|
Iintelligent Design: should we even bother?
|
|
|
A forum for Friends to debate and discuss issues of faith. Others may participate as respectful guests; but critiques of the Society of Friends by non-Quakers must be directed to Christian-to-Christian Debate. Be courteous even to those with whom you disagree. Your host: faithbeliever_81
|
|
<Prev |
Next>
First Page |
Last Page
|
|
|
This is a read-only area. |
|
Messages: 1 - 4 (51 total)
|
|
|
quakeyjase
4/15/2006 11:40 AM
|
1 out of 51 |
|
|
|
I'm wondering whether intelligent design should even be a Quaker issue. All I can think of is that Quaker witness shows one can have a faith without subscribing the the kind of literallism that supports creationism in its traditional and re-labelled form.
|
|
|
|
PaulaEdwina
4/15/2006 1:27 PM
|
2 out of 51 |
|
|
|
I think any thinking individual of any religion can avoid being a slave to literalism. Quakerism has no corner on that.
Paula
|
|
|
|
quakeyjase
4/16/2006 12:23 PM
|
3 out of 51 |
|
|
|
That's true Paula I suppose...
According to Wikipedia the controversy centres around the following issues:
1/ Whether ID can be regarded as science
2/ Whether the evidence supports ID
3/ Whether teaching it is appropriate
My position on these is:
1/ No
2/ No
3/ No
I wondered what other Ffriends think?
|
|
|
|
PaulaEdwina
4/16/2006 8:05 PM
|
4 out of 51 |
|
|
|
Being of a libertarian bent I think;
1. People get to believe what they want; that is their right. ID may be no more science than the ressurection or the general belief in god. So if there's room for the resurrection, there's room for ID.
2. As above, if they want to teach others about ID so be it.
3. I don't think it should be taught as science or an alternative to evolution, or as some compulsory learning of fact to be tested on in future. However, it can be taught in comparative religion and like classes as far as I'm concerned.
Paula
|
|
|
|
<Prev |
Next>
First Page |
Last Page
|
|
|
This is a read-only area. |
