|
Post by keyodie on Sept 27, 2008 1:42:53 GMT -5
No problem! Don't worry about it. You didn't sound hostile to me. From what I understand, atheists believe strictly in science. They do not believe in the existence of a god, they do not believe in the existence of any supernatural forces. They base their ideas on proof, research, experimentation, etc. (Maybe one of the atheists here can elaborate some more.) Agnostics, on the other hand, don't strictly believe in anything really. They think that there may be a god and there may not be a god, or they think that there may be a god but it could be a god from any religion or a god that is unknown to man. However, I think we all agree that it would be impossible to actually know the answers to where life came from. I call myself agnostic because I think anything is possible, and I don't really think we're meant to know. Like I said before, I'm fairly certain that there is some kind of supernatural force (If not, why would there be existence in the first place? How could anything come out of nothing?), I just don't know what it is. It doesn't bother me too much, but that doesn't mean I won't speculate and wonder about it every once in a while. Most of the time though I'm content with just making do with what I have and living for today and all those cliche's people always say. I'll save your last question for one of the atheists here. Caunion, maybe? I know there are some theories and such that atheists/scientists have that are pretty interesting...
|
|
|
Post by Caunion on Sept 28, 2008 0:01:45 GMT -5
Sorry, I haven't been able to reply to this sooner. I was high off caffeine. Weekly thing. No big deal.
Anyway.
Atheists do not believe strictly in science, although the majority of them do. By definition, an atheist is a person who does not believe in any of the gods or the supernatural. An agnostic, on the other hand, believe that the existence of the supernatural is unknown. You can say atheists require faith to believe that a god does not exist. But it's the same as saying it requires faith to believe that fairies and unicorns don't exist either. An atheist does not claim God does not exist, it simply doesn't accept a theist's claim God exists. An agnostic say that the existence of God or fairies or unicorns is unknown and it's impossible to disprove or prove their existence.
And why is it hard for atheists to believe there is a god or the supernatural? It's hard at all because we simply do not have any reasonable evidence in their existence. Take cryptozoology, for example. Is it any hard to believe in the existence of Bigfoot or the Abominable Snowman?
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Sept 28, 2008 23:20:52 GMT -5
Well, supposedly folks have pictures of Big Foot, and the Abominable Snow Man, and then there are all those Scooby Doo cartoons that feature those creatures (of course, they're always unmasked in the end). Sorry, it's been a long weekend, and I'm feeling a little giddy.
In essence, Caunion, from all I understand (as I'm not agnostic or atheistic), is about right. And Keyodie, it's probably more accurate to say that most agnostics are more dependent on science and the scientific method, honestly realize that there are still things science hasn't discovered that, and therefore do not discount the idea of a God, they just won't state they believe in one until they have some proof. In essence, Thomas, in the Bible, was probably the first agnostic on record, because he demanded proof of the resurrection (and thus proof of God), before he'd commit to believing it.
The only disagreement I would have with Caunion's description of Atheism is this. Most of them that discuss or advocate the idea of Atheism do, in fact, vehemently deny the existence of God. That is NOT universally applicable to all atheists. Just the ones who advocate for their belief, or lack thereof. Most Christians are perfectly content to let an atheist be an atheist. The problems arise when they try to use their views to shape society (which admittedly is the same thing that happens when any religion tries to use its views to shape society). For example, the drive to remove any mention of the Bible in school, thus removing a large section of the study of Ancient History, and a large section of the founding of this country as well. Or the drive to remove the Ten Commandment from all public buildings, thus removing historical artifacts that illustrate a part of the foundation of the laws represented by those public buildings. Agree, or disagree with the ideas they are advocating, when they cross into the area of influencing public policy, they move from a non-believer to being a religious advocate for Atheism. In this country, I actually don't have a problem with that. Freedom of Speech is a protection for all, not just the people I agree with, and Freedom of Religion protects the non-believers just the same as it protects the faithful. So, I don't intend to start a political debate in this topic. I just meant to point out that there are many perceptions of both of these groups of people, as well as the individuals in them. The true Atheist, is exactly as Caunion says, however, they don't necessarily claim God does not exist, they just kind of shake their head and go on their way when the religious folks talk of God. The Atheists you read about or hear on the news, are usually not of that persuasion.
Sorry I'm a little rambly tonight as well.
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Sept 29, 2008 17:31:29 GMT -5
And Keyodie, it's probably more accurate to say that most agnostics are more dependent on science and the scientific method, honestly realize that there are still things science hasn't discovered that, and therefore do not discount the idea of a God, they just won't state they believe in one until they have some proof. In essence, Thomas, in the Bible, was probably the first agnostic on record, because he demanded proof of the resurrection (and thus proof of God), before he'd commit to believing it. That's a long sentence. O____O Not sure I quite understand. xD Could you explain a little more, please? Agnostics can still believe in the supernatural and can still believe that there is a god. Atheists think that everything can be explained by science whether the knowledge is known to man or not, so I think they would be the more scientific ones. Also, atheists aren't atheists because they choose not to believe in a god. Their reasoning is that since there is no proof of such a god existing, he does not exist. Both agnostics and atheists alike would be turned into jews/christians if that proof actually existed. One last thing -- I saw a trace of the "God has not been disproved" argument in your post, and I would just like to say that for anything to be disproved, it must first be proven. It's like saying that there's no proof that my dog isn't going to magically turn into a werewolf. No, there isn't, but there isn't any proof that he is, so I can pretty safely assume that he isn't going to turn into a werewolf.
|
|
Gil
Apprentice
teh spazzy queen
Posts: 54
|
Post by Gil on Sept 30, 2008 16:41:50 GMT -5
I don't have the time or energy to read through this entire topic atm, but I'll try to do so at a later date For now, I'm a Christian, and I highly highly doubt that will ever change (I've had many discussions with people throwing facts and evidence and beliefs and all other kinds of crap in my face, and I haven't switched religions - or gone atheist/agnostic - yet). However, I love hearing about what others believe, just so that I can be informed. =] That's all I have the energy to say right now. Will be back later - hopefully.
|
|
Joker
Student
How about a magic trick? *Dada*
Posts: 19
|
Post by Joker on Sept 30, 2008 18:07:45 GMT -5
I am agnostic atheist. I do not believe in anything particularly unless somehow the people called god appears on one day before my eyes. I am skeptical of anything that has been taught to people in the books which I name them all as fake and I do believe that God, if any, by choosing people to his liking manipulates people into believing to something that we do not know nothing of its existence and we never be sure. I have decided not to care about anything and to ask questions like if there is the god long ago. Not my problem and why should I care? This is what agnostic atheism is about.
|
|
dark
Student
Woah.
Posts: 16
|
Post by dark on Sept 30, 2008 18:41:05 GMT -5
My religion? I'm on the brink. I'll probably believe in science until my dyeing day, but I love mythology, and studying religions and belief systems from around the world.
Could there be a god? Sure, but I don't think that he/she/it would want you to drop your entire life and stop living it to praise him/her/it. He/she/it would want you to go out and be happy, to accept people for who they are, to be a kind, generous, humble person. To accept who and what you are, and your place in the universe.
Is there a god?: Probably not. I've tried talking to him/she/it, and gotten no response. If some sky god just peeled back the clouds and said "Hey, I am real!" I could possibly go for that. But right now? No.
Are there multiple gods?: I'd be more likely to believe that over just one. Like Haldir said, I think there would be several of them, ruling over women, men, the earth, the sky, discoveries, death and many other things.
Do you believe in science?: Of course. It seems very logical to believe in what the natural world tells me. That evolution occured, it just seems so natural. That birds can fly because of their bones and the shape of their feathers, because they evolved. Rather than someone coming along and just creating it.
So, in conclusion; I'm a bit of an equivocator, or a half/half. I know that lots of people hate that I can't choose. But my instincts say that science is right. And my head tells me that organized religion is insanity. But if there is some crazed sky-diety that has so many crazy rules, and says that if I don't accept him, I'll probably burn in hell for the rest of eternity.
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Sept 30, 2008 21:16:37 GMT -5
I am agnostic atheist. I do not believe in anything particularly unless somehow the people called god appears on one day before my eyes. I am skeptical of anything that has been taught to people in the books which I name them all as fake and I do believe that God, if any, by choosing people to his liking manipulates people into believing to something that we do not know nothing of its existence and we never be sure. I have decided not to care about anything and to ask questions like if there is the god long ago. Not my problem and why should I care? This is what agnostic atheism is about. What is agnostic atheism exactly? Or is that just a fancy way of saying agnostic? xD ETA :: What about the people who voted 'Other'? Could you tell us a bit about what you believe?
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Sept 30, 2008 22:31:25 GMT -5
And Keyodie, it's probably more accurate to say that most agnostics are more dependent on science and the scientific method, honestly realize that there are still things science hasn't discovered that, and therefore do not discount the idea of a God, they just won't state they believe in one until they have some proof. In essence, Thomas, in the Bible, was probably the first agnostic on record, because he demanded proof of the resurrection (and thus proof of God), before he'd commit to believing it. That's a long sentence. O____O Not sure I quite understand. xD Could you explain a little more, please? Sorry, I've been a little off my game the last week. Agnostics believe that there are things that haven't yet been explained, by either science or religion. For them to definitively state that God is, they require tangible evidence of that fact. Until then, their attitude tends to be that the idea needs more study. Which is why I made reference to the idea that they are probably the ones more dependent on the scientific method. Their entire approach to life tends to be "prove it", but they have an open mind to the idea that there are still things beyond our understanding, and therefore do not discount the idea of God. Atheism doesn't apply to the concept of science, but strictly to the concept of God. There are a lot of people in all religions that believe just about everything can be explained by one form of science or another, those people of faith simply don't believe that the idea of science being able to prove things disproves God. Atheism is the belief that there is no God, regardless of the reasoning behind why each individual atheist might believe that. A true atheist does not just dispute the existence of God, but discounts the question of whether or not there is a God as being fairly ridiculous. For some that may be based in science, some it may be a lack of imagination, some it may just be simply what they believe for any number or reasons, or no reason at all. The vocal ones tend to advocate against the idea of God, based on the idea of science. Those are the folks I tend to argue with, because I too happen to be a pretty firm believer in the sciences, and that in no way impunes my ability to believe in God. To me, the two are apples and oranges, and there isn't a comparison to be made. Okay, let's try this. The Bible, which is the foundational document for both Christianity (and all of its off shoots), and Judaism, has been proven to be an accurate historical document of the time periods it covers. Scientific research has proven that many of the people in it existed, that the Red Sea was in fact parted around the time that Moses led his folks out of Egypt, that there was at some point a great flood that covered much of the region the Bible took place in, and many other events described in the Bible. This book has been proven to be historically accurate, and a part of its story is that it is the word of God. Could that be taken as proof that because in large part it is accurate, then in whole it is accurate, and the rest just hasn't been proven yet? Perhaps not, but scientific theories over the years have been put forth on far less evidence. Like it or not, to date, there is no proof that humanity evolved, either from monkeys or from the primordial ooze. There is merely proof that evolution takes place. (I know this is a different thread). And yet that theory is continually used to discredit the theory of God in favor of the Theory of Evolution, even though it has yet to be proven. That's why it is still taught as the theory of Evolution, not the Law of Evolution. I digress again. Back to the point, no scientific theory is ever proven before it is disproven. It is proposed and then studied to be proved or disproved. The theory of God has never been disproved.
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Sept 30, 2008 23:42:33 GMT -5
Sorry, I've been a little off my game the last week. Agnostics believe that there are things that haven't yet been explained, by either science or religion. For them to definitively state that God is, they require tangible evidence of that fact. Until then, their attitude tends to be that the idea needs more study. Which is why I made reference to the idea that they are probably the ones more dependent on the scientific method. Their entire approach to life tends to be "prove it", but they have an open mind to the idea that there are still things beyond our understanding, and therefore do not discount the idea of God. Well even atheists think that not everything has been explained by science yet. However, they think that if science advances far enough, anything can be explained by science. Agnostics, on the other hand, think that this knowledge isn't possible. I'm not sure how the scientific method comes into this equation. And most of the agnostics I know don't have a "prove it" approach to life and are not dependent on the scientific method, they just "don't know and don't care". Even if an agnostic DOES have a "prove it" approach, I don't see how that is any different from an atheist. Atheism doesn't apply to the concept of science, but strictly to the concept of God. There are a lot of people in all religions that believe just about everything can be explained by one form of science or another, those people of faith simply don't believe that the idea of science being able to prove things disproves God. Atheism is the belief that there is no God, regardless of the reasoning behind why each individual atheist might believe that. Actually, I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. Yes, they do deny the existence of a god, but atheism does not apply strictly to God. They don't believe in God, but that's not why they're atheists. They are atheists because they believe the things that they have seen and the things that have been proven. A true atheist does not just dispute the existence of God, but discounts the question of whether or not there is a God as being fairly ridiculous. For some that may be based in science, some it may be a lack of imagination, some it may just be simply what they believe for any number or reasons, or no reason at all. Exactly. Okay, let's try this. The Bible, which is the foundational document for both Christianity (and all of its off shoots), and Judaism, has been proven to be an accurate historical document of the time periods it covers. Scientific research has proven that many of the people in it existed, that the Red Sea was in fact parted around the time that Moses led his folks out of Egypt, that there was at some point a great flood that covered much of the region the Bible took place in, and many other events described in the Bible. This book has been proven to be historically accurate, and a part of its story is that it is the word of God. Could that be taken as proof that because in large part it is accurate, then in whole it is accurate, and the rest just hasn't been proven yet? Perhaps not, but scientific theories over the years have been put forth on far less evidence. Like it or not, to date, there is no proof that humanity evolved, either from monkeys or from the primordial ooze. There is merely proof that evolution takes place. (I know this is a different thread). And yet that theory is continually used to discredit the theory of God in favor of the Theory of Evolution, even though it has yet to be proven. That's why it is still taught as the theory of Evolution, not the Law of Evolution. I digress again. Back to the point, no scientific theory is ever proven before it is disproven. It is proposed and then studied to be proved or disproved. The theory of God has never been disproved. Yes, I do realize that much of the Bible is historically accurate. But that does not mean that the Bible in its entirety is accurate, as you said. People have created exciting, exaggerated tales based on true stories all the time. Just like the Iliad and the Odyssey. The war of Troy did occur, but a lot of the story is probably exaggeration that makes it more entertaining. And can you please give me some links concerning the evidence of the Red Sea parting? I googled it, and this was what I came across: www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/world/africa/03exodus.htmlAs for the flood, yes, that could have occured. But that flood story is also mentioned in many other sacred texts, so it doesn't exactly validate the Bible any more. It is pretty strange, though, the similarities between the different flood stories. It's very interesting. So yes, you can say that all of what you mentioned is evidence of God, but I'm a bit weary to call it proof because none of what you mentioned addresses the evidence of God himself. You only say that some of the events and people in it are historically accurate, and I have no doubts about that. About the Theory of Evolution - No, it is not proven that we came from monkeys, but I think people who know enough about the subject (including you) know that evolution exists, that natural selection exists. It's just pure logic in my mind. I don't see how people can use it to try and discredit God, though, because it isn't meant to explain the origin of the world. And I'm sure not all scientific theories have been proved or disproved... but I'm not talking about that. I was referring to your use of the word "disproved", which implies that it has been proven before. You can say whatever you want off the top of your head and end it with "has not been disproved" and have it not mean anything. ETA:: Evolution does not equal humans came from monkeys.
|
|
Gil
Apprentice
teh spazzy queen
Posts: 54
|
Post by Gil on Oct 1, 2008 15:53:16 GMT -5
Just wondering - why are we (well, all of you =P) discussing the "definition" of atheists and agnostics? Isn't it a bit different for everyone - for instance, different people will tell you different things when asked what it means to be a Christian, or a Jew, or a Muslim...Or is atheism and agnosticism (is that a word? ) different because they aren't really "religions". In that case, wouldn't there be a "dictionary definition" that we could all agree on? xD Just my thoughts. But feel free to discuss - I was just wondering =] As for the compatibility of science and God - I agree with ladytera whole-heartedly that you can support science and believe it and still believe in God. Nothing we have discovered in science yet has proven or even discredited the fact that there is a God. Yes, sometimes people will take a scientific theory too far to where it isn't really science any more - just speculation - and try and discredit God, but that isn't true science and facts any more anyway. OK, I'm not really making sense now or supporting my thoughts, so I'll stop =P But, as a last thought, has anyone read Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel? I read about 3/4 of it (then I got caught up in fiction works for school, ect and it was way over due at the library =P), and I thought the scientific evidence he showed for Intelligent Design was very intriguing. And also, when you see the intense bibliography of references in the back of the book, you know he's not just rambling on. However, I have also heard many atheists say things like "That's crappy evidence - you're sounding like Lee Strobel!", and so I wonder if there is something that I'm missing...? I would recommend checking the book out just for the heck of it, if you're bored and open to a different viewpoint.
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Oct 1, 2008 17:01:37 GMT -5
Well actually we're discussing which one we believe is more scientific. xD Yes, it is different for everyone, but there are a few basic similarities. Like you said.
|
|
|
Post by Caunion on Oct 1, 2008 17:39:52 GMT -5
Just wondering - why are we (well, all of you =P) discussing the "definition" of atheists and agnostics? Isn't it a bit different for everyone - for instance, different people will tell you different things when asked what it means to be a Christian, or a Jew, or a Muslim...Or is atheism and agnosticism (is that a word? ) different because they aren't really "religions". In that case, wouldn't there be a "dictionary definition" that we could all agree on? xD Just my thoughts. But feel free to discuss - I was just wondering =] Well because unlike other religions, atheism and agnosticism have no set creed or code. For a person to be Christian, unless I'm gravely mistaken, you have to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour. Go an extra step further, you're a Catholic if you accept the authority of the Pope. A Muslim is someone who adheres to the Five Pillars of Islam, which is, I believe, declaration of belief in Allah, prayer, charity, fasting in Ramadan, and pilgrimage to Mecca. Those are the basic definitions. However, because no one "found" atheism or agnosticism and while we admire brilliant writers who write books regarding atheism and agnosticism, we have no prayers or rituals, no holy books or priests, or no churches and temples. Of course. Francis Collins, I believe his name is, who led the Human Genome Project, a massive endeavor launched by the global scientific community to map out the genetic makeup of the human being, is a Catholic. Kenneth Miller, also a Catholic, is a biology professor and well-known for his fierce opposition towards Creationism and Intelligent Design. And for the record, the reason of the God of the Gaps, the idea that wherever there are gaps in scientific knowledge, God automatically fills that spot, is rather ridiculous. One must understand unlike the God you guys believe in, scientists, being humans, can't understand everything. We try our best but we have a rather long way to go. But slowly we are shrinking the gaps and eventually most of the natural world can be explained through natural means. Does that mean to be a scientist, you have to give up your religion? Of course. I just named two prestigious scientists in this time who are religious. But religion and science must be kept separate (here I disagree with Richard Dawkins). Science concerns itself with the natural world. Religion concerns itself with the supernatural. Science can not simply say that there was a supernatural cause in a natural phenomenon. That's all I have to say on that.
|
|
Raivynn
Journeyman
...my winter storm
Posts: 187
|
Post by Raivynn on Oct 2, 2008 16:44:49 GMT -5
I'm a Pagan. Asatruar to be exact. My path to Paganism began at the young age of 11 and it went in peaks and troughs and I've looked into many different beliefs within the Pagan definition. None of them really felt right to me, until about 4-5 years ago when I looked deeper into Asatru and it just struck me that this was my path so I looked more and more into it and it felt so right. It was what I was missing my whole life and I've never been happier.
|
|
Gil
Apprentice
teh spazzy queen
Posts: 54
|
Post by Gil on Oct 2, 2008 17:55:34 GMT -5
Caunion - thanks for explaining I'm a Pagan. Asatruar to be exact. My path to Paganism began at the young age of 11 and it went in peaks and troughs and I've looked into many different beliefs within the Pagan definition. None of them really felt right to me, until about 4-5 years ago when I looked deeper into Asatru and it just struck me that this was my path so I looked more and more into it and it felt so right. It was what I was missing my whole life and I've never been happier. I'm quite unfamiliar with paganism myself. Would you care to explain a little more about your faith/beliefs? I hear the word "pagan" so many times, and I know it's misconstrued a lot, so I was wondering what it actually meant.
|
|
Raivynn
Journeyman
...my winter storm
Posts: 187
|
Post by Raivynn on Oct 2, 2008 18:22:02 GMT -5
Paganism itself is technically not a religion. But a banner under which other beliefs fall. Asatru is a belief/faith/relationship in & with the Norse pantheon. The word Asatru is translated as belief/faith in the Aesir (the main Gods & Goddesses). With Asatru everything sort of made sense for me. It's kind of hard to explain, even to myself. It just clicked inside my soul, awakening a part of myself that was waiting on me finding it. I'm also a Rune caster, which basically means I use the Futhark Runes in divination. If you (or anyone else I guess ) have any more questions. I'll do my best to answer them with some sort of clarity.
|
|
|
Post by misaki on Oct 3, 2008 11:50:20 GMT -5
^ Sounds interesting! So do you believe the gods to be 'real' beings, individuals, or do you think they are representations of one and the same thing? Or both at the same time, which is very well possible of course. And what about the Vanir? Don't you work with them, or are they included in Asatru..even though the word sort of suggests you'd only work with the Aesir? What about the 'evolution' of the gods? I mean, ( I'm in no way an expert in this of course xP )..from what I gathered, some gods, like njord, changed gender over time, and some other changes occurred as well. How do you handle these things? Do you try to go back the most 'traditional' presentation of the gods, or do you just go by your own intuition? Ooh, Futhark Runes are fascinating. I've only really worked with Tarot so far. What do you think works better/easier/clearer? On a side note, I'm considering trying working with fey, but almost all the info I can find on it is..well, let's put it this way; not realistic. They're either pictured as demonic or like My Little Pony riding cute little kids in pink ballet clothes ;D I did find some more reliable info on it, but no reliable working info. Any suggestions? Do you have any idea if it works anyway? I don't even really believe in fey as such ( not that I absolutely refuse to, I just don't have any reason to) , but since I atm adopted the C.M. magic working model, I don't really have to...really completely believe something to work with it?
|
|
Raivynn
Journeyman
...my winter storm
Posts: 187
|
Post by Raivynn on Oct 3, 2008 13:40:41 GMT -5
Oo questions To answer your first query. Yes, to all three. Sometimes I believe they are real physical beings. Sometimes I believe they are metaphorical, other times I believe they are something in between that cannot really be explained fully. I definetly do and have worked with the Vanir. I only mentioned the Aesir in regard to the description of the Asatru title. Many different Gods come to me (and other Asatruar) at different times within my/there life. Much like the Shamanic Power Animals or Medicine. Though I mainly work with the All-Father, Thor, Loki and Freyja. I've had experiences with Frigg and Heimdall. I go with my own intuition and how they present themselves to me. For example, Loki is often represented as evil and malign. But to me, his is mischevious yes. But evil...no. Definetly not. I also work with Tarot. For me neither is easier or harder, the Spirit and the energy directs me. Also gives a blinder of a headache too...which is nice lol I've had experiences with Fey/Fae folk before. Cheeky little blighters they are too. They like shiny stuff, an awful lot. It is quite difficult to get good sound info on how to work with them. I have a friend who works with them. I can see into looking into some stuff for you, see if there's anything worthwhile.
|
|
Gil
Apprentice
teh spazzy queen
Posts: 54
|
Post by Gil on Oct 3, 2008 17:02:16 GMT -5
Thanks for informing me! That was definitely interesting Once I can figure out some more questions, I'll be sure to ask
|
|
|
Post by Lady Dark Moon on Oct 3, 2008 19:06:50 GMT -5
Does that mean to be a scientist, you have to give up your religion? Of course. I just named two prestigious scientists in this time who are religious. But religion and science must be kept separate (here I disagree with Richard Dawkins). Science concerns itself with the natural world. Religion concerns itself with the supernatural. Science can not simply say that there was a supernatural cause in a natural phenomenon. That's all I have to say on that. Sorry, I disagree. Taken a few steps in a different direction, science can actually support the theory of intelligent design. Have you ever read The Hidden Face of God? It's written by an MIT biologist and physicist who also happens to be an orthodox Jew. The point is, the deeper one delves into science, the more convincing the evidence for intelligent design. Did quarks randomly assemble themselves into atoms that randomly asembled themselves into cells, DNA, and a whole breathing organism? If the Law of Conservation of Matter is true, then where did the world come from? Yes, there could be a scientific explanation for everything. Yes, homo sapiens could have popped into existence out of five billion years of random mutations. But who's to say that intelligent design isn't the hidden hand behind science? Note. Intelligent design is not a reference to Christianity/Judaism/Islam. It annoys me when people seem to think that "intelligent design" is a term exclusively reserved for their own god.
|
|