not imply teaching any religion or belief in God at all.

  --VM44
  
  Indeed, life on earth could be the intelligent actions of the Invisible Pink Unicorn or one of her consorts. These matters need deep consultations with Men of Mystery.
  
  Nanu nanu!
  Nate
• 

  jula71

  Here's the problem on both sides of the issue. Trying to prove something that can't be proven. When that happens, some form of dishonesty is inevitable.
• 

  Satanus

  The intelligent designer forgot to sign his name. Makes you wonder how intelligent he was.

  S
• 

  Nate Merit

  I think you are not getting the Main Gist Of The Post. Which is, to wit, Fundies who are advocating Intelligent Design are LYING about it. They lyingly claim that religion is NOT their motivation when in point of fact it is INDEED their motivation.
  
  What is wrong with teaching 'intelligent design" in the classroom? Well, for starters "ID" only makes sense if one keeps the scientific discussions very superficial. Real science is not something you can break up into sound bytes for those ignorant of the scientifc disciplines involved. A moron can ask "Which came first, the chicken or the egg? but 'answering a fool according to his folly' is not so simple. An actual scientific discussion is extremely involved and most people do not want to do the necessary thinking and learning in order to follow along.
  
  These same people have often been to college and university for some other scientific specialty, and from their studies realize that real science is mult-faceted, complex, deep, and highly involved. They know their particular scientific specialty cannot be explained properly in a few sound bytes for the ignorant. Yet these same folks expect the most complex scientific disciplines on the planet (i.e., origins) to be pablumized into convincing and intelligent sound bytes.
  
  Perhaps I am making myself a bit more clear this time around.
  
  If you are an ID advocate, I am willing to bet a whole poop-load of money that you have never read any anti-creationists books written by teams of scientists from the various specialties involved. If you go to Google, you can find a number of such sources available online, as well as books that can enlighten you. I'm not going to do the impossible and try to write Origin Sound Bytes here on the forum.