WP: Evolution Shares a Desk With 'Intelligent Design'

[kskiska]

Sunday, December 26, 2004; Page A01

DOVER, Pa. -- "God or Darwin?"

Lark Myers, a blond, 45-year-old gift shop owner, frames the question and answers it. "I definitely would prefer to believe that God created me than that I'm 50th cousin to a silverback ape," she said. "What's wrong with wanting our children to hear about all the holes in the theory of evolution?"

Charles Darwin, squeeze over. The school board in this small town in central Pennsylvania has voted to make the theory of evolution share a seat with another theory: God probably designed us.

If it survives a legal test, this school district of about 2,800 students could become the first in the nation to require that high school science teachers at least mention the "intelligent design" theory. This theory holds that human biology and evolution is so complex as to require the creative hand of an intelligent force.

(snip)

Board members have been less guarded, and their comments go well beyond intelligent design theory. William Buckingham, the board's curriculum chairman, explained at a meeting last June that Jesus died on the cross and "someone has to take a stand" for him. Other board members say they believe that God created Earth and mankind sometime in the past ten thousand years or so.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25961-2004Dec25.html

[PittPoliSci]

1. science? what's that?

science teachers shouldn't teach religion. period.

[KittyWampus]

36. Open Mind? What's That? And Philosophy Is An Intregral Part Of Science

just because it's been divorced from it for the past 200 years or so and forced to live uncomfortably with the Marketplace...

And Science as too many misunderstand it most certainly DOES have a Philosophy at its core... MATERIALISM.

Just because its not openly talked about... doesn't mean its not there.

There is an ASSUMPTION that the Universe, Life and Consciousness proceeds from inert matter. And that is a Philosophy.

[ChairOne]

45. LOL - first learn some *real* science....

... and then learn some *genuine* philosophy....

Maybe then you'll write a post containing more than just big, cool-sounding words...

[shockra]

60. Science is based on materialism.

Or more specifically, naturalism. That everything has a natural cause. But the neo-Darwinian theory tries to sneak intelligent agency in under the term "natural selection," which is a contradiction in terms. Selection involves choice. Only intelligent agents can choose.

[ChairOne]

64. No. It's not.

The idea that science is "based on" any "philosophy" is just absurd. There's scientists. What they do is science. That's about it.

That said, yah - crowning god as The Selector is just plain idiotic. Not surprising tho, since even DU is an ID-friendly area...

[Sterling]

73. Not my DU.

That shit is for dumb fucks.

[Kimber Scott]

80. DU is an open-minded area.

Or, at least, it should be.

[trogdor]

113. True, but...

...intermixing religion and science and teaching the result to our schoolchildren on OUR FUCKING DIME is one place where 99% of us draw the line.

[localroger]

84. Extremely wrong on this point:

Actually, I'd agree that science is based on materialism, in the sense that scientists assume the Universe made of consistent simple elements. Where you're dead wrong is here:

Selection involves choice. Only intelligent agents can choose.

Huh? What cave have you been living in for the last 40 years?

Just now my heater decided to come on because it noticed the temperature was getting a little low. All over the world machines make adjustments to this and that and humans only come into the picture when they break. My car decides when it's time to turn on the headlamps and when the radio volume needs to be ramped up because of the road noise. And that's not even to start on all the things my computer decides to do. And no, human programmers did not tell those machines to make those decisions; I am a programmer. The reason you use the computer is precisely so that when decision time comes around, you don't have to be there yourself to do it. The person who designed my thermostat has no idea whether I'm in need of heat or air conditioning right now. Hell, given the age of the house that human agent is probably DEAD. But the decisions keep getting made, with more patience and accuracy than any human could manage.

The statement "only intelligent agents can choose" reveals an ignorance so deep and profound it would be impossible to even start to correct it with a post, or even a whole thread here. Your entire philosophy of life is centered around this defective axiom. It would be useless to try to introduce you to chaos theory, which explains in very clear terms how the simple choices mechanical systems can make emerge into beautifully complex and unpredictable results. The design of the world does not reveal intelligence; precisely the opposite. It reveals what mathematicians call chaos. And we are the ultimate productions of that chaotic system.

[aneerkoinos]

122. Extremely wrong on this point

"scientists assume the Universe made of consistent simple elements."

You know, there's been some scientific progress since the days of Newton and mechanistic elementarism and atomism, even QM is hundred years old. Those scientist that are up to date don't speak about 'elements' but about 'events'. Heraclitus has beat Democritus.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

100. There's no "choice" involved in natural selection

Organisms bearing features that work well with their environment live, reproduce, and pass those traits on to their offspring. The traits become more magnified over the span of many thousands of years.

Organisms bearing features that do no work well with their environment tend to die quickly before they pass along their traits to their offspring.

Who is making a choice here?

You can argue that semantically the term "natural selection" is a poor one, but otherwise your logic is faulty.

Take a science class sometime. You might learn something.

[ihelpu2see]

103. exactly, there are fossil records of organisms evolving then

becoming extinct shortly after a change, now what kind of "intelligent" design is that.... also, some evolutionists and all creationists want to think that us, Homo Sapien, are the reason for evolution, we were meant to be!!! BS read S. J. Gould Full House and he has great clarity on how complex multi-cellular organisms make up a statistically small part of the evolutionary Bell curve.... It is a good read.

[InvisibleBallots]

70. here's an interesting post from another thread

I didn't write this, another poster did, but I found it interesting

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x3512#3672

scientism--roughly the view that the only possible valid forms of knowledge or rationally warranted belief are those yielded by the methods of the natural sciences; and that the only real entities are those which are posited by the natural sciences. Scientism is not itself science, and it's not proven or provable by science. It's a philosophical worldview. There are many strong philosophical arguments against scientism, and most of the atheists I've encountered have not been familiar with or particularly good at understanding the philosophical critique of scientism.

An abiding memory is seeing Richard Dawkins debating on a TV show with the philosopher Mary Midgeley, the biologist Stephen Jay Gould, and the neurologist Oliver Sachs. At one point, Midgeley's face was a picture of baffled and highly embarrassed horror, as it was becoming increasingly clear that Dawkins really didn't have a clue about the philosophical problems with scientism, nor even some of the notions that are common to philosophy of science 101. She was sitting there with an expression on her face that suggested she was thinking, "This guy doesn't know what he's talking about"---and I could sympathize with Midgeley, as I too was shaking my head in disbelief at Dawkins' apparent philosophical illiteracy.

Thankfully not all atheists are philosophically naive adherents of scientism. There are non-scientistic versions of naturalism which are not as vulnerable to criticism as scientism is. With these people it's possible to have interesting and fruitful discussions about the nature and origins of life, consciousness, reason, morality, meaning, and the apparently fine-tuned structure of what Brian Greene has called The Elegant Universe. When these sorts of atheists say that they find no evidence for theism, I do scratch my head a bit, since to my way of thinking, evidence for theism is fairly readily apparent if you're prepared to define evidence in a non-scientistic way.

It strikes me at any rate that all the phenomena associated with reason and with value, as well as the intelligibility and order of the physical universe, are such as to suggest an 'inference to best explanation' type of reasoning (what the American philosopher C. S. Peirce called 'abductive inference') that quite naturally posits the theistic hypothesis as the best candidate explanation. And if it's ok for physicists to abductively infer such intrinsically invisible theoretical entities as the electromagnetic field, or curved space, or even the invisible laws of physics themselves to explain electromagnetic, gravitational and other physical phenomena, then I don't see any great difficulty in principle in abductively inferring, as the ultimate reality or ground of being, a physically invisible, mind-like, rational, moral consciousness, and then comparing this hypothesis with competing hypotheses which offer alternative explanations of the same phenomena (such as materialist, or Platonic explanations).

I often think that some atheists are operating with a concept of God which is not one that I, as a theist, would regard as adequate for my own thinking about God. And so I find myself saying, well, if that's what you mean by the term 'God', then I don't believe in that 'God' either. When we talk about, and more importantly experience Reason, or Goodness, I personally find it literally incredible that these phenomena can have arisen, or be adequately explained, on the basis of chance movements of impersonal matter-energy, and am immediately disposed to think that Reason and Goodness must be ontologically ultimate in some way. And I guess I just don't see what's so hard to accept about that. And since we never encounter reason and value phenomena independently of mind, then I hypothesize as a reasonable explanation thereof, that the rational moral minds we are familiar with must bear some relationship of analogy to that ontological ultimate Reason/Goodness.

Some atheists I've encountered seem to think of God as being like a ghost, or a fairy, or a mythical man in the sky. But I want to say that God for me is better understood as eternal, uncreated Reason and Goodness---a pure, unlimited Rational and Moral Consciousness that pervades the entire world but exists independently of it, and transcends it. To say that such a reality makes no sense and does not exist, to me must mean that reality makes no sense or is ultimately unintelligible. And that idea itself---the ultimate unintelligibility of reality---to my mind, makes no sense. That is one reason that I find atheism literally impossible to believe. It suggests instead that material reality is all there is, and it just happens to be here or is necessitated by some impersonal cosmic law, for no reason or purpose, and somewhat surprisingly is such as to produce life, consciousness, rational thoughts, moral experience, consciousness of profound beauty, and profound experiences of meaning and love and value---but all by accident, not by conscious, rational design. To me this suggestion is far more irrational than the idea that if you see a sign that says WELCOME TO SCOTLAND while riding on a train from London to Glasgow, it most likely got to be there by some random, accidental amalgamation of atoms, rather than by the deliberate causal act of a rational, and hence moral, and hence personal being.

Perhaps more conceptual work is needed on both sides. Even from a scientific viewpoint, I think more and more we are finding that notions such as 'information' are fundamental and irreducible. Philosopher David Chalmers talks about matter being information from the outside, and consciousness being information from the inside. One can think of God as self-subsistent Reason--one can conceptualize God as unlimited, pure information communicating itself to itself, which just is, or which eternally generates, Consciousness, and therefore also Value. It generates Value (goodness, love, beauty, etc) because this unlimited self-communicating, self-revealing information is eternally united in harmony with itself, and thus is eternally One and Whole. (These concepts are also partly inspired by and suggestive of St Augustine's theology of the Trinity, which he suggests we try to grasp on an analogy with the operations of intellect/knowledge and will/love of the mind.) And if one runs with Chalmers' idea that information is matter from the outside, the reason we don't see God is not so much that God isn't physical---it's rather that God is infinite. There's just too much information for anyone looking at it from the outside to be see it---finite minds can only fully comprehend finite information. But inside it, it's infinite consciousness--God fully comprehends Godself-and thus all of reality is ultimately intelligible, because God is an unlimited act of rational understanding (or self-communicating information). (By the way, Chalmers is not a religious believer or theist.)

None of the above constitutes conclusive proof of God's existence in some mathematical or rigorous logical sense. But so what? Do we need conclusive scientific proof, or mathematical proof, or logico-philosophical proof that there are minds other than our own, who make welcoming signs for people travelling to Scotland, and with whom we can form meaningful relationships, and to whom we have moral obligations---that we should love our children, for instance?

Now, I think that some atheists can come with me this far---that it is at least not irrational to believe that something akin to Reason has some ultimate ontological status. But they refuse to identify this with God or with a Personal Mind. I call these atheists, Platonists. Again, I think that we experience reason only in association with minds, and never as an independent Platonic entity. And we never experience Platonic entities (such as mathematical equations) just by themselves causing anything. We experience our own minds as causal---we decide to lift up our arm, and up it goes, etc. So further philosophical argument can be adduced. But if I get an atheist to the point of being a Platonist, I'm usually content with that, and will stop there, because I think the only thing that will definitely take you beyond atheistic Platonism into full-blown theism and religious faith is religious experience.

The common kinds of fundamental moral experience are, to my mind, akin to the type of non-scientistic reasons we all of us have to believe certain things that are of fundamental importance to our lives. And there are plenty of similar kinds of reason for thinking that theism is a rational belief system in this sense. But more structured logical reasons can also be given. Another abiding memory is listening to Alvin Plantinga give a lecture at Oxford about 17 years ago entitled "Two Dozen (Or So) Theistic Arguments", and I was pleased to find that the notes for that lecture are available online.

[PittPoliSci]

88. what? are you kidding me?

[Maat]

2. Oh, Fundies .... your bullying me and mine ...

does not equate to religious freedom!

Sometimes I just feel like going mad and supporting school vouchers. Then I would found a big secular school - in which the kids would learn science and evolution.

I found a small private school for my kid (8) because I wanted just the right learning environment.

I know I'm sounding crazy right now. But I'm tired of fighting these people. They are relentless bullies!!! (the Religious Right Extremists - NOT our liberal Christians or any other DUers).

[ixion]

30. you don't sound crazy

you sound right on the money to me.

Religion has nothing whatsoever to do with science, and the two should never be mixed and called fact.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jdj]

43. what kind of school?

that's cool if there is actually a private school that isn't religion based. My area is shot through with fundie private schools. The thing is, I think this is one more tentacle of the right wing plan to kill private education, because the liberals pulling their kids out will only help this cause.

[Erika]

3. The Mormons feel that evolution

may have been God's creation plan.

I do laugh at this intelligent design theory. Intelligent design precludes, miscarriages, birth defects, stillborns, as well as diseases among the surviving populace. This is intelligent design?

Why would an intelligent being program this?

[KDLarsen]

29. Oh, but you forget..

I do laugh at this intelligent design theory. Intelligent design precludes, miscarriages, birth defects, stillborns, as well as diseases among the surviving populace. This is intelligent design?

Haven't you seen the newsletter? All of those are obviously sinners :eyes:

[shockra]

55. A common assumption

Intelligent design presumes intelligence, not perfection.

Nothing or no one with intelligence is ever assumed to be incapable of error. Even geniuses make errors, but they are still intelligent, just not perfect.

[dummy-du1]

61. Alien Seeding Theory - and I got proof!

Omniscient, omnipotent gods don't make mistakes, so obviously we weren't designed by one.

I am actually a strong believer in the Alien Seeding Theory as outlined in the Star Trek TNG episode "The Chase". We all were created by an intelligent alien creator race, that lived billions of years before us, and seeded our evolution by creating a DNA program and distributing it on several planets in the universe. The scientific value of this theory is clear, because it explains easily, why the Greys, that repeatedly visited us in their UFOs, are so similar to us, that is humanoid: They've got the same DNA-programmer as we did!


The conditions for God.— "God himself cannot exist without wise people," said Luther with good reason. But "God can exist even less without unwise people"—that our good Luther did not say.

Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science

[shockra]

63. Well, I don't think we need gods or aliens to have intelligence.

The real sticking point is the refusal to believe that nature can be inherently intelligent, because we've divided the world into so many dichotomies. Nature is considered passive and female opposed to God which is masculine and active.

If nature has to be passive that begs the question of an active force, thus we have to have a God that acts on through it, or on it. It's an eternal dilemma, unless you proclaim nature to be intelligent and nix the idea of God entirely.

Also, the gene theory proposes that once genes (somehow) came about, life was left alone to recombine and work everything out for itself forever. Not that different from God created the world and then left everyone to their own devices, wondering forever after if he even exists. Intelligent design (by those who don't propose a divine hand) don't claim that everything was created with intelligence, and then left alone. But that intelligence is a constant.

[dummy-du1]

74. Infinite - not constant

But that intelligence is a constant.


You got that one wrong. According to Einstein, it's human stupidity, and it is infinite -- not constant.

Well, "design" implies a designer, this is just the kind of personification or anthropomorphism, you just argued against. This is a method to frame the issue anew, because the first try failed. It's aim is to teach the creation myth instead of science in the schools.

If nature is anything, it is indifferent to its inhabitants. But humans live in social networks, that's what humans are adapted for. In society it's possible to change the attitude of people and thus change the social reality. It's hard for humans to grasp that nature doesn't care about them and nothing can be done to influence it in that way. So it's easier to animate the indifferent nature with the forces, they are adapted to manipulate: the personal forces that exist in society.

[reprobate]

65. You are ALMOST right.

Actually, we are not descended from intelligent aliens. We are descended from the trash they left behind after stopping on earth for a picnic.

If we were descended from intelligent aliens, we would be intelligent enough to not have fundies in our midst.

Unless the fundies were the ones that came from the trash.

By gosh, that DOES explain it!

[genieroze]

90. Wouldn't what you are talking about go along with intelligent design?

A greater intelligence then we had at the time helping us along?

[ihelpu2see]

104. there is a big problem if Aliens did it...

that would mean that Christ died for their sins as well or that they could be "Saved"

[reprobate]

62. Yet you deny the perfection of god?

God is perfect, right?

But god designed an imperfect thing?

Why would god design a flawed world?

Or perhaps god is imperfect and the world just reflects god's imperfection.

Think about what you are saying. Then explain how fundies differ from the taliban.

[XemaSab]

83. The pope

said that evolution was God's mechanism for creation

[Bridget Burke]

99. One more reason for serious Fundies to abhor evolution.

If the Scarlet Woman supports it, you know it's evil.

(The Church had some problems with science back during the Renaissance, but eventually came around.)

[XemaSab]

116. Oh yeah

I forgot that the church was in apostacy since Vatican II. My bad...

[StupidFOX]

119. Are there any liberal private schools out there?

B/c it sounds like we might need 'em soon.

[renegade000]

4. the existence of an "intelligent force"

cannot be proven with science...therefore the theory has no business in a science class.

of course, the "intelligent force" might be space aliens or something...in which case there might be scientific evidence...

but the study of the physical cannot shed insight onto the spiritual...

[Erika]

6. Spiritual vs. intelligent design?

Please explain. If intelligent design results in deaths and defects, how is that spiritual?

[renegade000]

14. heh, it's late, i'm not getting your question

but what i tried to say was that the theory of intelligent design states that life was created by an "intelligent force".

this force could be many things:
-a spiritual/metaphysical entity (such as 'God')
or
-beings that exist within our physical universe

science can't prove the existence of God or any spiritual being.

hope that helps clarify :shrug:

[Selteri]

46. Eh, Intelligent design is...

An open statement.

Science can't prove the existance of a number of Phenomina or in other cases discounts things. By present Scientific Standards you don't exist because you can't yet be replicated in a lab perfectly.

Though I will at least give Science credence for some of their knowledge has been expressed in the same form of evidence and direct results from their actions can often be displayed.

Religion though, has a very low success rate that many of these unusual people who still fight so hard to keep religious theories or promote religion in science are only going to hamper the developement of the students further in the sceinces.

As a note on some other things that schools fought in the past that were considered so earth shattering...

Teaching that the world was not the center of the Universe.

Teaching that the Earth was round.

Teaching Evolution.

Things that are still fought in being taught to students.

The truth about The Civil War beyond the politically correct statement and some boring battles.

The truth about HIV Transmission.

The truth about pregnancy and sex.

Sadly, this battle apparently isn't over yet. Science doesn't have all the answers, but, to try to force a theory based upon a erligious text isn't bad science, it's bad politics.

- Personal opinion, I think it is possible that aliens tinkered with our DNA to give us an evolutionary step up or that we could be the result of a very odd experiment. I believe there is something beyond what modern science can explain or is ignoring for the same reasons the church refused to understand that we were not the center of the universe, just our personal universe.

[heidler1]

48. If you apply intelligent design to human beings. It needed a lot of help.

For instance; Letting our bodies hormones dictate sexual desire and the inevitable fulfillment at puberty without the ability to deal with the result. Like all animals to breed is in charge.

Having a brain that believes crap when all of the obvious evidence proves otherwise. Like the post herein about how someone would pref ere that we came about through creation which is the essence of why many are selling intelligent design.

Like the normal unwillingness to truly worship anything that does not give pleasure and the demand of this God to be worshiped, indicating a design problem, and then possibly treated like Job who did faithfully worship, but was then severely tested. The Bible is loaded with stories where in the people did not worship properly and were eliminated.

[R Hickey]

8. My rich republican neighbor believes in these "space aliens"

We haven't talked much since our "political-yard-sign-war" though.

[mmonk]

32. I didn't know explaining an "intelligent force"

was the purpose of science.

[KittyWampus]

37. Are You Saying There's No Such Thing As Consciousness?

because that's what 'intelligent force' is.

[AtTheEndOfTheDay]

47. Consciousness is not a force

take a Physics course.

[shockra]

56. This is interesting to me.

Because sometimes I think people are confusing God with their minds. You can't see God, but you can't see the mind, either. Yet scientifically the mind is considered to exist.

[reprobate]

67. Wrong! The 'mind' does not exist as a physical entity.

The 'mind' or the thing we experience as 'mind', is only the result of bioelectrical activity in the brain. Deny it all you want, but current pharmalogical science will prove you wrong all day and all night.

Learn some science before opening the mouth.

[shockra]

76. I didn't say the mind exists as a physical entity.

But you will hear the mind referred to all day and night in science books.

And you have no idea of my scientific credentials, so your comment is just as ignorant as the majority of them in this thread. Which consists of practically nothing but name calling, and no one who knows what Darwinian theory, or ID theory actually consists of.

[aneerkoinos]

95. I'd be carefull

"Learn some science before opening the mouth." is an advice you should first apply to yourself, to avoid making hubristic and unscientific claims when pretending to speak for science.

Mind as epiphenomenon emerging from the bioelectrical processes in the brain is a hypothesis (not even a well-formed theory) that is popular among some scientists, but "current pharmalogical(sic) science" is not proving yet anything definitive re Mind-Body problem. E.g. the quantum-mind hypothesis has much wider explanatory power and has more to offer to solving the Mind-Body problem than the epiphenomenon hypothesis you try to present as the scientific truth.

[VegasWolf]

102. In what sense? If you believe that the mind exists independently

of the brain, regardless of the mechanism for consciousness,
then you are entering the murky realms of religion.

[aneerkoinos]

120. Consciousness

You have funny definition of religion, telling that you have made exclusive materialism into a religion of a kind, scientism.

Nothing exists independently, says one religion, and modern and postmodern science tend to agree.

My view is in the line of Spinoza, Whitehead, Bohm etc., mind and matter are just aspects of some deeper movement, cf. wave-particle dualism. And for example, evidence from the observations of surroundings during NDE point the way that at least in some contexts mind can function relatively independently from brain. This is just one example of the empirical evidence that the materialistic paradigm has hard time explaining, but is no problem for the quantum mind hypothesis.

[trotsky]

5. "so complex as to require the creative hand of an intelligent force"

In other words, the argument from personal incredulity. "I just don't see how it could have happened that way, so it must have been god."

This is just pathetic. These people will stop at nothing to make sure science comes to a complete halt.

[Autobot77]

24. If these idiots would bother to even learn science....

They would learn that scientists were able to recreate conditions where protiens combined into simple organisms.Orginially simple organisms would develop into more complex organisms like humans.
Intelligent design is nothing more than the rights attempt to force religion on people. It's no more science than Star Wars.

[shockra]

57. Well, yes.

In carefully controlled conditions scientists can cause certain genetic events. But those are intelligently designed experiments, with knowledge of their subjects. They are not results of completely random activity, as evolution requires that they be.

[trotsky]

96. Actually that is a completely wrong view of evolution.

A distinction:

Evolution is the theory that all life forms on earth descended from one initial organism. It doesn't make a statement about, nor even care, where that first organism came from.

It's the theory of abiogenesis (literally "life from non-life") that states the first organism came about from naturalistic processes.

So evolution doesn't "require" anything of the sort.

If you want to read a really good rundown on abiogenesis, here's a link to some FAQs:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

[The Magistrate]

27. Thank You, Comrade Trotsky!

"Argument from personal incredulity" will go into the file for future use; it is an excellent coinage, deserving of wide circulation.

"Anything I don't understand must be easy."

[trotsky]

41. You have Richard Dawkins to thank!

I believe he coined that phrase. I love it too; it perfectly sums up the cretinist (oops I mean creationist) position as well as many other anti-science views.

[killbotfactory]

54. Someone's got to take a stand for Jesus!

He's too weak to take a stand for himself, i guess.

[hatrack]

59. A good old-fashioned slicing with Occam's Razor is what they need

Sadly, they'll never get it - not today.

[VegasWolf]

79. I cut myself shaving with Occam's Razor. It's damn sharp. n/t

[Bandit]

97. Follow that logic a bit farther

God is so complex that he/she/it must have been created and that creator must have also been created . This could go on for infinity but they don't believe in infinity that is why they so desperately cling to a beginning like God. Their mind just simply cannot grasp the concept of infinity. Their Bible claims in the very first sentence. In the Beginning. With infinity there is no beginning and no end.

[reprobate]

106. Thanks, trotsky. Never heard it before.

If you don't mind, I used this in a LTTE.

[IHeart1993]

7. These are the same people who complain

that the United States is behind in science compared to the rest of the world.

[Maestro]

19. A yes

Good point. I'm going to use that one.

[JohnLocke]

9. Evolution is "just a theory"

Just like atomic theory is "just a theory." :)
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Characteristics

[Evening Star]

22. The Legend Of Creation

This work combines the two and there are many places in the book which explain the inner workings, i.e.

Intelligent design and evolution through divine intervention in a historical and future perspective.

The book seems to be withstanding the test of time

PAPER 74: Section 8.
The Legend Of Creation
http://www.urantiabook.org/newbook/ppr074_8.html

PAPER 65: Section 2.
The Evolutionary Panorama

The story of man's ascent from seaweed to the lordship of earthly creation is indeed a romance of biologic struggle and mind survival. Man's primordial ancestors were literally the slime and ooze of the ocean bed in the sluggish and warm-water bays and lagoons of the vast shore lines of the ancient inland seas, those very waters in which the Life Carriers established the three independent life implantations on Urantia. http://www.urantiabook.org/newbook/ppr065_2.html

http://urantiabook.org/newbook/index.html

Enjoy!

[reprobate]

68. Don't forget gravity. It too is just a theory. But don't fall down.

[onager]

10. Got your Intelligent Design right here...

"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation.

During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease.

It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored.

In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice.

The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." -- Richard Dawkins, "God's Utility Function," published in Scientific American (November, 1995), p. 85

[Erika]

11. Intelligent design?

Who would produce a world of starving millions and a few elites? If it is spiritual, I think Lucifer is the main player.

[Skittles]

94. I shudder to think what kind of being couold possibly be "watching" us

:puke:

[jmcgowanjm]

39. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes-The MaximumPowerPrinciple

Natural Born Liars

In order to understand our future, we must first understand
our evolutionary history. It is a difficult subject to learn
because we are genetically biased against knowing our
true natures.

The Maximum Power Principle states that all open
systems (Bernard cells, ecosystems, people, societies,
etc.) evolve to degrade as much energy as possible
while allowing for the continued existence of the larger
systems they are part
of.

"The human mind evolved to believe in gods... Acceptance of
the supernatural conveyed a great advantage
throughout prehistory, when the brain was evolving. Thus it is
in sharp contrast to which was developed as a
product of the modern age and is not underwritten by
genetic algorithms."
-- E.O. Wilson

http://dieoff.org/page193.htm

[VegasWolf]

12. They want to teach "Poof Theory" where god poof's everything

into existence.

[NYC Liberal]

13. "I definitely would prefer..."

Well I would definately prefer that you, madam, kindly shut your trap unless you have something intelligent to say. Doesn't matter what you want. Unless you have scientific proof, 'intelligent design' ain't a THEORY (a scientific term with a specific definition). It's a MYTH.

[onager]

17. I had a Feast Of Rationality today...

...along with stuffing myself.

Caught up on old episodes of Penn & Teller's great cable (Showtime) series, Bullshit!.

The episode on Creationism alone is worth the price of the DVD's, since we actually go inside the Cobb County (GA) School Board on the night they approved the teaching of religious pseudoscience in science classes.

No comedian who ever lived can possibly be funnier than Bullshit's! motley crew of Creationists, astrologers, spoon-benders, remote viewers, Feng Shui-ers, Fundamentalists, phony sex therapists, firewalkers, psychics and...pet psychics! (The first question the Pet Psychic asks is always the pet's name. Shouldn't she KNOW that already?)

[reprobate]

71. You're right. ID isn't a theory. Hell, it doesn't even make hypothesis.

[VegasWolf]

15. "Intelligent design" couldn't share a toilet with evolution. n/t

[VegasWolf]

16. "Intelligent design" damn just typing that phrase makes me giggle. n/t

[Solly Mack]

18. and I prefer being related to a silverback and not a republican.

but fact is, Lark Myers....I'm related to both.

smoochies

[msongs]

20. these schools of thought are not incompatible......

evolution could be the mechanism an intelligent design is implementing

course the fundies do NOT want compatibility.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[VegasWolf]

21. Then one would not need a designer to make it all work. Fundies

would never go for it. Besides if this planet was
intelligently designed, I'll be a monkey's uncle.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

33. Maybe he means it in the sense of fundamental physical laws

"Let me see, now I'll make the electron have 0.000544615 the mass of the proton... hum, that won't do, potassium won't have stable isotopes that way... let's try 0.000544617... ah, perfect! Let There Be Light!"

That way of thinking is almost guaranteed not to collide with any future major finding in science. But NOOOOOOOO, they HAVE to have their Santa Claus-y stories be LITERALLY TRUE!

[agincourt]

23. Give this country another 20 years,

We'll be debating whether the world is flat and whether women's smaller brains deserve educating. It'll all be supported by smug slogans, a few linguistic pap facts, and slick sounded perverted logic. The only thing this country produces well anymore are better ways to support conservative lies. Just wait there will be somebody with a Regenery book "proving" the Apollo moon missions were a liberal hoax, and that only president Hee Haw can get us there.

[chaumont58]

50. One thing, though, creationism doesn't wear well

It seems that, after a while, cooler heads prevail, people get embarrassed and science wins over.
I don't know if I interprut 'intelligent design' right, but it seems that if one doesn't understand something, that proves the existence of God. In other words, calculus being thicker than blood to me, I should deem math the provence of God. Makes things easy to take.

[TahitiNut]

25. Next: the Holocaust was just God-inspired spontaneous combustion.

:eyes:

[Algomas]

26. Maybe they are right...

Maybe evolution isn't all that. After all, when you look at us as a species, we seem to be getting dumber every year. Shouldn't we be getting smarter?
Anyone here remember the band Devo?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

34. Check again. The only thing evolution improves is a species' ability to

reproduce and avoid extinction.

Insects are actually more evolved than us. Sentience is just a perfunctory attribute, evolution-wise.

[shockra]

28. I get the impression that few people really understand...

What the neo-Darwinist theory proposes about evolution. Just that it must be better than creationism and the God goes *poof* idea. Well, when you put it that way. But it's more complex than that, and it would be tragic if religion replaced science in this instance because the argument is oversimplified due to the clash of two authoritarian institutions -- science and religion, neither of which like to admit to error.

What should happen is that the criticisms of neo-Darwinism that have come out mostly in the next decade be taken more seriously, to update the theory of evolution. But since the scientific establishment is too stubborn to give any ground at all, it looks like the idea is in danger of being completely thrown over for creationism with some Intelligent Design as window dressing.

There are real problems with the neo-Darwin theory of evolution as it is now conceived, and I'm posting four short passages from books including a proponent of intelligent design, a critic of neo-Darwinism, and one by the most popular neo-Darwinist -- Richard Dawkins. How easy is it to tell which is which? The titles of the four books (not in order) should give you some hints:

How Blind is the Watchmaker? Nature's Design and the Limits of Naturalistic Science by Neil Broom

Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins

Not By Chance!: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution by Dr. Lee M. Spetner

************ONE

There are several different kinds of variations of the phenotype that can be induced by the environment, and many of them can lead to long-term changes in a population. These variations can be divided into two broad classes. In the first class are variations in the phenotype that result from changes in the DNA sequence. In the second class are variations in the phenotype without a change in the DNA sequence.

Nonrandom mutations fall into the first class. Mutations, as we have seen in Chapter 2, are changes in the DNA sequence, and can be divided into several types. Some are changes in a single nucleotide, and some are more complex. Many mutations are known to be spontaneous and their effects are independent of any environmental influence. These are not the mutations of macroevolution. Evidence indicates that these mutations are the results of errors in the proper working of the genetic mechanism. Most of them result from errors in the replication of the DNA.

The mutations I am calling for are those that show evidence of being nonrandom in that they are triggered by the environment. Some of them have been seen to be adaptive. These mutations form the first class of nonrandom variation that could lead to observed evolution. These mutations may act as switches triggered by the environment that switch the genome to one of a preexisting set of potential states to produce an adaptive phenotype.

We have seen that random mutations do not put information into the genome. The mutations that contribute to macroevolution are nonrandom -- they are triggered by the environment and lead to adaptive phenotypes. The potential for adaptivity to the environment already exists in the genome. The environment just triggers it.

**********TWO

What about the life-span of a smaller genetic unit, say 1/100 of the length of your chromosome 8a? This unit too came from your father, but it very probably was not originally assembled in him. Following the earlier reasoning, there is a 99 per cent chance that he received it intact from one of his two parents. Suppose it was from his mother, your paternal grandmother. Again, there is a 99 per cent chance that she inherited it intact from one of her parents. Eventually, if we trace the ancestry of a small genetic unit back far enough, we will come to its original creator. At some stage it must have been created for the first time inside a testicle or an ovary of one of your ancestors.

Let me repeat the rather special sense in which I am using the word 'create'. The smaller sub-units which make up the genetic unit we are considering may well have existed long before. Our genetic unit was created at a particular moment only in the sense that the particular *arrangement* of sub-units by which it is defined did not exist before that moment. The moment of creation may have occured quite recently, say in one of your grandparents. But if we consider a very small genetic unit, it may have been first assembled in a much more distant ancestor, perhaps an ape-like pre-human ancestor. Moreover, a small genetic unit inside you may go on just as far into the future, passing intact through a long line of your descendants.

**********THREE

Religion and science are to be kept separate. God is retained to supply the former, but it would never do to consider him in the latter...The Creator is used to explain morality but is disconnected from the physical world.

Darwin, for his part, was keen to the implications of this new Gnosticism. If God is not intimately involved in the world, then is he involved at all? In a letter Darwin challenged his American friend Asa Gray to think this through:

I see a bird which I want for food, take my gun and kill it. I do this designedly. An innocent and good man stands under a tree and is killed by a flash of lightning. Do you believe (and I really should like to hear) that God designedly killed this man?...If you believe so, do you believe that when a swallow snaps up a gnat that God designed that that particular swallow should snap up that particular gnat at that particular instant? I believe that the man and the gnat are in the same predicament. If the death of neither man nor gnat are designed, I see no good reason to believe that their *first* birth or production should be necessarily designed.

Darwin may have been more skeptic than believer, but he knew very well how to craft a religious argument. The Scriptures proclaimed that God is free to create calamity, yet that providence extends even to birds. But in the Victorian world, Darwin could question this with little justification required. It was reasonable for Darwin to argue that God would not be personally involved in the swallow's attack on the gnat -- not because of any finding of modern science but because of the persistence of Gnosticism into modern times. And given such a premise, it was then reasonable to conclude that God is altogether removed from the world. Evolution is the right conclusion, given a Gnostic starting point. God and matter don't mix, so life wasn't created.

************FOUR

Recall that DNA functions rather like a set of blueprints, or rather a series of algorithms, providing the correct recipe for making each of the many different proteins required to be manufactured by the cell at each moment in time and space. The exact coordination of this process is absolutely crucial to the correct functioning of the cell but is left largely unexplained by the DNA itself. A higher level of control is required, and the process goes something like this: At a given moment a particular protein enzyme is required by the cell. The cell reaches into the appropriate DNA "pigeon hole" (that specific part of the DNA library containing the coding instructions for the required protein), takes it out, makes a "photocopy," returns the original to its correct place and delivers the copied instructions to the cellular machinery, thus enabling protein production to commence. It is not the DNA that orchestrates this exquisitely synchronized set of events. Rather, it is the whole cell within the living organism that is somehow orchestrated to bring about the retrieval of the required protein recipe from the vast library of coded information stored in the DNA. And don't forget, this entire process is resoundingly goal-centered. The cell is intent on producing a particular protein for a particular task.

**********

Can anyone tell me which is which, and how they know?

[ixion]

31. okay, in my opinion, there is nothing intelligent about carbon-based

design.

Silicon would have been a much better choice.

So, if god is an engineer, he's not a very good one, IMO.

[manly]

115. manly

you should all save your breath. the simple fact is there is no such thing as god.
just because i can't explain the mysteries of creation and the universe doesn't validate a preposterous assumption.
why don't you all shut the hell up about god, who simply doesn't exist, and stop wasting everybody's time, including your own.
thank you very much. goodnight.

[ixion]

123. I use the word 'god' in the figurative

and I'll thank you to not presuppose my spiritual beliefs. ;-)

[Malva Zebrina]

35. the argument of believers who are Deists

has more logic that this silly proposition-ie I believe in a creator, but one that left us all to our own and took off after the job, washing his hands of the whole thing.

the fault here is that equating intelligence design theory with Darwin's evolution is mixing oranges and apples as many here have pointed out. It should not be allowed to frame the argument by constant comparison to Darwin's theory and that is where the real harm will be done--the absorption of this meme/connection into the consciousness of the true believer.

That is what is behind this push--eliminating anything that poses a dilemma to god beliefs,most especially Christian literalist beliefs, although others more liberal, better read and intelligent, who see the handwriting on the wall,(the bible no longer makes sense given the advances of science) have also jumped onto this sinking boat-- no matter how silly or how many holes in it's propostion.

I think it seems more like desperation , the drowning man swimming to any nearest shore, in order to prevent cognitive dissonance, which is painful and unbearable to the human psyche, and to the pocketbook of clerics. This is dangerous also, as we see this silliness pervading all throughout the country, thanks to Bush astutely recognizing a willing, naive flock to join him in implementing his fascist longings. Historically, the near perfect tool is religion.

We are talking about beliefs that have been firmly entrenched in the consciousness of bewildered humans for thousands of years.

This newly developed one of intelligent designer, in spite of Michael Behe's mouse trap thesis, will be shredded also and after that?

I think we are seeing the last hurrah, before, as Spong has said, the more intelligent will recognize that Christianity Must Change or Die.

I sometimes wonder if those clerics, graduates of well known schools of theology, and knowing,or at the least exposed to the facts and myth behind man's need for religion, yet deliberately lie to the congregation with every sermon preached on many a Sunday, are to be respected. Perhaps they see their role differently than I. :-)

[Stuckinthebush]

38. This country is really going down in flames fast

We are but a shell of what we could be.

I'm beginning to get sick of us, and if I'm getting sick of us, imagine what the rest of the world thinks.

A nation of fools.

[oneighty]

40. Human Intelligence

tells us that we are going to die someday. Because we are intelligent thinking, observing beings we are certain of that death, not being any more, like gone man! Forever!

God/Gods give us a promise of life ever after. Those that cannot accept the fact that they are going to be gone forever will embrace 'Intelligent design.' Would not you?

I think.

180

[Stuckinthebush]

42. It shows the limits of the human intellect

Or the arrogance of the human being.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

44. I do want my children to hear about the holes in the evolution theory

And I want them to understand the difference between scientific theory and religious belief.

[onager]

51. "Let the children decide..."

Because I just watched a Creationism show last night, one Fundie argument struck me as really funny.

It goes like this:

"We just want to give the children BOTH SIDES of the question. Tell them about Creationism and evolution and let them make up their own minds."

I wonder if they would be willing to give the children both sides of the argument about contraception, abortion, drug and alcohol use, etc., and let them make up their own minds.

Somehow I don't think so.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

91. You've got that right

No need to wonder about it. There is no room for other viewpoints as far as these wackos are concerned.

[depakid]

49. More Fundie pandering from the Post

What an embassassment that must be to subscribe to that paper.

Last week, I read an outright (and obvious) lie in a supposedly scientific article- this week, a slanted story on creationism.

I think if I lived in and around DC, I'd prefer the Times- at least you know where they were coming from.

[rocktivity]

52. Will the study of intelligent design be restricted to Christianity only?

It's not not the only religion who believes in it.

:headbang:
rocknation

[genieroze]

87. Why should it? eom

[genieroze]

53. I have no problem with it just as long as it's presented as a theory

and they teach evolution with it.

[ChairOne]

66. Of course you don't.

Sheesh. Americans: stupid and stupider.

[genieroze]

86. Ignore

[Solon]

81. It is NOT A THEORY...

It doesn't even qualify as an Hypothesis. There is NO evidence to back it up, and therefore does not belong in a science classroom. Theories are defined in a very narrow way in the scientific process, and it would bastardize science and degrade education to even entertain the notion that ID is a scientific theory.

[Bandit]

98. And what is the definition of Scientific Theory?

How about Hypothesis? IMHO Creationism doesn't meet either definition.

[Ellen Forradalom]

58. How about the question of evil in the world?

"I definitely would prefer to believe that God created me than that I'm 50th cousin to a silverback ape," she said. "What's wrong with wanting our children to hear about all the holes in the theory of evolution?"

If God created us, then he has a lot to answer for; but if we are 50th cousins to far more peaceable, or at least less destructive, primates, the responsibility for evil is ours alone. Not a nice thought, little miss gift-shop owner, is it?

[Borgnine]

69. Okay, fine.

But I also want students to be taught that ancient Martians came to Earth, and that's where human life came from. Oh, and my own personal theory that we sprang from the buttox of Mr. T. Everything is fair game now!

[Sin]

72. Yea Theory

Personally I don't think they get past the Experiment stage.
So Here is the Progression For a Scientific Theory

1.Observation
2.Hypothesis
3.Experiment
Control---- Experimental
Group--------Group
4. Results

5.Evidence supports Hypothesis
go back to step 3 Repeat over and over

5.1 Evidence inconsistent with Hypothesis
Revise Hypothesis /go back to step 3

6.If evidence supports hypothesis
after many Repeated experiments( by different people) Hypothesis becomes Theory.

Now this would Be Religious Theory( My apologies to those who keep there religious beliefs to them selves and not force it into the lives of who do not want it.)

1.Faith
2.Belief
3.Truth
Follower------- Non
--------------Believer

4.Results

5.Zealot
Desired result

5.1 Enemy of the faith
Revise thinking through
torture or other means.
Repeat step 3.

6.If enough desired results
are obtained you now have Theocracy

[LibertyorDeath]

75. What a fucking imbecile it's got nothing to do with what she

prefers to believe. Science is not a belief you half wit knuckle
dragging moron.

"Lark Myers, a blond, 45-year-old gift shop owner, frames the question and answers it. "I definitely would prefer to believe that God created me than that I'm 50th cousin to a silverback ape," she said. "What's wrong with wanting our children to hear about all the holes in the theory of evolution?"

She is free to believe that we are all descendant from the Great Sun god.
It doesn't make her "logic" any less moronic.

Cretinists you can keep them every last magical thing mother fucking one of them.

[mitchum]

77. She must have incredibly shakey self esteem if she is threatened by...

the idea of sharing ancestry with an ape.
If I didnt despise her so much, I would pity her.

[rust1d]

78. Here is the sticker they put on the books!

I tracked it down via google...

Actual Sticker: Evolution Disclaimer

[VegasWolf]

110. "This textbook contains descriptions of evolution. Reading about

evolution may cause damage to your religious beliefs."

[Bouncy Ball]

82. They need to keep those crazy fuckers off of school boards

in public districts. We have one crazy fundy who is up for re-election and about to have her ass handed to her on a platter by the nice NORMAL guy she defeated by only 20 votes a few years ago.

Then we'll be back to normal. A nicely Democratic school board. This might be Texas, but my city at least has some common sense.

[onager]

85. I got another sticker for them...

"Reality is not subject to popular vote."

Nah, they wouldn't understand that...

[Bridget Burke]

101. WE need to keep them off school boards.

In the last election, my area had only one candidate for the State (of Texas!) school board.

Republican, of course.

[frustrated_lefty]

89. I hate these imbeciles with a passion.

Whether it be creationism, intelligent design, or benevolent aliens from planet Q that brought about life on Earth, none of these claims can be tested imperically. This is why religion is a matter of "faith," and science is totally separate as a matter of "impericism." If you can't test the hypothesis, keep the claim OUT of the fucking science class room.

[ChairOne]

92. lol /eom

[VegasWolf]

105. "Amen Theory" n/t

[reprobate]

107. LTTE Orlando Sentinel on this subject. Comments?

First, if Mr. Leppard wants to argue science he should first get his terms right. His mistake is confusing the word "Theory" with "Hypotheses", defined as: a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory.

In other words, a hypothesis is the first 'best guess', which after testing and experimentation has been shown to be true in all situations becomes a theory.

Second, the only difference between "macro-evolution" and "micro-evolution" is time scale, making this a false difference. It comes from the limited view of time we have as humans. We tend to see a lifetime as the longest understandable period of time. I wish Mr. Leppard would show us what "HOLES" he means when talking about macro-evolution.

The scientific method places evolution under constant scrutiny. That's what science is all about. If it is shown to be wanting, it will be changed to fit the facts. That's how we learn.

Now Mr. Leppard suggests the theory of Intelligent Design. But ID is not a theory. In fact, it is not even a hypothesis because it can't be tested. If Mr. Leppard will suggest a means of testing ID that is physically possible, I'm sure science would consider it after proof. Until then, we will have to consider ID what logic might call "Argument from Personal Incredulity". Or, "I just don't see how it could happen that way, so it must have been God."

Unfortunately looking at this discussion from a larger view it bodes ill for America as a nation. "Intelligent Design" seems just a softened version of "Creationism Theory", which would invalidate all science and replace it with 'revealed' knowledge. We would, under this 'theory' have no medicine, computers, automobiles, or anything else that science has given us as a society in the last two centuries.

I suggest that Mr. Leppard read "The Handmaiden's Tale" for a probable end in a society of "revealed" knowledge.

[trotsky]

108. Looks great!

Although I think it was Richard Dawkins who coined the exact phrase "argument from personal incredulity." A.k.a. the argument from ignorance, or the "god of the gaps".

Oh and I think the book is called The Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Atwood.

[reprobate]

118. Thank you, trotsky.

[SidDithers]

109. Wow. That a view like ID is defended, even here at DU...

makes your recent election results completely understandable.

"How can Bush be so popular?" asked the interviewer.

"70 million Americans don't believe in evolution" answered Seymour Hersh.

Sid

[Solon]

111. Hersh got it wrong...

Its more along the lines of...

"70 million Americans are ignorant of the scientific process."

Its not a matter of belief, but a matter of evidence, facts, and the analysis of that data that we need to keep in SCIENCE classrooms.

[onager]

112. That phrase always bothers me, too.

You're right, it's not a matter of belief.

If enough of us stopped "believing" in the Theory Of Electromagnetism...after all, it's JUST A THEORY!...maybe all our computers would stop working. ;-)

[maxsolomon]

114. if god designed me he's got some explaining to do:

1. god is perfect
2. i was designed by god
3. i am not perfect (bad eyesight, rosacea, wide feet)
therefore, 1 of 2 things must be true:
1. god is not perfect
2. god did not design me.

[donheld]

117. The "Silverback ape"

Probably doesn't want "Lark Myers, a blond, 45-year-old gift shop owner" as a 50th cousin either.

[Bill McBlueState]

124. hah hah

I'd rather have the guy in your picture as a cousin than most of my actual cousins.

[cleofus1]

121. how could there be a god?

god is tot


"Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: "I am looking for God! I am looking for God!"
As many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there, he excited considerable laughter. Have you lost him, then? said one. Did he lose his way like a child? said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? or emigrated? Thus they shouted and laughed. The madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances.

"Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto."

Friedrich Nietzsche


and yes i am an atheist...and i just love the word "hitherto" gives me tingles!