Does religion show its ignorance in science?

[Confused]

In 2004, the Gallup organization released a survey to Americans. There were three questions and the participants where asked to answer which one closely resembles their views on the origin and development of life:

1) we developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided the process

2) We developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but without any guidance by a God.

3) God created us as we are within the last 10,000 years or so.

Results:

1) 38%

2) 13%

3) 45%.

The company claims that the percentages haven't really changed much over the past two years.

So my debate question is obvious: How can we, as such an advanced society, with all the technology and knowledge we have now, still continue to refuse to see the truth in science? We accept DNA evidence in courts every day to convict criminal and none of us blink an eye, but DNA from the Human Genome Project the clearly shows the evolution, we ignore and pretend it doesn't exist.

Is religion dooming itself by holding on to antiquated beliefs?

[Furrowed Brow]

But I also think evolutionary biologists are partially to blame as well. In "Why Darwin Matters" the author points out that initally biologists had no interest in debating evolutionists. They felt their scientific research was in no way related to the theological explanations religions were giving. Because of this, ID got a strong foothold in society. Only now are evolutionary biologists realizing that the common public is being misled by their silence. Left unchallenged, evolution became a joke to many while ID started to make sense in a way creationism never did.

I agree. The tag line "Teach the controversy" is at the heart of this problem. It's always easier to run a negative campaign, as any politician or person wrongly accused of some crime knows. Having spent so much time reading the negatives on these forums I can now hear a little voice answering on behalf of the controversy...

The mistake has cost science much in the form of loss of integrity.

The mistake is in science pursuing a fruitless materialistic explanation that will never succeed if it fails to take into account the obvious element of supernatural design that we can all see in nature.

The average persons lack of interest in science assured the religious community that few would read the scientific journals to keep current on the facts and reality of evolution.

What you call "facts" are so obviously ridiculous that it's hardly surprising that nobody is interested in them!

Now, much ground has to be made up for and evolutionary biologists are having to start with the most basics of evolution in their books before they can even begin to explain why evolution requires nothing supernatural.

Excellent. Now that we're starting from basics let's see the evidence showing how life got started. The world is waiting to hear how this incredible stroke of luck could come about. After all, if something as basic as this can have no natural explanation then all the subsequent natural explanations are utterly moot.

However, that knowledge is spreading and it is spreading at an ever growing rate. ID is being disproven day after day with each new discovery and connection science makes.

These connections only link a minute fraction of the gigantic web of life which we can all see for ourselves as being carefully tailored to mesh with itself in perfect harmony. A place has clearly been made for everything and everything is in it's rightful place. No scientific proof is needed to show something as obvious as this.

Religion needs to realize that science is fighting back with facts, not fiction and if it stands a chance of retaining any credibility, it needs to accept the reality of the natural world and rather than continuing to try to disprove something it can't even compete with, it should be searching for equilibrium. All things in life require balance. If religion doesn't accept reality, it will fade away like most ancient myths. I beleive one can balance facts and faith to a degree. But as religion exists in todays world, that balance has no chance of being achieved.

No religion has anything to fear as the real facts are plain for all to see. Scientific facts are built on religious assumptions that are plainly false. Nothing ever comes from nothing, everything has a cause and only willful minds can create order from chaos and it's always done for some purpose.

High schools in Florida are going to start having students declare a major as a freshman and from the current research, biological and cosmological sciences are gaining in popularity for majors. Why, because biologists have finally come out of their shell to put to rest the fables of ID. This has generated even greater interest in evolution. My 8 year old may not see the effects yet, but my 17 year old has and over the past 2 years has become more and more interested in genetics and chemistry. My 18 year old has become more and more interested in biology and physics. Both have become much more familiar with evolution and no longer beleive what some of their religious freinds are preaching.

Religion is now being subjected to natural selection of its own form. It must adapt to survive in its new environment or it will become extinct.

Sooner or later all these children will eventually come to realise the emptiness of the world they've created and, thanks to the sense of those who see the unmistakable imprint of a provident designer in the world, religion will always be around to acquaint them with their maker before they're forced to meet face to face.

:yapyap:

Little Voice has just made jcrawford redundant.

[achilles12604]

I believe a similar survey was done in the UK with not dissimilar results. Though perhaps creationism not scoring quite as high.

I think several reasons for this are at play.

1) Superficially at least Creationism is easier to understand than evolution. And people have a tendency to gravitate towards answers they find easier to understand.

2) Though compulsory to 16 Science in UK schools is in catastrophic decline.

3) From my personal experience, teaching staff in other disciplines in the UK are themselves woefully ignorant of science. For example, on one parents evening at my son's school his English teacher admitted she had heard of Newton, but was not sure what he did. Arrgghhh!!!

4) Though now compulsory, there are several generations of people in the UK who could drop science lesson by the age of 13. To my eternal regret I was one of them. I can confirm I was never taught evolution in school because it was a subject limited to the biology syllabus.

I think you may be partially correct. The education system does minimal to teach children in younger grades about science so they lack an interest in it by the time they reach a grade at which evolution would be introduced. My 8 year old daughter knows more about the Constitution and unfair taxation than she knows about the world around her. That I find to be sad. By the time children reach high school, where they can get their first exposure to evolution, they are no longer interested in science because it goes from almost no eposure to science to overwhelming exposure and children lose interest quick.

But I also think evolutionary biologists are partially to blame as well. In "Why Darwin Matters" the author points out that initally biologists had no interest in debating evolutionists. They felt their scientific research was in no way related to the theological explanations religions were giving. Because of this, ID got a strong foothold in society. Only now are evolutionary biologists realizing that the common public is being misled by their silence. Left unchallenged, evolution became a joke to many while ID started to make sense in a way creationism never did. The mistake has cost science much in the form of loss of integrity. The average persons lack of interest in science assured the religious community that few would read the scientific journals to keep current on the facts and reality of evolution. Now, much ground has to be made up for and evolutionary biologists are having to start with the most basics of evolution in their books before they can even begin to explain why evolution requires nothing supernatural.

However, that knowledge is spreading and it is spreading at an ever growing rate. ID is being disproven day after day with each new discovery and connection science makes. Religion needs to realize that science is fighting back with facts, not fiction and if it stands a chance of retaining any credibility, it needs to accept the reality of the natural world and rather than continuing to try to disprove something it can't even compete with, it should be searching for equilibrium. All things in life require balance. If religion doesn't accept reality, it will fade away like most ancient myths. I beleive one can balance facts and faith to a degree. But as religion exists in todays world, that balance has no chance of being achieved.

High schools in Florida are going to start having students declare a major as a freshman and from the current research, biological and cosmological sciences are gaining in popularity for majors. Why, because biologists have finally come out of their shell to put to rest the fables of ID. This has generated even greater interest in evolution. My 8 year old may not see the effects yet, but my 17 year old has and over the past 2 years has become more and more interested in genetics and chemistry. My 18 year old has become more and more interested in biology and physics. Both have become much more familiar with evolution and no longer beleive what some of their religious freinds are preaching.

Religion is now being subjected to natural selection of its own form. It must adapt to survive in its new environment or it will become extinct.

This is an interesting post in light of previous posts about Collins. How do you reconcile these two extreamly opposed ideas which you hold in high esteem?

[Goat]

But I also think evolutionary biologists are partially to blame as well. In "Why Darwin Matters" the author points out that initally biologists had no interest in debating evolutionists. They felt their scientific research was in no way related to the theological explanations religions were giving. Because of this, ID got a strong foothold in society. Only now are evolutionary biologists realizing that the common public is being misled by their silence. Left unchallenged, evolution became a joke to many while ID started to make sense in a way creationism never did.

I agree. The tag line "Teach the controversy" is at the heart of this problem. It's always easier to run a negative campaign, as any politician or person wrongly accused of some crime knows. Having spent so much time reading the negatives on these forums I can now hear a little voice answering on behalf of the controversy...

I think this animation explains a lot http://atheistdelusion.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

[Confused]

But I also think evolutionary biologists are partially to blame as well. In "Why Darwin Matters" the author points out that initally biologists had no interest in debating evolutionists. They felt their scientific research was in no way related to the theological explanations religions were giving. Because of this, ID got a strong foothold in society. Only now are evolutionary biologists realizing that the common public is being misled by their silence. Left unchallenged, evolution became a joke to many while ID started to make sense in a way creationism never did.

I agree. The tag line "Teach the controversy" is at the heart of this problem. It's always easier to run a negative campaign, as any politician or person wrongly accused of some crime knows. Having spent so much time reading the negatives on these forums I can now hear a little voice answering on behalf of the controversy...

The mistake has cost science much in the form of loss of integrity.

The mistake is in science pursuing a fruitless materialistic explanation that will never succeed if it fails to take into account the obvious element of supernatural design that we can all see in nature.

The average persons lack of interest in science assured the religious community that few would read the scientific journals to keep current on the facts and reality of evolution.

What you call "facts" are so obviously ridiculous that it's hardly surprising that nobody is interested in them!

Now, much ground has to be made up for and evolutionary biologists are having to start with the most basics of evolution in their books before they can even begin to explain why evolution requires nothing supernatural.

Excellent. Now that we're starting from basics let's see the evidence showing how life got started. The world is waiting to hear how this incredible stroke of luck could come about. After all, if something as basic as this can have no natural explanation then all the subsequent natural explanations are utterly moot.

However, that knowledge is spreading and it is spreading at an ever growing rate. ID is being disproven day after day with each new discovery and connection science makes.

These connections only link a minute fraction of the gigantic web of life which we can all see for ourselves as being carefully tailored to mesh with itself in perfect harmony. A place has clearly been made for everything and everything is in it's rightful place. No scientific proof is needed to show something as obvious as this.

Religion needs to realize that science is fighting back with facts, not fiction and if it stands a chance of retaining any credibility, it needs to accept the reality of the natural world and rather than continuing to try to disprove something it can't even compete with, it should be searching for equilibrium. All things in life require balance. If religion doesn't accept reality, it will fade away like most ancient myths. I beleive one can balance facts and faith to a degree. But as religion exists in todays world, that balance has no chance of being achieved.

No religion has anything to fear as the real facts are plain for all to see. Scientific facts are built on religious assumptions that are plainly false. Nothing ever comes from nothing, everything has a cause and only willful minds can create order from chaos and it's always done for some purpose.

High schools in Florida are going to start having students declare a major as a freshman and from the current research, biological and cosmological sciences are gaining in popularity for majors. Why, because biologists have finally come out of their shell to put to rest the fables of ID. This has generated even greater interest in evolution. My 8 year old may not see the effects yet, but my 17 year old has and over the past 2 years has become more and more interested in genetics and chemistry. My 18 year old has become more and more interested in biology and physics. Both have become much more familiar with evolution and no longer beleive what some of their religious freinds are preaching.

Religion is now being subjected to natural selection of its own form. It must adapt to survive in its new environment or it will become extinct.

Sooner or later all these children will eventually come to realise the emptiness of the world they've created and, thanks to the sense of those who see the unmistakable imprint of a provident designer in the world, religion will always be around to acquaint them with their maker before they're forced to meet face to face.

:yapyap:

You realize that you have made me the happiest person in the world tonight right? I never thought I would see the day that I didn't dread reading your replies to my posts. For once, I feel like I said something smart. Could this be the beginning of the end for me?

[Confused]

I believe a similar survey was done in the UK with not dissimilar results. Though perhaps creationism not scoring quite as high.

I think several reasons for this are at play.

1) Superficially at least Creationism is easier to understand than evolution. And people have a tendency to gravitate towards answers they find easier to understand.

2) Though compulsory to 16 Science in UK schools is in catastrophic decline.

3) From my personal experience, teaching staff in other disciplines in the UK are themselves woefully ignorant of science. For example, on one parents evening at my son's school his English teacher admitted she had heard of Newton, but was not sure what he did. Arrgghhh!!!

4) Though now compulsory, there are several generations of people in the UK who could drop science lesson by the age of 13. To my eternal regret I was one of them. I can confirm I was never taught evolution in school because it was a subject limited to the biology syllabus.

I think you may be partially correct. The education system does minimal to teach children in younger grades about science so they lack an interest in it by the time they reach a grade at which evolution would be introduced. My 8 year old daughter knows more about the Constitution and unfair taxation than she knows about the world around her. That I find to be sad. By the time children reach high school, where they can get their first exposure to evolution, they are no longer interested in science because it goes from almost no eposure to science to overwhelming exposure and children lose interest quick.

But I also think evolutionary biologists are partially to blame as well. In "Why Darwin Matters" the author points out that initally biologists had no interest in debating evolutionists. They felt their scientific research was in no way related to the theological explanations religions were giving. Because of this, ID got a strong foothold in society. Only now are evolutionary biologists realizing that the common public is being misled by their silence. Left unchallenged, evolution became a joke to many while ID started to make sense in a way creationism never did. The mistake has cost science much in the form of loss of integrity. The average persons lack of interest in science assured the religious community that few would read the scientific journals to keep current on the facts and reality of evolution. Now, much ground has to be made up for and evolutionary biologists are having to start with the most basics of evolution in their books before they can even begin to explain why evolution requires nothing supernatural.

However, that knowledge is spreading and it is spreading at an ever growing rate. ID is being disproven day after day with each new discovery and connection science makes. Religion needs to realize that science is fighting back with facts, not fiction and if it stands a chance of retaining any credibility, it needs to accept the reality of the natural world and rather than continuing to try to disprove something it can't even compete with, it should be searching for equilibrium. All things in life require balance. If religion doesn't accept reality, it will fade away like most ancient myths. I beleive one can balance facts and faith to a degree. But as religion exists in todays world, that balance has no chance of being achieved.

High schools in Florida are going to start having students declare a major as a freshman and from the current research, biological and cosmological sciences are gaining in popularity for majors. Why, because biologists have finally come out of their shell to put to rest the fables of ID. This has generated even greater interest in evolution. My 8 year old may not see the effects yet, but my 17 year old has and over the past 2 years has become more and more interested in genetics and chemistry. My 18 year old has become more and more interested in biology and physics. Both have become much more familiar with evolution and no longer beleive what some of their religious freinds are preaching.

Religion is now being subjected to natural selection of its own form. It must adapt to survive in its new environment or it will become extinct.

This is an interesting post in light of previous posts about Collins. How do you reconcile these two extreamly opposed ideas which you hold in high esteem?

I hold Collins in high regards because not only has he maintained his integrity in his field of genetics and maintained a reputation above reproach for it, he also maintains his religious convictions without hiding science behind them. Collins himself wrote in his book that the fall of creationism and ID would be their intolerance to science and by its anitquated views on using supernatural to explain the natural. While his views of biologos do maintain undertones of a creator in some of their tenets, he also allows for the possibility that simply because a natural explanation isn't available now, doens't mean one won't be later. He keeps his mind open and doesn't allow science to cloud his religious beliefs yet doesn't allow religion to cloud his scientific truths. How could one not hold one in such a high esteem? He has a balance that most will never have without maintaining a large degree of ingnorance on one side or the other. That is deserving of respect.

[achilles12604]

I believe a similar survey was done in the UK with not dissimilar results. Though perhaps creationism not scoring quite as high.

I think several reasons for this are at play.

1) Superficially at least Creationism is easier to understand than evolution. And people have a tendency to gravitate towards answers they find easier to understand.

2) Though compulsory to 16 Science in UK schools is in catastrophic decline.

3) From my personal experience, teaching staff in other disciplines in the UK are themselves woefully ignorant of science. For example, on one parents evening at my son's school his English teacher admitted she had heard of Newton, but was not sure what he did. Arrgghhh!!!

4) Though now compulsory, there are several generations of people in the UK who could drop science lesson by the age of 13. To my eternal regret I was one of them. I can confirm I was never taught evolution in school because it was a subject limited to the biology syllabus.

I think you may be partially correct. The education system does minimal to teach children in younger grades about science so they lack an interest in it by the time they reach a grade at which evolution would be introduced. My 8 year old daughter knows more about the Constitution and unfair taxation than she knows about the world around her. That I find to be sad. By the time children reach high school, where they can get their first exposure to evolution, they are no longer interested in science because it goes from almost no eposure to science to overwhelming exposure and children lose interest quick.

But I also think evolutionary biologists are partially to blame as well. In "Why Darwin Matters" the author points out that initally biologists had no interest in debating evolutionists. They felt their scientific research was in no way related to the theological explanations religions were giving. Because of this, ID got a strong foothold in society. Only now are evolutionary biologists realizing that the common public is being misled by their silence. Left unchallenged, evolution became a joke to many while ID started to make sense in a way creationism never did. The mistake has cost science much in the form of loss of integrity. The average persons lack of interest in science assured the religious community that few would read the scientific journals to keep current on the facts and reality of evolution. Now, much ground has to be made up for and evolutionary biologists are having to start with the most basics of evolution in their books before they can even begin to explain why evolution requires nothing supernatural.

However, that knowledge is spreading and it is spreading at an ever growing rate. ID is being disproven day after day with each new discovery and connection science makes. Religion needs to realize that science is fighting back with facts, not fiction and if it stands a chance of retaining any credibility, it needs to accept the reality of the natural world and rather than continuing to try to disprove something it can't even compete with, it should be searching for equilibrium. All things in life require balance. If religion doesn't accept reality, it will fade away like most ancient myths. I beleive one can balance facts and faith to a degree. But as religion exists in todays world, that balance has no chance of being achieved.

High schools in Florida are going to start having students declare a major as a freshman and from the current research, biological and cosmological sciences are gaining in popularity for majors. Why, because biologists have finally come out of their shell to put to rest the fables of ID. This has generated even greater interest in evolution. My 8 year old may not see the effects yet, but my 17 year old has and over the past 2 years has become more and more interested in genetics and chemistry. My 18 year old has become more and more interested in biology and physics. Both have become much more familiar with evolution and no longer beleive what some of their religious freinds are preaching.

Religion is now being subjected to natural selection of its own form. It must adapt to survive in its new environment or it will become extinct.

This is an interesting post in light of previous posts about Collins. How do you reconcile these two extreamly opposed ideas which you hold in high esteem?

I hold Collins in high regards because not only has he maintained his integrity in his field of genetics and maintained a reputation above reproach for it, he also maintains his religious convictions without hiding science behind them. Collins himself wrote in his book that the fall of creationism and ID would be their intolerance to science and by its anitquated views on using supernatural to explain the natural. While his views of biologos do maintain undertones of a creator in some of their tenets, he also allows for the possibility that simply because a natural explanation isn't available now, doens't mean one won't be later. He keeps his mind open and doesn't allow science to cloud his religious beliefs yet doesn't allow religion to cloud his scientific truths. How could one not hold one in such a high esteem? He has a balance that most will never have without maintaining a large degree of ingnorance on one side or the other. That is deserving of respect.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I too hold Collins in a great deal of respect. My question was how do you marry the ideas of ID and God's direction presented by Collins with your statements like

ID is being disproven day after day with each new discovery and connection science makes.

If ID requires science to be true for it to be true, why would ID be disproven? Perhaps we have a different view of what ID is?

[Confused]

Achilles:
ID holds itself to be a science. That is their entire rationale for all the various legal suits it has in the courts right now. ID attacks the gaps in evolution as proof that evolution isn't true. Instead, in interjects an intervention by God at various points of gaps in evolution. This is where I say that ID is being disproven by science every day. Because ID has chosen to attack evolution through science. This is exactly why Collins predicts the fall of ID and the crushing blow it will give to religion and faith as a whole. Because ID proponents are choosing to enter a realm in which they were never meant to enter. Why? Because they want creationism to be taught as an alternative theory to evolution. The problem lies in the fact that creationism doesn't try to offer another theory to account for the proven aspects of evolution or the gaps in it. This is why it will fail. Because theology and science were never meant to be at opposing odds. ID proponents (at least the most active ones) claim that the war between evolution and creationism (ID) is more like a war between atheist and theist. Even the most prominent book for ID "Of Pandas and Gorillas" was ruled by the courts in 2005 to be the same "Creation Biology" from 1983, they just pasted over creationism with ID and attempted to present it as science. It isn't. Science didn't choose the debate with religion. Phillip Johnson, a Berkley law professor who is the fountainhead of the ID movement spoke at the 2000 National Religious Broadcasters conference said "Christians of the 20th century have been playing defense. They've been fighting a defensive war to defend what they have, to defend as much of it as they can. It never turns the tides. What we're trying to do is something entirely different. We're trying to go into enemy territory, their very center, and blow up the ammunition dump. What is tehir ammunition dump metaphor? It is their version of creation". In 1996 Johnson held nothing back when he said "This isn't really, and never has been about science......It's about religion and philosophy. Enter his "Wedge of Truth". He writes "our strategy is to drive the thin end of our wedge into the cracks of naturalism by bringing long neglected questions to the surface and introducing them to public debate".
"Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of the design theory, we will move towards direct confrontation with advocates of materialistic science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings... The attention, publicity, and influence of the design theory should draw scientific materialists out into the open and we will be ready. This is not just an attack on naturalism, it is a religious war against all science".

I think the most profound statement I have heard goes like this; "If you are a theist, what could possibly proclaim the greater glory of God's creation more than science, the instrument that has illuminated more than any other tool of human knowledge the grandeur in the evolutionary view of life. Science knows no political or religious boundaries. More than any other tradition it follows the motto erected at the Panama Canal: Aperire Terram Gentibus "To Open The World To all People".

[achilles12604]

Achilles:
ID holds itself to be a science. That is their entire rationale for all the various legal suits it has in the courts right now. ID attacks the gaps in evolution as proof that evolution isn't true. Instead, in interjects an intervention by God at various points of gaps in evolution. This is where I say that ID is being disproven by science every day. Because ID has chosen to attack evolution through science. This is exactly why Collins predicts the fall of ID and the crushing blow it will give to religion and faith as a whole. Because ID proponents are choosing to enter a realm in which they were never meant to enter. Why? Because they want creationism to be taught as an alternative theory to evolution. The problem lies in the fact that creationism doesn't try to offer another theory to account for the proven aspects of evolution or the gaps in it. This is why it will fail. Because theology and science were never meant to be at opposing odds. ID proponents (at least the most active ones) claim that the war between evolution and creationism (ID) is more like a war between atheist and theist. Even the most prominent book for ID "Of Pandas and Gorillas" was ruled by the courts in 2005 to be the same "Creation Biology" from 1983, they just pasted over creationism with ID and attempted to present it as science. It isn't. Science didn't choose the debate with religion. Phillip Johnson, a Berkley law professor who is the fountainhead of the ID movement spoke at the 2000 National Religious Broadcasters conference said "Christians of the 20th century have been playing defense. They've been fighting a defensive war to defend what they have, to defend as much of it as they can. It never turns the tides. What we're trying to do is something entirely different. We're trying to go into enemy territory, their very center, and blow up the ammunition dump. What is tehir ammunition dump metaphor? It is their version of creation". In 1996 Johnson held nothing back when he said "This isn't really, and never has been about science......It's about religion and philosophy. Enter his "Wedge of Truth". He writes "our strategy is to drive the thin end of our wedge into the cracks of naturalism by bringing long neglected questions to the surface and introducing them to public debate".
"Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of the design theory, we will move towards direct confrontation with advocates of materialistic science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings... The attention, publicity, and influence of the design theory should draw scientific materialists out into the open and we will be ready. This is not just an attack on naturalism, it is a religious war against all science".

I think the most profound statement I have heard goes like this; "If you are a theist, what could possibly proclaim the greater glory of God's creation more than science, the instrument that has illuminated more than any other tool of human knowledge the grandeur in the evolutionary view of life. Science knows no political or religious boundaries. More than any other tradition it follows the motto erected at the Panama Canal: Aperire Terram Gentibus "To Open The World To all People".

Yes we do have different definitions of ID. I think I make up my own as I go. But then again I do this with all aspects of religion. I take what the facts entail and I apply logic to them to make my decision about what I believe.

The version of ID being argued by the courts is not stricktly what I hold. I hold that science is a wonderful tool and a teriffic source of information for anything within this universe. I encourage science and EVERYTHING it tells us. This includes when theology must adjust its old habits to recognize new details uncovered by its foraging.

I guess I should be clear.

1) I of course believe in the bible. I think it contains great truths and is a message from God to mankind. I believe it to be almost a letter, complete with introductions, getting to know each other, expectations and hope for the future.

2) I also accept science and what it has uncovered. I do not see any place where science and theology are at odds (Christian theology specifically). I can accept natural selection and mutation of a species as easily as I can accept miracles and the supernatural.

I have yet to find a place where science presents evidence which is directly opposed to theology and its teachings. Of course to hold this view I have to maintain an open mind and be ready to critically examine both science and my own theology and sometime throw away the fat.

Ok well you have answered my question. I understand now where you are comming from.

[Confused]

Achilles:

You are right. Your view of ID is definately not the accepted view, for which I am thankful for.