quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:

The problem is that it's short on both quantitative tests and useful predictions.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Ash Lael:

Surely there are plenty of tests that could be done? Such as finding some sort of criteria that allows you to objectively determine between a painting and a random mash of colours, and then checking that against a whole lotta paintings and random mashes (forgive my tech-speak :P ).

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Rain Delay:

As Thuryl pointed out, "marriage" is a religious concept that has become mixed into secular legal processes. "Civil union" should be the only form of partnership of the kind recognized by the state. If churches want to allow marriages or don't, that's their business.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Rain Delay:

I see no reason to make abortion illegal. Once you discard the religion card, the decision is obvious until later in pregnancy, and even then I find the value of a single human pre-life to be small.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:

Names can be very important to some people.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Ash Lael:

quote:

---

Originally written by Muji:

By what stretch of the imagination can "Intelligent Design" not be considered religion? Even if you try to distance it from the Christian faith, the fact remains that its central paradigm is one of a sentient, willful, creating force. In other words, a god, if not the God.

---

I am so going to regret getting into this.

Intelligent Design is certainly not religion. It makes no claims about the supposed designer other than those that can be reasonably inferred from observing his/her/its/their creation - ID supports the idea that life was created by completely non-deistic aliens as well as it supports the idea that life was created by God.

ID is based on the idea that by observing something, we can reach conclusions about how it came to be. By observing materials of various colours spread across a piece of canvas, we are able to conclude that someone put them there. It's the same basic concept. A theory based on analysing data strikes me - a layman though I might be - as much more scientific than religious or philosophical.

---

quote:

---

From this page:
"Science is limited by its tools -- observable facts and testable hypothesis. Because religious beliefs are based on faith, and are not subject to scientific test and refutation, these beliefs should not be taught in the realm of natural sciences."

---

quote:

---

From this page:
"This is where it gets hard. And I want to be as fair as I can to those who believe in intelligent design. I have friends who believe in intelligent design. Our next-door neighbors—very nice people—believe in intelligent design. If by “intelligent design,” its proponents only meant that some intelligent designer (whether it be God, space aliens, or a giant slug) is using evolution to accomplish some intelligent purpose (one in which we humans might be major players), we wouldn’t be here. This evolution-is-part-of-God’s-plan view is, essentially, the view of the Catholic Church, most Jews, and most mainline Protestant denominations. There is no necessary conflict between a belief in evolution and a belief that God is real and working in the world. The theory of evolution says nothing at all about the existence or non-existence of a benevolent, intelligent designer. Evolution doesn’t require an intelligent creator, but it doesn’t exclude the possibility either. The theory of evolution simply provides a powerful scientific explanation for the variety of life on earth. It is the core concept of biology. It is not a disproof of religion."

---

quote:

---

From this page:
"The problem today arises because the proponents of Intelligent Design are not content with the weak view that accepts evolution. Instead, they argue that the evidence suggests individual species were individually and intelligently designed. Humans and the great apes, for example, did not have a common ancestor some 6 million years ago. The fact that humans and chimps share over 98% of the same genetic material proves little. The “missing links”—the early hominids that keep inconveniently popping up in Africa—all must be new and separate species. It’s just a coincidence that the most mammal-like of all reptile fossils appear just before the most reptile-like of all mammal fossils. The fact that no tenured biology professor (as opposed to law professors, hydrologists, or even a handful of biochemists) at any of the top-ranked universities shares their conviction in the folly of evolution shows only how widespread the Darwinian conspiracy is."

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Kelandon:

quote:

---

Originally written by Muji:

So if one state wants to be a bastion of purity and outlaw anything related to homosexuality, you'd support that?

---

No, I would oppose it. But the national government has never been in the business of regulating marriage; that's always been a state and local government thing. Read the legislature's powers enumerated in the Constitution — we'd need a constitutional amendment just to make it legal to pass a national law concerning gay marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Kelandon:

quote:

---

Originally written by Muji:

How would you help deal with poverty, though? Various subsidies? Wouldn't a tax cut for the poorest help out a lot?

And poor as they are, it's not like they'd make a big dent in the deficit anyways, would they?

---

Bush's tax cuts didn't much affect the poor anyway. They were mostly for the richest of the rich. I just want to roll back the tax cuts benefiting the people who have plenty of money already, because right now the government can't pay for all of its commitments (like, you know, roads and schools and stuff).

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Rain Delay:

...stuff...

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Bender Bending Rodriguez:

Also, making abortion illegal will in no way stop abortion, it will simply stop safe abortion..

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Bender Bending Rodriguez:

(I won't say Christian because other religions condemn it too)

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Muji:

(boiled down)But doesn't that mean that ID and Evolution are not incompatible?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Ash Lael:

quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:

But if you want me to make an assessment of whether the elements of an organism's genome seem designed or not, well, there are an awful lot of useless bits which are easily explicable as relics of evolution but don't make all that much sense if they were designed in. (At least, not by one person -- maybe if they were designed by several committees working at different points in time without full access to the details of each other's work... :P )

---

See, now you're saying that it IS possible to scientifically determine whether or not something is designed, just disagreeing with the conclusions of the people promoting the idea - that seems to boil down to calling it a valid science practiced by bad scientists. :P

---