I am in the process of reading "Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine (thanks Doug.) He brings into question the validity of the Bible and the authority of the Church. His conclusion is that the Bible has no authority as the Word of God and, by extension, the Church has no authority. He makes a statement at the beginning of his belief in a God. As the books arguments unfold, it becomes clear that he is stating a case for a belief in God based on Reason rather than faith. This idea is apparently called Deism, and some (if not most or all ) of the Founding Fathers subscribed to this belief - Jefferson included.

I looked up Deism on Wikipedia and they say it is influenced by the success of the scientific method as well as the ability of mathematics to predict natural phenomena. There is also the reference to the "Divine Watchmaker" metaphor as part of their belief.

So, now I am wondering if the Founding Fathers believed in some form of Intelligent Design and what their opinion of the teaching of this would be. I think that based on their aggressive questioning of assumptions and their faith in mathematics and science as a more credible source of truth, that they would seriously question the inclusion of intelligent design in a curriculum meant to form free minds.

An interesting refutation of one of the arguments for Intelligent Design comes from a game developed by a mathematician named John Conway. He created a game called "Life" that starts with an infinite matrix and dirt simple rules for whether a square is alive (black) or dead (white). Starting with a random pile of black and white squares, the game progresses to make all kinds of interesting shapes and patterns that move around and do numerous other interesting things. This blows a hole through the idea that order cannot develop out of chaos. Even the rules could have happened by chance.

I am not sure why the Creationists are even wasting their time with evolution when quantum physics is a much richer subject. For instance, there is a possibility that the intent of the development of living organisms senses (through evolution) was for the purpose of creating particles from waves- thereby creating the universe by sensing it. Now that is MUCH better pseudo science!

Mr. Morris, that is an interesting argument (q. physics) but these folks aren't interested in real science in the least. They're starting from a religious position and working back. I find it interesting that they imply that science is valid by building their version of it into the ID "argument." By cloaking a religious agenda in "science," they try to make it seem valid. Ergo, they recognize that science is valid.

I promised Linette that I wouldn't write about it, but I just had a run-in with a bunch of "Noah had dinosaurs on the ark" people.... It wasn't pleasant... And, that's really all I can say about it.

As for our founding fathers, and how they would have assimilated the results of carbon dating and the findings of modern archeologists into their beliefs about the divine, I’m not sure. I find it hard to believe, however, that any of them would have considered all of the evidence and then subscribed to the idea that Noah transported pterodactyls. I suspect that they would have instead drawn the conclusion that the Bible, while perhaps wonderful and instructive, was not to be taken literally on every count. And, furthermore, I suspect that they would believe that in doing so, one would in no way diminish the greatness of the Creator, or of Jesus Christ. In fact, I suspect that they would have respected God more as a result.

For more on the agenda and techniques of the Intelligent Design movement -- epecially their master plan, The Wedge -- here's a link to the Introduction to "Creationism's Trojan Horse": www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=96

And here's a review of the book, from the same site: www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=90

Personally, I don't see any necessity for either God or Jesus. There's not much evidence for either of them, and believing things that are untrue drives you nuts. If nothing else, you can point out that impregnating a virgin and killing the son to remove sin from the world was not only a sick idea, but remarkably ineffective.

I prefer to call myself an agnostic, since I have a deep distrust of human reason -- whether applied to religion or to science. I'd be glad to treat christians with the same suspended judgment I use for UFO and Bigfoot believers. I've found, though, that christians make less sense, are more violent, and less fun at parties. To the lions with them!

Be careful Doug. The last time we fed them to the lions they multiplied, formed a theocracy, and plunged us into a dark age.

Oh, I meant that rhetorically. Christians being thrown to lions may be a myth, anyway (at least, that's what the guidebooks in Rome say). It's probably not a healthy diet for the lions. It's a nice ringing phrase, though; it's what Aleister Crowley used to roar out to scare away carolers.

Lions are perfectly capable of fending for themselves. I don't see why they need our help. If we feed the Christians, or anyone else for that matter, to any group, it should be orphaned infant humans.

And give the orphans colic? Those christians are awfully fatty!