(December 7, 2012 at 11:05 am)Rhythm Wrote: @DP
LOL......Granted, granted, ID is very thinly disguised christian creationism. However, you don't -fully- accept any theory of evolution we currently have at our disposal, because none of them come packaged with intent bud...which is a pretty massive addition. The thing that mystified me about your post, was the transparency of your examples. Our biology, behavior, and civilization seem to you to imply intent? Granted....human intent. I don't know how else to take that, because the moment I start plugging "god" in before intent it all goes bat-shit in an instant. A god intended what, and how does our biology, behavior, or civilization lend credence to whatever that intent was?
(all of this of course means nothing if I misread the statement you made about intent)
OK, just so we're clear, when you say "Intelligent Design", this is defined as a pseudo-science advanced by Creationists as an "alternative" to (and rejection of) evolution. It specifies that all beings were created in their current form. This is certainly not what I'm suggesting.
Evolution itself doesn't preclude God. What I'm thinking of is something along the lines of the Vorlons of Babylon 5 who, in this storyline, tweaked our evolution to create telepaths. In this case, tweaked us so we'd develop higher reasoning capability and potential for civilization.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
