I see this discussion has gone to some other places, and I'll just watch that happen because I have to get some work done. But I do want to correct various strawmen and attributions that have been pointed my way by posting this summary of what I've been saying.

As a matter of principle science and religion can inform each other, but they cannot provide a definitive critique of each other. Science confines it's inspections to that which is empirically falsifiable, and religion's realm includes things which are not empirically falsifiable. Trying to use science to disprove religion, or using religion to overturn science, will always lead to frustration because there is no universally accepted higher ground from which to judge between the two.

The practical implication of this is that science and religion should be considered closed systems which can be internally consistent and rational, but which are nevertheless bounded by their differing methodologies.

While it's likely true that for many advocates ID is a religiously motivated political movement, the best response is simply to hold ID to scientific rigor. Until ID has made the case scientifically, by asserting falsifiable hypotheses, by conducting experiments or observations that can be independently verified, by having studies published in peer review journals, and so on...ID is not established science and therefore should not be taught in science class.

In terms of social impact I'm taking the position that nothing much will be accomplished by painting one side as being irrational and stupid, and the other as being evil and unenlightened. My feeling is that if people properly understood and *viscerally felt* the way the two domains are disconnected in principle, that might allow for a more constructive and less hostile mutual coexistence.

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:

matthew wrote:thanks Weissenberger....just try not to pander too much

I will continue to pander as long as you continue to substitute self-serving assertions for evidence and logical rigor.

Self-serving my ass...where are you getting this from?

M_a_x wrote:What the heck is SUPERRATIONAL?

That which is above the ability of the human intellect to FULLY understand......

I've read all the Gospels, and even did a very large paper on the Apocraphyal Gospel of Timothy (which contains my favourite Jesus line ever "Be passerby". But I digress). What about Jesus' line in Matthew about becoming children...to become "like little children" one must eschew critical thinking and make no use of any higher education. . And Paul, who has a bigger influence over Christian thinking than Jesus to my mind says things like "For I determined to know nothing among you save Jesus Christ and him crucified," (1 Corinthians 2:2). THAT certainly strikes me as a purposeful shutting out of reason, of knowledge, and embracing only irrational faith. And I remind you of something you just ignored, Colossians 2:8, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy..." - it does NOT say "Learn the philosophy, and amend it with God's love" or anything like that. Nowhere is that suggested.

No no no........ God has given us an intellect in order for us to know Him......this is quite obvious. You are creating an imaginary boundary between faith and reason. No such dichotomy exists. How could it? If God is Truth and therefore all that is real and true has its source in Him, then how could matters of faith and matters of reason contradict each other?

You're not reading the gospel with the eyes of faith.

I'm agreeing with most of what you said there.

Fortunately for me I live in Europe and here there is no debate over ID, it would be political suicide.

Thank God!

galanter wrote:Science confines it's inspections to that which is empirically falsifiable

I just want to say for the record that this is such an antiquated version of "science".......induction is such a bad methodology, but that's more in the realm of the philosophy of science than what we are talking about here. So let's continue...

matthew wrote:You're not reading the gospel with the eyes of faith.

What!

Max, I'll leave this one for you, you've got a free swing.

galanter wrote:The practical implication of this is that science and religion should be considered closed systems which can be internally consistent and rational, but which are nevertheless bounded by their differing methodologies.

I don't think it is accurate to call religious faith a "system" or method of thought. I mean, Jesus Christ didn't come into the world to found a philosophical system.....He came to lead us to Himself- hardly a system of "thought".

For the record......has anyone here actually defined what we are referring to when we speak of Intelligent Design?

galanter wrote:In terms of social impact I'm taking the position that nothing much will be accomplished by painting one side as being irrational and stupid, and the other as being evil and unenlightened. My feeling is that if people properly understood and *viscerally felt* the way the two domains are disconnected in principle, that might allow for a more constructive and less hostile mutual coexistence.

I don't agree. As Steve pointed out earlier, religious people are not going to sit around being religious, quietly. They are constantly on our atheist asses and this is what pisses me and others seriously off.

As long as there are references to Jesus and the bible in EU and US politics, for example (inaugural speeches, constitutions, bank notes, what have you), there's going to be this kind of debate.

What we need is a thorough secularization of public space. To me, this is only just and fair. We just can't sit around and wait for that to happen. A war of ideas is a perfectly sound, pacifist means of achieving that. Hopefully.

matthew wrote:For the record......has anyone here actually defined what we are referring to when we speak of Intelligent Design?

The floor is yours.