Many on the secular side see Intelligent Design (ID) as a threat and a rehash of Creationism.  The Judge in Harrisburg squashed the case about as solidly as could be done, but I think there's a more upbeat view to this whole thing:

-- Religion took nearly 400 years to come to terms with Galileo.  Darwin, who is far more invasive into the literal text of the bible, is almost all the way there with ID after 150.  They are now agreeing that evolution does indeed occur on the small scale (and frankly on the medium scale as well), but that a greater being provides the method for larger scale changes.

    In my opinion this is more an issue of political leverage than actual belief.  If that is not the case, if their goal is to crack the safe by peeling evolution away layer by layer, I think they have badly miscalculated this round.  Short of a religious revolution in this country, I think ID is at best a fringe issue.
    A point to note -- the rest of the world pretty much thinks we're off our rocker.  There was an excellent documentary on the BBC (Horizon) that gives some idea of where the Brits think we are on this, and even John Paul II found our place on this issue quite curious.  Again, I think this is a clear indicator of how this is driven more by politics and power

        Sag.

I don't know many smart people who really think that ID is the real issue...as you said, it is about leverage and making an argument to do what you want done, but not about the contents of the argument itself....a means to an end.  I DO think the world thinks we are off our rocker, but I have a pretty strong feeling that the rest of the world is much like our part of it...the smart people think we're off our rocker for letting the leverage be played this way...and the rest think it is about ID ideology in itself.  Unbelieveable in any case.

Here is an interesting link that claims to have % of atheist/agnostic by country.

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

I think the numbers are even higher across the board. Many atheists would never admit to it in survey.

I think that the debate on ID is symptomatic of a denial of science occurring in this country, and although not a cause for reduced math and science education directly, creates an environment where dogma trumps logic.

For example, I personally believe that there is something greater than us, but that no person alive knows the nature of the miracle. Who is to say that evolution is not the mechanism established to create intelligence in this universe? Any dynamic system needs processes to maintain and improve it, and life is dynamic, not static. Evolution as an adaptation mechanism is vital to ensure life can survive in the face of an environment subject to change from influences both local (hurricanes and volcanoes) and extreme (asteroid strike).

What if God is in the details? Just establishing a universe with consistent laws and mechanisms that function in a way that fosters life is a divine achievement. Why can't the "big bang" be the first push of the domino?

Sadly, every ID argument I have encountered is a disingenuous repackaging of creationism that ignores most of the facts involved.

I don't believe in Thor.

I'm Ignostic. That means that I'm waiting to Theists to come up with a consistent definition God before I address the question of if it exists. For now I'm interested in reality instead.

I am a fundamental christian of the baptist denomination and I believe in creationism as it is described in Genesis as well as a few other locations in the Bible.  While I am not a scientist there are logical scientific arguments which support my position and, while I am far from an expert in this area, I would be happy to try to explain these positions to you.  Whether or not there is a difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design, I have not looked close enough at the ID argument to know for sure.  For myself, it is not a political position, it is both a religious and scientific position, but just as my beliefs affect my understanding of science and history so too does it affect my positions in politics.

You mentioned religion taking 400 years to come to terms with Galileo, something to note, while religion and the offical position of the church may have taken that long to reach that position, the Bible was already there.  Job 26:7 states "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."  A literal translation of Job 26:10 is "He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end." A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22, "Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?  It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"  Note the phrase, 'circle of the Earth.'  In the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras, a greek, suggested a spherical earth using, as proof, If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle.  This circle is described in Job 26:10, which was written somewhere around 1485-1445 bc.  Thus it can be said that it may take a long time for us to get there, but God is already there and already told us about it in His word. 

True, once these arguments are placed into a political realm it becomes less about logical arguments and more about politics.  Yes, the ID promoters lost a court battle and that does reflect poorly on thier position (major understatement, I know) and I dont know many details about that case but I was surprised that the heavy hitters that come to my mind (the institute for creation science in san diego and the Answers in Genesis organization mainly) were, at least to my knowledge, not involved in that case.  That's not to say that the ID group would have won had they been there, I'm just surprised that I have not heard of them being involved in it.  As far as the rest of the world thinking I'm nuts, let them.  I would rather be thought nuts and be right than be thought not-nuts, but be wrong.  From my position, this is not simply a political or scienctific issue.  Like many things in my life, it cannot be seperated from my relationship with God thus it will forever be an issue as long as people continue to believe in a literal interrpretation of the Bible, as I do.  Yes this position begins in church and it becomes more political the farther away from church that it travels but it does travel because one of the functions of the church is to share what it believes with the rest of the community.

Remember, the issue here is whether you support ideas that suppress the free formation of scientific thought, or wheather you want to repress science (think Flat Earth Society in South Africa up to .. oh, like, still, NOW!!) for the  sake of making what you hear from someone, who may be more self serving than you are willing to admit, sound plausible.

You can force people to "think differently" but what's real is going to prevail.

It was in a very different context, but many years ago when I was in Seminary up on Holy Hill (Berkeley, CA) there was a unit on the rather deeper parts of the distinction between free will and free choice...to skim over all the esoteric stuff...it is pretty basic to understand that you can 'choose' to believe/do/think/teach/etc, but it really won't change what then happens as a result.  You can choose to jump off a building, but not choose for that not to cause you to splatter on the sidewalk below.  It seems very basic as a concept, but I think there is a lot of truth to the assertion that this is really where many people get caught up...

I suppose what I mean is that I'm reminded of this by your comment that 'reality' will eventually win out.  I just prefer a more integrated view of the two.

I don't believe in Thor.

I'm Ignostic. That means that I'm waiting to Theists to come up with a consistent definition God before I address the question of if it exists. For now I'm interested in reality instead.

I checked out your Ignostic idea. As an atheist I agree that there is no consistent definition of god and that debating the existence of god if pointless, but Ignosticism seems like a cop out. Just admit you're atheist. Don't let xtians force a negative connotation on the word.

Unfortunately this board will do what all religious debate threads do. That is to grind down to a debate over the definition of atheist vs agnostic vs secular humanist and now ignostic.

What ignostics are really just hedging their bets. 

What ignostics are really just hedging their bets. 

That's ridiculous. Are you saying that a god would have mercy on ignostics because of some technical loophole? Or that if a god where to present itself to an ignostic that he/she would have the opportunity to change his/her mind while an atheist would not?

I don't see how being ignostic would give advantage from the xtian perspective.

Darthran, you make a good argument.  I am curious how you resolve the two different accounts of creation in the Bible, as they are a bit at odds with each other.  My guess is that you're not a strict literalist based upon your post.
    Curiously, the number of Americans that believe in evolution was far higher (as a percentage) in 1900 than it was in 2000.  I think this has more to do with religion than faith, and I think that the religious influence is driven by a desire for dollars and leverage.  These sorts of issue appear every election year to make sure people have something to be outraged about.
    It was generally accepted by scholars in the time of Christ that the Earth was spherical, not circular.  The common man's view most assuredly was a vastly different story.  For a period of time the earth was thought of as a flat square (hence the "four corners of the earth") and as a flat circle as well.  The Job reference is debated, and you can make your own judgement on where the rabbinic authors were coming from.  In my opinion the smart people of the day knew the Egyptian science and were of the opinion the Earth was spherical.  The translation from the hebrew could even be incorrect or misleading.  I have not seen any discussion of the circular Earth material you cite.
    Currently science is being challenged very hard from many different directions.  Dover was driven largely by the Discovery Institute, although I think they came into the fight apprehensively as they knew the case was a non-starter.  In my opinion, bring it on -- that's the nature of science.  But if you want to propose that the Earth is shaped like a burrito, you had better have some Earth-shaking evidence, and you had better be prepared for the weight of the rest of the community's rebuttal.  Science is about refuting or confirming other people's work.  It's the heart and soul of the scientific process.
    For a while in the nineties religion floated an idea that maybe all of science was hopelessly incorrect -- speed of light, astronomical measurements, chemistry, the whole nine yards.  The argument was that we had completely deluded ourselves into a vast hole of make-believe, all of it generated so as to support other parts of the delusion.  Needless to say, this got squashed pretty doggone quickly.  Religion overreached, and it was easy for the scientific community to rebut the hypothesis both in academia and in the general community.  It was simply too outrageous a position for even an uneducated or disinterested observer.
    And that's the nature of it.  Science has to be grounded in observation.  The more we have observed (and the closer we've measured), the tighter the scientific picture has become.  What makes Darwin so Earth-shattering is his unbelievable clarity of sight.  In spite of having no understanding of the underlying mechanisms, Darwin nailed the way nature works, the way species change.  Indeed little of substance has been added to his large-scale vision of evolution since he published it. 
    John Romer referred to Darwin as the "final nail in the coffin of the Bible."  A round Earth was a tough transition -- 400 years worth.  But it could be fit into the picture and there even appear to be scriptural citations that hint at it.  Evolution is a whole different level of change.  It directly contradicts the text, which is why I am surprised the "Church" (no longer the monolithic structure it was in 1600) has changed so much in so short a period of time.  In 150 years, the Church has made remarkable progress.
   
        Sag.


    Next topic:  String Theory vs Science.  Now THAT is a hot match-up.

quite the contrary, i am a strict literalist of the Bible.  I believe that God created the univeriverse and everything in it out of nothing in 6 24 hour days as described in genesis chapter 1, with genesis 2 going over the details of day 6.  I can think of no other creation account which tells a story different from this one in the Bible, so, if i may ask, to which other account are you referring?

I have always been curious about how 'strict literalists' are able deal with the assorted contradictions in the Bible, assuming they don't simply sweep them under the intellectual rug.  Without listing them, there are contradictions.  Even literalists agree on that point.  That means with any given pair of clear contradictions, one is right and the other is wrong.  Both can't be right.  So, one has to choose one or the other based on some criteria.  What happens when one strict literalist picks one side while another picks the other?

More importantly, the fact that there are contradictions implies that not everything in the Bible is true or correct.  The Bible was written by many men over many years.  Assuming the contents of the Bible were passed from God through men to the written page and two contradictory items were written by two different men, that means one misunderstood or deliberately misstated it since God is supposedly infallible.  One was correctly presented as God intended, the other was not.  Given this fact, how does a strict literalist feel about choosing one side or the other knowing that one is not as God intended?

Moving along, suppose a story was told by God to two men who each wrote it down, but each wrote it down differently.  One wrote it exactly as God told it.  Another changed it to suit political pressures just as whether or not Jesus was divine was decided by a pope who chose yes so he could stay in power.  Then suppose, for whatever reason, only the second version got into the Bible.  A strict literalist (and anyone else) would be putting their faith in something that isn't true, wasn't what God intended.

On top of all this, the Bible as we now have it is very different from what it was in the past.  Not only are there translations from ancient languages to deal with (with ongoing debates on how to translate words that could give different meanings to things in the Bible), plus concepts used which have different meanings now or historical contexts which aren't provided, but we have in recent decades new versions of the Bible which supposedly make it more accessible by using modern language further distancing it from accurate meanings and understandings.  In other words, the words you are reading in a modern Bible may no longer have the same meaning as God intended.

So, taking all of this into account, 1st, how can one be a 'strict literalist,' and 2nd, how can you be sure that the creation story (to pick one example) is not tainted by misinterpretation all the way up to outright fraud?  How do you know it is the correct story that made it into the Bible unscathed?

Expanding on that, how can you be sure anything in the Bible that is not corroborated by external sources (such as Roman texts which describe Jesus) is not simply a group of historical events that sifted their way down through political filters and distortions combined with a pre-scientific attempt to explain the world using mystical and easily understood allegories based on anthropomorphising nature?

Given the fallibility of man and that the Bible was written by man (even if channeled from God), what makes a strict literalist so sure that he isn't believing in the wrong thing?  Yes, I realize this is an age old, philosophical question, but in these days of science uncovering so much that contradicts profound beliefs, it seems an even more relevant question.

all are excellant questions/arguments which have been given much thought and i both appreciate and respect your opiion/position.  however, i must point out that we differ on a fundamental level. if i may, i shall attempt to take what i think your presuppostions are and compare them to my own.

You believe that the Bible contains contradictions and therefore any part of the Bible becomes questionable.  I believe that the Bible has no contradictions.  zero.  Therefore none of it is questionable and all can be believed at face value.  If you wish to bring up specific "contradictions" i would be happy to explain them to you.

You believe that human error has turned the Bible into something other than what God intended, both at the time it was written and over time in its copying and its translations.  This again is not the case.  The hebrew scholars have painstakingly copied the scriptures through the centuries to a point beyond anal, where not only the letter, but every dot and tiddle, indeed even the exact postition in the scroll is to an exact match.  each copy is then meticulously compared to a master copy and if found wanting, the new scroll is destroyed. (they formed a numerology study around this which gives us the 'Bible codes' of today, but that's another subject).  there are over 5,000 recovered portions of these scrolls which testify to their superb accuracy.  We have many copies of both the hebrew old testament and the greek new testament.  we even have a latain translation (the latain vulgate) written during the early days of the church by which to make comparisions for translation purposes.  however, there are a few texts  that have been passed down with errors in them, they are known as the minority texts.  most bibles take their translation from the majority texts.  These consist of over 5,000 manuscrits that are in complete agreement.  There are a few bibles however, noteable the NIV and the 'politacally-correct bible' floating around europe, that take their translation from the minority texts.  These texts, specifically in the new testement, consist of 2 (yes, only 2) manuscripts that differ from the 5,000 plus other texts which everyone else relies on.  Why they decided to use these two, obviously corrupted texts,  is beyond me.  These differences are mostly words omited which, while being very frustrating, are not changing the overall content, but there are a few verses that do.  Suffice to say, I do not own or support either of these two translations.

As to whether or not man's failability corrupted the text at its inception a few points can be considered.  1.  God is able to channell His word to the author in such a way that  man's failablity is bypassed.  while the author's perspective/influence remains present in the writting it is God speaking through the author and God is infailable therefore the writting must also be infaillable.  2. no subject is ever discussed once.  the old testament is explained in the new testament and the new testament is hidden in the old testament thus each other validates each other and since we have over 5,000 texts in agreement we can be assured that each author is validating what the other author actually wrote and not just the most recent version.

one last source of evidence must be conisdered.  God stated that the Bible is the infailable word of God.  We know this to be true because the Bible says so.  Yes, this is circle reasoning, but the Bible proves its accuracy with a track record that no other book, religious or otherwise, comes anywhere near and explains this remarkable track record but stating that God caused it to be so.   2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.  Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. 

taking all this into account, how can i be anything but a strict literalist and how can I pick and choose what to believe and what to ommit.  the entire Bible is God breathed and who am I , a mere mortal, to question what God has written.  either I believe all of it as it is written, wheter I understand it or not, or I believe none of it and call God a liar for if one part is to be thrown out then everything must be thrown out for there is no one part that is not referenced somewhere else in the bible.  with God it is always all or nothing, there can be no middle ground.