quote:

---

why is it that everyone assumes that intelligent design is religion and evolution is not?

---

'Intelligent Design' does not translate into 'god created the world in 7 days.' In fact, it doesn't have to have anything to do with religion, either.

For an interesting alternative theory on Intelligent Design, I recommend the following article:

http://www.thothweb.com/article4644.html

Since you DON'T know the difference let me try to explain it to you:

Threat = an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil or punishment.

Warning = Advice to beware. Council to desist from specified course of action.

CLEARLY as a 1st Grader could even point out Pat Robertson made NO threat to anyone. CASE CLOSED. Drop it already.

Secondly,

When Bad things happen at the hand of God Sometimes the innocent get caught up in it. But God promises and will reward those lives 10 fold in paradise with him. But he mostly punishes the evil doers not the innocent.

I am so sorry that you are so lost.

truthfully yours,

No, the fit is slightly askew. A warning is an attempt to change behavior by demonstrating the consequence one will incur by staying on a destructive course. Robertson?s remarks constitute a warning, not a threat. He is not showing intention to inflict injury. There is a difference.

And I "exaggerated" his remark? How? He said verbatim: "I'd like to say to the citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city." I didn't put a single word in his mouth. Just how did I exaggerate his remark? ?. And what false claims have I made?

I have already answered that question above.

Of course, this also ignores the whole Flood thing where all children except Noah's were killed, either drowned or died of starvation on mountaintops ....

What is the biblical account of why they were killed?

Lastly, I will stress again that I do not condone Robertson?s remarks. I thought they were inappropriate, reactionary, and spoken out of frustration.

And I "exaggerated" his remark? How? He said verbatim: "I'd like to say to the citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city." I didn't put a single word in his mouth. Just how did I exaggerate his remark? He said what he said. Not sure what your sentence "If he had made a genuine threat you would not have included in your remark ?.." means at all. And what false claims have I made? Please be specific, don't just blindly flail about and hope I'll admit to one since you evidently can?t find any.

God is a merciful and righteous judge? Mmm-hmm. Sure he is. Unfortunately, Christianity is locked into a circular argument. You believe God is "ood" because he said he was good and therefore anything he does is, by definition, good. It's when you come up against obviously evil actions by God that confound the definition. What would you say if I said a deity had told his believers to kill all children, including babes in the womb, of a people they conquered? What about a deity that forces a man to ignore his feelings and to keep a people enslaved, thus bringing a horrible punishment upon his people? Both pretty evil, eh? But when God does these exact things (and before you say where, Judges 21, Numbers 31, and Exodus 7-8) they?re supposed to be good? So, either you are faced with either we don't know good and evil, which Genesis says we do, or that God really wasn't responsible for this which kills the whole omnipotent/omniscient thing, or that the Old Testament can be in error which leaves you with the problem of then what in it is valid? Of course, this also ignores the whole Flood thing where all children except Noah's were killed, either drowned or died of starvation on mountaintops....

You say that I should be held to the same standard that I require Roberston to be held to. That's not the point. I want Robertson to be held to the same standard *he* wants the rest of the world to be held to. That shouldn?t be too hard, should it?

I too would like to see these "facts", being that the Reverend claims that it is a "fact" that evolution isn't supported by biology or fossils, a position that is anything but a "fact" (something else quite well supported in Judge Jones' decision). I am sure all of these "facts" that "support the Bibical record" are easy to disprove and are probably already explained here: http://www.talkorigins.org/

I would like to see a comparative religions class being taught as an elective in schools. There the kids can see that every religion has its own creation story and all are just as valid as another. But I'm quite sure that most creationists would be horrified if that was done; they don't even want books in the schools that disagree with them. They want their own narrow interpretation of one sect of one religion to be taught and nothing else.

What would be good is if a course on 'Comparative Religion' would be offered to high school students as an elective. It would be a philosophy course and would be taught from an unbiased perspective. The various histories of MANY religions and theories about the origin of the universe would be covered, but none would be taught as fact. A sylibus could be presented to students who wish to take the course that would detail what will be covered in the course.

I think high school students, in fact- children in general, are not given nearly enough credit. By high school, students are old enough to make decisions for themselves, especially when it comes to what they want to learn. Too often people think that kids aren't capable of deciding things for themselves, yet they are expected to choose a major for college... a fairly important decision I would think.

Of course in order for this to work we must change our entire paradigm on how education is handled. That is to say we must start teaching people HOW to think, not indoctrinate them into WHAT to think (which is pretty much how it works now).

Hello Dr C! Can you please elaborate on these facts? Do you support a young Earth or old Earth? I assume you support a young Earth if you are going by the biblical record. Are you familiar with the RATE project done by ICR? Can you comment on that?