(May 22, 2012 at 12:03 pm)Polaris Wrote:(May 22, 2012 at 11:51 am)libalchris Wrote: Depends on the Intelligent Design advocate you talk to. Some ID advocates like Michael Behe accept the idea of common descent, but not the Darwinian mechanism, and believe that it was guided by a creator. Many ID advocates though, like the folks at the discovery institute, are creationists hiding under the guise of "intelligent design"
Myself i lived in a very very Christian town, and basically every one there was a creationist.
Well myself and the Christians I know (most of them at my old Church were either doctors or scientists so that may explain it) or at least they never lead me to believe otherwise, believe in evolution and just add God as the guiding force. I think we started as evolutionists and then just fit our religious beliefs into that mold instead of the other way around.
If your religious beliefs are interchangable to the point you can more or less mold them around the facts is there really any point in hanging onto them? At some point it has to be painfully obvious its being used to fill the gaps in our knowledge we don't yet have enough data to cover.
What happens when that gap becomes smaller yet again due to human advancement? Will the concept of God retreat further back into the gap? When is that gap too small to hide in?
At what point are we to admit religion is the equivilent of an aging band-aid on a gunshot wound it can't possibly treat? That band-aid is no more a substitute for proper medical treatment than faith is for research.
Why humor it?
"That is not dead which can eternal lie and with strange aeons even death may die."
- Abdul Alhazred.
- Abdul Alhazred.
