One problem cause by Religion

Post Reply New Topic

Well, for one, what about how meteors altered the evolutionary pathways, arbitrarily ending some and promoting others? What about how viral mutations could lead to different levels of efficacy with some viruses killing more beings than others? What about competitions such as the one between humans and neanderthals? Who said that such a conflict would have had an objectively necessary result? What about cases where only a small number of a species exists, but somehow still survives and makes a major comeback? What about possible situations that can cause groups to become more genetically isolated? What if a good gene comes up sooner rather than later? What about any number of these changes then being reflected in the competition?

Do I think that animals kill all things? No, they make decisions. And depending on their intelligence, they can even show advanced feelings of benevolence and altruism.

What I see likely for an evolutionary pathway is that I would expect it to be more chaotic than simple physics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory (btw, I am not saying that chaos physics is simple, I am just saying that this isn't f=ma)

I mean, I see a capitalist system as also somewhat unguided and also somewhat evolutionary, but I would not expect outright determinism.


No, the probability based upon our knowledge is actually zero. There aren't other spiritual entities out there or anything we know of that generates them, so we can't even consider a process by which to get an actual probability.


Ok, I am not sure I believe much about aliens.


Well.... would you say that I am misunderstanding what you are positing? It is a powerful computer spirit that just exists... The possibility can't be rationally arrived at, as the very idea is unlike anything ever truly experienced in a very deep way, so to just posit it seems bizarre.


I will just say that I outright do not trust the numbers. I am not going to pretend that I am an expert on biochemistry, or information theory, which are the relevant studies. I do think that calculations on probability are going to be parasitic on biochemistry. I also think that Stephen Meyer's book is considered to just be representing William Dembski's views, which are generally mathematically rejected, with Dembski not a scholar in the region he is talking about. That being said, I am not a scholar in math. Not only that, but I consider evolution to be smarter than all of the researchers studying it in a certain sense, as it can find paths that people would not find themselves simply through exploration of some sort.


I don't think that the scientific community takes ID seriously enough that they are pulling out hair about abiogenesis. I am not going to say that anyone must be keen about currently developed processes, however, we don't have a lab that can emulate early earth conditions cheaply.


Where is the qualitative difference? The additional telos into a system that otherwise lacks it? I see an odd physical theory, but one that some mathematicians have attempted to argue, but I don't see a necessary problem or "magic" on the same level as a God would require.


Honestly, once again, I don't accept ID proponents as reasonable sources. I don't have the mathematical ability or biochemical ability to evaluate their mathematical claims too seriously (or really the interest at this point in time) but I tend to be cynical towards them. Honestly, I don't mind invoking a multiverse theory too much, but I don't really care enough in any case. I don't take the idea of a God seriously at all, and I have done enough spiritual explorations to feel fine with this conclusion. I will be honest that I do not have a spiritual tendency, but if there is no spirit in man, then why should we expect that this flawed mental representation still actually exists elsewhere? I don't see much reason. It seems too anthropomorphic to expect that a wrong mental category would still be shown as right.

1, peolple are more interested in punishing a cause of a problem then actually finding its cause
2. Sme people just hate religion and want ti make it the bane of humanity.
3. People are to lazy to actully find the true underlying cause
4. people are aligned wth the real cause so try to blame anything else to divert peoples attntions

I would say that's correct about biodiversity, I just don't know that our need for food, water, air, or healthy genetic procreation changes all that much. The broader problems of evil still come from needs based on our very building blocks.


Mostly economic I'd have to imagine. Killing anything and everything would be unfocused and sacrifice needed energy.


I can agree with that, just that the gratuitous evil they face in the form of their own peril is much more intense.


For many people if not a slight majority its been much the opposite - not sure really how to sum it up in words concisely aside from that its a completely different blick.





I spent hours on Youtube watching atheist/theist ID/evolution debates, looking at ID debunk videos; any time I've heard abiogenesis by chance brought up - what I got from it were that the scientists trying to debunk ID agreed that random chance was impossible. If there was a big disagreement over the universe having probabilistic resources for chance abiogenesis that should have been one of the first things that should have been brought out as its one of the things the ID'ers tend to hang their hats on.


This is one of the more common places where the debate on existence or nonexistence of God stalls. Your suggesting a premise that starts with God being a figment of our imagination, as something of a given, and trying to work it outward to indicate unlikelihood of God's existence. My views - if the pendulum is held by God or on the exterior we'd be measuring ourselves at the bottom of the pendulum and looking up and outward the anchor point.

Either way though I think this much holds constant in the middle: God's existence doesn't depend on us unless he doesn't exist. That's why I brought up the bullet point of our defining God as good and that being used as something to hold up against his existence - his existence isn't controlled by us unless its taken gratis that we're holding the top of the pendulum.

Umm... but the issue is that no creature exists necessarily, and all sorts of other behavioral patterns other than the human behavioral pattern seem possible. I mean, evolution does not mean that *any* strategy is necessary, it only tends to push creatures to certain types of strategies. So, to say that the strategy we use is necessary in all of its details does not seem borne out.


Actually, probably more like satisficing according to heuristics. I doubt that bears perform any economic calculation.


Let me say this again:
This possibility cannot be rationally arrived at.
It is unlike anything ever *truly* experienced in a very deep way(note, I am not including religious experiences as I consider those psychologically generated)

I mean, pointing to numbers doesn't really settle the issue because if a possibility is not a result of logic, or of valid experiences, then it is epistemically discredited as a real possibility. I would say that most people are working within some vaguely spiritualist background, which makes their intuitions on the matter invalid.


Ok, here's my stance:
1) Abiogenesis isn't actually part of evolution, that's a different group of scientists working on different theories
2) Abiogenesis is still an area where there are incomplete theories, as in nobody has absolutely proven what theory will work
3) Actually, I've tended to think that IDers tended more towards Behe's idea of irreducible complexity, if only because it is easier to present than specified complexity, which is more of a mathematical issue.

Now, it is still true that many do trumpet the cell. But for that reason, I will tend to still point to reasons 1 & 2. Also note that 2 does not mean that I think a faith in science to find a solution is unwarranted. Science has tended to find solutions for a lot of things, there is little reason why this situation would be that one place where a solution cannot exist.


Well, it starts off with spirituality being a figment of our imagination. This does not seem odd given that people are fleshy, as we saw from the fact that both sides are discussing how evolution does work, and given that you actually argue for a more limited possibility for human beings than I do. So, if human beings are evolutionarily constrained to be evil, then why not religious? And if constrained to religiousness, how can this be evidence towards a God? It can't. Thus, God starts off as a figment of our imagination, then imagining that a figment of the imagination will correspond to an actual reality seems a bit ridiculous.


Honestly, I just think you have a mystical impulse and feel compelled to defend it. I mean, the issue isn't where we stand, the issue is just theories. If none of our theories can justify God's existence compared to other concepts, then there is no justification to be agnostic to the idea of God. I would argue that our theories do not really justify God's existence when compared to other possible concepts, so there really isn't much justification to be agnostic.

I mean, you can point to God's perspective, the issue is that the evaluation of ideas always takes place on a human perspective.

Is there something I still disagree with? My argument was that changing the basic rules of the game would have a much more far-reaching effect than juggling around the pieces or the pathways that evolution took. The only thing I can come up with is that you think I'm inferring ID - nothing of the like. We could just as well be talking bipedal land squid (if sentient life occured), it doesn't make a lot of difference to the point I was arguing.


I'll explain this one to you then: animals have physical senses - hunger, fatigue, pain, pleasure, satiation. They don't need to dwell or philosophize on such choices - such choices happen. I can't argue that they aren't calculated, they very much are, just that they're calculated in much the same way that we calculate pulling our hand away from something that just burned us or calculating how to put one foot in front of the other to walk. Calculating cost/benefit is an economic matter, whether its a cerebral or basal process.


That argument is a well sealed loop, I'll give you that.


And valid experiences are dictated by starting with the premise that God doesn't exist.


Correct, evolution is inherently impossible without self-replication thus rendering it another matter. The only places where the two conjunct is this; statistical odds and calculations can be applied to both to see their likelihood and how much time would be needed to make either manifest.


None are gapping the statistical odds, they try to but it seems like they're doing little more than rearranging an inequality at the moment and thus the problem just gets pushed from one side to another. I won't say that it'll never be figured out, I'd never jump to that conclusion, just that I'm as hard pressed as most of these scientists to figure out what pathways aside from chance or chemical/thermodynamic necessity are available.


I don't think most Neo-Darwinists doubt irreducible complexity at some level - they do reject however the idea of deliberate engineering in cells by a designer, that's what Behe brought up and that's essentially what they argued was nothing more than a political movement masquerading as science.


I don't know that the cell on its own is proof of God, it bothers me to hang my hat on something of that nature when I see plenty of other reasons that aren't hedged against scientific progress by that sort of necessity.


The later really isn't a problem. We can already argue without needing evolution as a demonstration that free will is an illusion just by stating that people will inherently choose the optimal movement to the knowledge that they have or the energy levels that they have, the emotional state their in, their neurological health - what happens is pretty deterministic. That doesn't exactly quash any possibility of the human spirit - it just makes a heaven/hell dichotomy rather unlikely.




I don't inherently need to see logic or science as erosive or destructive matters. No magic either, the universe that we see around us works far better without it. A universe that needed constant miracles to continue on its course would be a sign of very poor programming anyway.
The problem I have is that the seal on what's logical, while its quite practical in day to day life, it ends up translating into some using it to wish away problems of the macro. To either believe in a multiverse with infinite races of beings that existed before us or to believe in nothing before the big bang - the problems of known reality and teleology breaking down aren't removed either way.

The message of God, in terms of Christianity, is acceptance by Him through the vicarious sacrifice of His Son on the Cross so that we may be blameless in His sight. The "love eachother" and "love your enemies and bless those who curse you" are not the main message.

A lot of those effects mentioned are not necessarily caused by religious views. Religion, as I define it, is any system of beliefs, whether historically based or just one's own philosophy. The system of beliefs that one learns affects how they perceive everything. And also, what they are taught of the general belief systems of others. Until September 11th, 2001, people here didn't really care all that much about whether someone was Muslim or not, and weren't so paranoid of people with beards either... , but after the attacks, focus was brought on the issue and hate by association and passing judgments by appearances became in vogue.

As it is, I think, due to this continuing abject nonsensical paranoia, I am always looked at with either fearful or hateful suspicious glances or glares. Why? Because I have a beard. I am not a Muslim, rather I am a Christian. My ethnicity is not from the middle east, but rather from France, Ireland, England, Scotland, and Italy. I do not speak Arabic or Farsi, but the languages of which I know, or at least partly know, are English, Spanish, Latin, and Hebrew. However, with how stupid and quick to judge people are by appearances alone, I bet if I spoke in Latin that they'd think it was Arabic.

Well, I think it does make a real difference. You seem to be arguing that all evolved minds will be the same. This does not seem apparent, and it seems to me that evolved minds could have a significant amount of variance, and with this significant amount of variance, we get different behavior. So, I think this matters. Either that, or I am misunderstanding your point, but I thought you were arguing that the degree of badness in the world is evolutionarily necessary.


Neither of those actions is truly economic. We don't even think about it. I suppose there is some level of optimization that you could be arguing, however, I would just say that there is satisficing, as one could pursue an ideal strategy, or one could engage in a moderately effective strategy. Animals likely do the latter. People often do the latter. Most economists pretend that optimization occurs though.


Well.... I don't see how you are legitimately getting out of this whole affair. I mean, you could be taking religion at face value to some extent, but if you were doing that, then how would you explain religious disagreement, how could you accept the falsehood of one of the notions of God so easily? So, if religions aren't valid sources of knowledge, then the notion of God cannot be inferred from anything we currently have experienced.


No, valid experiences are dictated by the premise that religious experiences aren't valid. This starting premise does not seem questionable for the following reasons:
1) Religious experiences are controlled by the dominant religious/cultural group
2) Religious experiences conflict (can be inferred from 1 and other facts)
3) The mind does not need a God to generate religious experiences and we know it generates other things
4) Most religious traditions emerge from a more primitive time with less reliability about the intuitions
5) The brain and mind are deeply connected, and the brain is a material object.

Because of that, one can argue that religions cannot be trusted, and if religions cannot be trusted, then a valid inference to God is impossible.


Statistical odds and time are going to be contingent upon statistical methods and biochemical assumptions.


I am not a biochemist, so I am not going to join you in speculating about this matter. Certainly though, I am not going to just accept this matter as what you claim it is though. I mean, have you read other books on this subject other than ID books? I know you claim to have listened to debates, but certainly there are books on the topic of abiogenesis that could be read. Even professors that could be e-mailed on the topic.


I think that most Darwinists do doubt irreducible complexity. I don't know why you are saying otherwise, people openly attack Behe's views on the matter and trumpet how the flagellum issue has been solved.


Ok.


Well, it doesn't literally quash it, but then again, if this doesn't quash it then nothing ever could quash it. It becomes an arbitrary metaphysical assumption about the fundamental nature of reality. The issue is that arbitrary assumptions are pointless assumptions, ones that thinkers ideally remove using the razor. Otherwise all sorts of other objects begin to emerge.


I tend to. Logic and science erode and destroy ideas that are unnecessary. To affirm one thing is to deny the importance or even the reality of others.

I don't see a matter of "wish away", I see a matter of legitimate shaving away of waste.

I think we just got carried away defining one specific avenue; ie. changes of evolutionary possibility with environment as a hypothetical constant. The very notion that a basic rule of genetic code or how our cells fuel themselves could be changed to have a much more drastic effect in terms of erasing natural evil - to me that proves that a better world is easily possible, you laid out that a better world could exist as a premise and I agreed with you. I was just saying that the enslavement genes give us is difficult to really do much with (no matter what the chromosome count is, what we looked like, etc. mutations still would have happened - positive and negative, we'd still be rating eachother's value, that would continue to have tertiary consequences, and whether we were an enlightened race of bipedal land squid, unicorn, or yeti we'd likely still have economic and trade tensions, geopolitics, plenty of wars, even genocides, etc. etc.).


Well, then I through a word out and used it in a sense that your not used to seeing. I'll rephrase this then; an animal's innate instincts which keep it on-point and focused on what it needs to survive keep it from needlessly other animals around it for no good reason.


You have a comment at the bottom regarding science shaving what's unneeded - I'll answer this at the bottom.


I can agree with most of that up until you reach the point that religion has full control over this. I think the physical gray matter argument against theistic experiences is a good one to illustrate my point with. Not to say its a shining tower of intellect but I do remember watching Religulous and seeing Bill Maher talk to somebody about the temporal lobe causing religious experience and this being another reason to dismiss it. While it seems convenient to state that its existence in gray matter plants it in the real world, its still stuck in a situation that could easily be a double entente - as in if its physically created then we know something's happening in the mind, but it seems like a bit of a leap to say that its physical and chemical existence in the mind prove that its nothing more than a hallucination? I bring up double entente because there's nothing really stopping it from being both chemical and representative of a real experience at the same time.



Wiggle room is starting to run low though, as I mentioned with chance and chemical necessity for abiogenesis. As for odds of successful evolution after that point to today's diversity in 4 to 6 billion years, I really have no idea as that's something that I do need to read up on more.


I could, I probably need to, but there is deafening silence on this issue that really shouldn't be there if these numbers are way off point in a religious propaganda direction.



Well, it doesn't literally quash it, but then again, if this doesn't quash it then nothing ever could quash it. It becomes an arbitrary metaphysical assumption about the fundamental nature of reality. The issue is that arbitrary assumptions are pointless assumptions, ones that thinkers ideally remove using the razor. Otherwise all sorts of other objects begin to emerge.[/quote]
The trouble is though, the spiritual impulse is a bit too broad-based, its the majority of the world you have to remember, to call it insignificant or something that can be written off immediately as unreal. Some can argue that religion may have been used as societal control before the police had bullets, I wouldn't doubt it was very convenient to the powers that were in that effect, but, the agricultural revolution was only 12,000 years ago. I think the closest thing to a lucid scientific explanation of where it all comes from is that Cromagon man's success came from symbolic thought and this is where symbolic thought fundamentally takes us.

Either way though, that part of us something much deeper and broader than organized religion, predates that and governments by a good ways as well.

[/quote]

That's what I mean though, we're free to cut away as much as we want or call whatever we want waste - it doesn't change a thing in the universe, rather that decision has meaning to us and only us. Our thought processes don't create anything that isn't wrought of our own hands. If we want to explore what's unnecessary though - existence is unnecessary, the universe/multiverse/whatever it is is unecessary. Time - unnecessary. Atomic matierial, subatomic particles and energy - also unnecessarily. The whole of everything could quite comfortably be a vacuum. In those examples of course its not to say that we aren't dealing with what we know to be here or at least have good reason to believe exists, the problem is that our line of sight, spherically as well as into the full stretch of time, really infinity in both directions, I'm not so sure our sense of the term 'necessity' has really caught up to that kind of scale.

As for what I referenced above about the validity of religious against another, it seems like organized religion is a byproduct of our spiritual impulse rather than a source. That and, just as much so, if God exists then God's very act of existing is completely independent of what it is we're worshiping or, if all religions are off the mark, how many of them are circulating. I do believe that you can find scraps of insight and truth in organized religion's texts but, I don't think you can look to any one of them or even all of them for the full story - if we are to draw a line upward and estimate God as the top of the pendulum, scientific exploration of reality seems like a great way to learn about that as well. If we're talking about disqualifying theism as a useless or vestigial part of our existence though - 85 or 90% of people still believe well after the Enlightenment and evolution resolved any possibility that the earth was 6,000 years old? Its a challenge to call that insubstantial.

I don't think that any of us have been saying that evolution alone is likely to lead to a perfect world.


Well, one of my interests is economics. I'll tend to be more technical with the ideas there and perhaps be blinded by it, and the distinction between optimizing and satisficing seems relevant. Well... right, I think we might actually broadly agree. The issue is just that optimization is stronger than satisficing.


Nothing is stopping it, but the issue is valid processes, not possibility. It is logically possible that given my (purely hypothetical) nightmares about werewolves, that a werewolf exists. However, unless we see evidence for a being that can dramatically change forms, I can't logically make any inference towards shape-changers such as werewolves.

This is additionally relevant, because if you say that the mind seeks beneficial things, and you don't posit an interfering God, then our reasons for believing in God will have no relation to truth. Thus meaning that we don't have any logical or empirical data leading us to the idea of God, as there is nothing like this idea in our existing knowledge.


And your one book is a book by Steven Meyer, a shill for a pseudo-scientific cult. As I have said before, I am not an expert on the matter, so I cannot go into the necessary detail, but any information gotten from that source isn't one that I will believe unless it is actually corroborated by a source I trust more.


Many scientists are against directly addressing ID, due to issues of making these people seem respectable, so don't expect spin-off books relating to Steven Meyer. Not only that, but abiogenesis isn't as clear as evolution. Do you want me to ask if you don't want to? I get the feeling that if you are going to bring this up continually, I should at least put more effort into finding out information.


Too broad-based? I don't see too much to feel challenged by. Free will regularly polls at 70% of the population across the world. I reject free will because of the evidence against it. Why is religion still somehow special? There is even LESS unity about religion given the varied levels of expressions than there is to free will. Not only that, but still, in order to posit knowledge, one has to posit a mechanism.

Symbolic thought leads to religion? Maybe, but symbolic thought also leads to thinking that planes are one of those things out there in existence rather than a human invention. Symbolic thought shouldn't be taken too seriously, as words are just a tool to represent reality, but it seems absurd to say that they are the reality itself. In any case, I doubt that symbolic thought necessarily leads to religion. It likely depends on the symbols you use.

Finally, yeah, religious experience predates organized religions and governments. Nobody denies that. The question is the meaning of this. There is no real reason to think that our primitive men were theologians, as that age began with civilization, organized religion and government. Not only that, but I see little real reason to posit that theologians have real answers.


Well, ok, duh. But the issue is that you can't just deny epistemic tools at a whim. There is no inherent reason that logic will lead to truth either, but as far as we know truth, we know it to be logical truth. Denying all epistemology to save God is to seek the damnation of man. There is no reason to take that path to hell.

You mean that solipsism and nihilism are logical possibilities? Sure. But there is no point to going that far. I am not claiming "we know all things absolutely", but frankly starting with any perspective than our own is a dead possibility. I have never seen a perspective other than my own. Given that by my life I tend to accept that the food I eat is food, and that the computer I type on is really there, it seems that I get by by trusting my epistemic processes. I don't see any reason to start distrusting these processes just for the sake of *one* idea. Once we do that, we also open up the floor to us being an alien project.

So, really, all I mean by "unnecessary" is just getting rid of things that become increasingly useless. In any case, I don't see your perspective, and I don't see the point of it. Can you see the entirety of the universe? No. But you still must decide. Make tons of decisions even. Why open up the possibilities to all things? Could it be that schizophrenics are correct? Maybe, but I don't see much reason to entertain the thought. Why then entertain God? If the processes of schizophrenia and religion are both unreliable then what's the point?


I know. I don't think any reasonable person takes the perspective that organized religion was literally the first form of religion. That makes no sense with a bit of knowledge, like with tribal religions, or even with the evolution of scripture in the Judeo-Christian religions.

I don't see much reason to say that one can find deep metaphysical truth in ANY religious texts. This isn't to say that they lack philosophical value, but I tend to distrust metaphysics at this point. People will use metaphysics to prove anything. Does this mean we can avoid metaphysics? No. But keep it on a short-leash.

You are assuming that men believe rationally. I don't think people are so deeply rational on average. Especially given that religion is more of a cultural choice than it is a scientific or metaphysical choice in most regards. I mean, if religion was a matter of reason, then how come very very few people change religions substantially from their original position? We should expect real change with rational opinions, and no change with cultural identity issues and other aberrations. In fact, one could even liken religion to a mind-virus. It infects a mind and then is difficult to remove. Once there, removal often requires psychological shock, argumentation, and weak support maintaining the belief, and even then there is a withdrawal issue. Perhaps it'd be better to call it opium? Whatever.

Even taking Genesis as a valid historical document, interpreted straightforwardly, or "literally" as the buzzword is, the existence of a priesthood wasn't established until Mose's time, which is approximately 2,500 years from when Adam was made. The times of Noah through Abraham were the times of the Patriarchs. There were other nations at the time of Abraham, such as Shinar (which is the land of the Chaldeans at this time, modern day Iraq), Ellasar, Elam (which became Persia later, along with Madai), [Genesis 14:1] as well as the more obvious Hittites and Egyptians during Abraham's lifetime. However, Abraham was not a member of anyone's club, and neither was Noah, and Adam only had his wife with him to talk with, apart from God, for at least a few years. So, no, not even starting in the Bible is there an organized religion initially. However, that is not saying anything about God or His nature, just about the unfolding of events.

Well, right, and we also know that canonization happened later as well for both the Jewish and Christian religions, and canonization is a major act of organization.

Canon being the documents formally accepted by the organizations. Even without such organizations as the Levitical priesthood, the Sanhedrin, a council of Rabbis after the diaspora, the approval of the Apostles, determination of a Roman council or emperor or pope, the historicity of the individual writings is what is important, not when they were accepted by who.

Well, right. But the issue is that a canon both says that there is a major organization, and that this organization is organized enough to create a canon of writings. I am not saying that late canonization has anything to do with the quality of the writings necessary. Only that late canonization shows things about organizational structure of religion.

AG, I wanted to mention that I see your points pretty clearly on this - wasn't sure when I brought up the the 11 step proof that I was getting at a core belief. That said though, the first five points go from being the most meaningful by analyzing theism by its own perspective to being excess words when we come from the standpoint that God exists only through religion and then measure it that way. I understand the reasons you believe that way, it makes sense to me - perhaps I am dealing with my own sense that there is a specific extra out there; I don't really have much more to add at this point that I haven't already.

With the abiogenesis odds though, were you indicating you had some contacts in that area? If you do it might save us both a lot of work - I took a look around Google and Yahoo earlier, didn't see anything credible (I could see Neo-Darwinists taking it as a semi-mute point but its hard to fathom that they wouldn't bring it up sheerly on the thought that addressing their own known odds would seem to legitimize or lend credibility to ID). There are some good books out there about evolution, I don't know about abiogenesis but I'm sure that there have to be some with a few decent chapters. Right now though I still have some other things I'm reading, I don't know that I'd drop everything right now to add another book to my list.

And btw, I really hoped that I wasn't throwing your core values on the defense - I guess part of this is that I really didn't know where your head was at on this issues. Appreciate the clarification though.

I don't know anyone at the moment, but I think a number of professors are willing to discuss their research with interested people. And even if I don't know where to find the professor, if I just found a professor at random, and used him to find another, it would still be somewhat worthwhile.

That is understandable. I feel the same way about going on a quest for abiogenesis information, but I could do so if pushed.


No offense taken. I've just found that I have continually gotten more and more bitter towards religion, and I think mostly it is because the idea no longer has any romance to me, but instead seems to represent something empty. I won't go so far as to say that theology is completely a waste where nothing useful can be found, or anything like that though, as it is clear that theologians have added to our knowledge. I just don't have faith in faith.

If you start a yahoo search you'll find the results pretty depressing - Creationistwiki, truoriginoflife.com, scientists against evolution, its pretty much more of the same for pages on end. I'd have to wonder if most of those sheerly against ID would talk about it less as they just see it as a temporary setback, that could cause an information shortage as well.