Comments on: Is Intelligent Design Science or “Scientology”

By: David

David — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:09:18 +0000

Adding Scientology to the argument is the fun part. Creationists do want to promote their OWN religious beliefs, and if you dilute ID by including Scientology then the wind is taken out of their sails and they are forced to reconsider their approach furthering Christian Beliefs. What I am most curious about is that there are so many factions of Christianity that they all couldn't possibly agree with what is the correct interpretation of ID. But I can counter my own argument by illustrating abortion and their united front. Great conversation folks!

By: Rodney

Rodney — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 08:31:19 +0000

I just watch this movie. And I believe your first sentence has it very right. Momof5 asks what does this have to do with Scientology. Everything. L Ron Hubbard originally created scientology to mock religions. They have since change to an all encompassing religion meaning you can have whatever deity and be a Scientologist. But really Intelligent Design is really evolution. Intelligent design is not only evolution but is proabably best explained with Aliens and Moon men. So the fact that religions are regularly adulterating themselves jumping on the theory of intelligent design without reading its core meaning are really allowing L Ron Hubbard to do exactly what he sat out to do. To disprove religion by making Science the religion. Want an example now that we all believe that earth was created intelligently we also can all agree that the bible is wrong that man has lived on earth for 6,000 years or that noah's ark happened what 5,000 years ago. So where do we go next for answers. Moon men who put life forms in volcanoes sounds like a winner to me.

By: KDIsom

KDIsom — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 02:28:34 +0000

A minor quibble: “…not an undirected process such as natural selection”.

NS is the antithesis of undirected processes. It is where the lion catches the gazelle, the frog overlooks the camouflaged insect, etc.. Random mutation is the undirected part of Darwinim, i.e. the random product of genetic mutation upon which NS creates.

By: Brian Cuban

Brian Cuban — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:00:34 +0000

Nothing. It is literary technique called “word play” I was linking the skepticism of ID to the skepticism of Scientology. That is why the word Scientology is in quotes, conveying what it stands for and not what it actually means.

By: momof5

momof5 — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:36:18 +0000

What does this article have to do with Scientology?

By: John

John — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:28:07 +0000

I think ID has become a red herring to divert attention from the wedge agenda now.

By: Gordon

Gordon — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:31:02 +0000

I recently read Freiman’s Current Events, Conservative Outcomes. He makes the point very well that evolution is obviously a valid theory and creationism is also a necessary piece of the equation. Here again the left and the right battle for ultimate superiority when the answer is a combination of both concepts. The problem is when these 2 groups get on opposite sides of a argument, nothing gets solved. This problem like all complex issues does not have 1 magic bullet as the explanation. There is a blending of concepts that will solve the dilemma.

By: Kammy- Classroom designer

Kammy- Classroom designer — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:35:17 +0000

Interesting post. I don’t consider ‘intelligent design’ as science.

By: Bobby Revell

Bobby Revell — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 01:40:37 +0000

I'm on the science side. I live in the heart of the bible belt where feverish Christians will burn you alive on an upside down cross for even questioning the good lord Jesus. Most of them believe the Earth is 12,000 years old and so forth. It has scarred my mind and I am still quite deranged from the religious onslaught...haha! Bobby Revells last blog post..Freakish Jobs: Copa Casino - Worst Employee Ever