Creationists have an inverse relation between evidence and conviction. Masses of continually published research in hundreds of academic journals is dismissed whilst a single dated, out of context quote from a scientist or philosopher is overwhelming concrete evidence of their position. This practice is known as quote mining.

So here's one from me.

Question: But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
Behe: Yes, that's correct.

Kitzmiller v. Dover trial

Source. (http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day11PMSession.pdf) (pdf file, approx 200KB)

Here's a quote from the Bible that proves God doesn't want you to believe in Intelligent Design...:D

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21

Heheh.

Here's one that proves there is no afterlife:
Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

Screw this debate...;)

Rather than cling to the falsehoods of either side, i prefer Lord Kelvin's mindset-

"Do not be afraid of being free thinkers! If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all religion. You will find science not antagonistic but helpful to religion."
-Lord Kelvin, father of thermodynamics and modern physics.

To me, science is backed up by fact, religion by emotion; fact denies emotion, emotion denies fact. The troublesome balancing of both creates the equilibrium for the human to thrive.

Screw this debate...
Too right. This isn't a debate. This is a couple of atheists doing what creationists do: quote-mining and pretending it makes a case against the opposition.

I've never read Behe's book (i.e. I'm dismissing the entire thing out of hand) but am making a big deal out of a single quotation by the man. This is the beloved strategy of creationists - inverting one's conclusion to the evidence.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.- 2 Collossians 2:8

Fetusi are property

Exodus 21:
22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [Or she has a miscarriage] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

To me, science is backed up by fact, religion by emotion; fact denies emotion, emotion denies fact. The troublesome balancing of both creates the equilibrium for the human to thrive. (Evakian)


Religion doesn't deny fact. It is very easy to be religious and still accept the fact that evolution took place in the past, is taking place today and will most likely take place in the future. It is not the denial of evolution but the belief in a prime mover who created the universe and who continues to oversee it that seperates believers in Intelligent Design from those who do not believe in it.

Among my degrees is one in science and I have no problem believing the theory of evolution. As a Christian I also have no problem believing that God was there at the beginning of the universe and has overseen the universe since its inception.

Intelligent Design as meant my Behe is incompatible with evolution, Frogger. His "irreducible complexity" idea directly says living things cannot have evolved.

However if you are saying more generally that a creator god could be compatible with evolution then I agree.

I never really understood why people tried to refute religion with science in the first place. It seems like the argument is that if science can explain how people came into existence, then religion is obviously wrong about it. My thoughts are that there's no real proof that God himself didn't write the laws of physics. So he made humans out of cells and all that other fun stuff. Perhaps the science/religion argument stems from religious people being against certain scientific advances or theories... i.e- sex changes, stem cell research, etc. I guess it's a way of saying' you don't have to believe in God, but don't try to play him either.

Welcome Moral Satire!

I agree there's no need for conflict between science and god.

Perhaps the science/religion argument stems from religious people being against certain scientific advances or theories...
Yes that's true. When it comes to evolution they pretend to have lots of scientific reasons why it is untrue, but really it comes down to discomfort with the idea that humans have non-human ancestors. If evolution just happened to state "all living things have common ancestry except humans" then they would never have made up all those silly arguments about the 2nd law of Thermodynamics and so on - and neither would they bother quote-mining evolutionists.