1) This is a quote from a pagan site explaining wicca:

“Many Traditional Witches are pantheistic, meaning they believe that god is the universe, in that "God is all, and all is God." Therefore, Nature is omnipotent, all-powerful, and the center of reverence. However, Nature is not directly worshipped. Nature as the Supreme Force is also omniscient, meaning infinitely knowledgeable and wise. This Force exists in everything material and spiritual in life and in death. Yet, everything around us is also immanent, meaning that everything has its own life energy, or spirit.”

3) If a person believes that “god is all and all is god” and he also believes that “nature is all” then he believes by simple logic that nature is all and all is nature and nature is god. Hence paganism and naturalism are compatible but not naturalism and Christianity which states God is outside nature. So naturalism as method first of all rules out God as the cause of anything and then claims that this proves he does not exist. But actually all that has been done is to refuse to entertain the possibility.

4) Erasmus' poem came before Charles Darwin was born. This shows that a Charles' belief in evolution was not first suggested to him by the evidence but by the 'myths' of his grandfather. He fitted the evidence around this.

6) ID implies rather than assumes a designer. The assumption of evolution is that there is no designer and time, random mutation and natural selection is all we have to work with.

Abiogenesis (life from non-life) is a real problem for atheists. How do you have natural selection before you have self replication? Yet self replication requires not just DNA but a full cell. If you think otherwise you are making a statement of faith. I.e. you can say I believe there is something less complicated than a cell that can self replicate (without using a cell). But you have no hard evidence for this. To assume a self replicating cell is no better an explanation of existence than to assume a creator god.

When it comes to science evolution is a non-starter.

11) Since the release of Harry Potter witches covens have been inundates with requests from kids who want to join.

For a much more in depth article see the following:

[url=http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/evolutions-root.php]Exposing the Pagan Roots of Evolution[/url]

[quote=john rushworth]1) This is a quote from a pagan site explaining wicca:
“Many Traditional Witches are pantheistic, meaning they believe that god is the universe, in that "God is all, and all is God." Therefore, Nature is omnipotent, all-powerful, and the center of reverence. However, Nature is not directly worshipped. Nature as the Supreme Force is also omniscient, meaning infinitely knowledgeable and wise. This Force exists in everything material and spiritual in life and in death. Yet, everything around us is also immanent, meaning that everything has its own life energy, or spirit.”[/quote]

You're completely off base here. Modern 'Wicca', aside from being a steaming load of crap, bears no true relation to ACTUAL paganism. Paganism originated in Europe among the germanic tribes, however, it was a polytheistic religion.

[quote]3) If a person believes that “god is all and all is god” and he also believes that “nature is all” then he believes by simple logic that nature is all and all is nature and nature is god. Hence paganism and naturalism are compatible but not naturalism and Christianity which states God is outside nature. So naturalism as method first of all rules out God as the cause of anything and then claims that this proves he does not exist. But actually all that has been done is to refuse to entertain the possibility.[/quote]

Again, there's a difference between nature and Nature.

Secondly, there's a difference between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism is what you refer to, however, science DOES accept some things which could be considered metaphysical, while still accepting the basis of methodological naturalism. For example: gravity and quarks. We cannot physically detect either of them, but their existence works best in our equations, and thus we assume their existence. They could both be supernatural, or of supernatural cause, and they would still be accepted, because their existence, while being implied by evidence, is not necessarily within the system of that evidence.

[quote]4) Erasmus' poem came before Charles Darwin was born. This shows that a Charles' belief in evolution was not first suggested to him by the evidence but by the 'myths' of his grandfather. He fitted the evidence around this.[/quote]

One time that's bad to selectively quote and respond is when my arguments are numbered. I'll assume you have no responses to #'s 2 and 3. My response to this is the same as my response #2, that just because somebody made a simplified myth, and someone later made a theory that fit in a VERY general way with that myth does not mean it was BASED on that myth. Charles Darwin was a devout christian prior to his work on the galapagos islands, and spent years gathering evidence before EVER making a conclusion. His evidence drove the conclusion, he didn't have a preconceived conclusion, or he would have come out sooner.

[quote]6) ID implies rather than assumes a designer. The assumption of evolution is that there is no designer and time, random mutation and natural selection is all we have to work with.[/quote]

That's like saying the assumption of Christianity is that there are no leprechauns. Belief in something requires evidence. Without that evicence, non-belief is the position that ought be taken.

[quote]Abiogenesis (life from non-life) is a real problem for atheists. How do you have natural selection before you have self replication? Yet self replication requires not just DNA but a full cell. If you think otherwise you are making a statement of faith. I.e. you can say I believe there is something less complicated than a cell that can self replicate (without using a cell). But you have no hard evidence for this. To assume a self replicating cell is no better an explanation of existence than to assume a creator god.[/quote]

This came up before in an evolution thread, but I'll give a brief explanation of how self-replication requires neither a cell nor DNA
Phosopholipids spontaneously(that means with no necessary catalyst) react to form lipid bilayers. A hydrophobic lipid bilayer chain can form sort of a protected area. Polymerized nucleotides can result in self-replicating ribosomes. And look at that, you have self-replication with neither a cell nor DNA.

[quote]11) Since the release of Harry Potter witches covens have been inundates with requests from kids who want to join.[/quote]

You'd better watch out! they might put a hex on your house! Can you provide... I dunno, evidence of that? Can you provide evidence that a SINGLE witch exists? Not Wiccan, an actual witch, someone with magical powers.

[quote]For a much more in depth article see the following:

[url=http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/evolutions-root.php]Exposing the Pagan Roots of Evolution[/url]
[/quote]

I love how after I offer a response to the site, as new arguments you give me a link... to the same site... btw, 'edinburgcreationgroup.org' might not exactly be the most unbiased group.

[quote=john rushworth]This is my line of argument both Atheists and Christians if they are consistent reject Paganism and Eastern Mysticism. You as an Atheist reject ID because you see it as being based on a theistic worldview. However you ignore the fact that evolution is rooted in Paganism. If you reject ID because of religious influence you cannot at the same time state the Pagan influence on evolution is of no importance.[/quote]

I understand your line of argument, it just doesn't work. Evolution is NOT rooted in paganism. Paganism implies the existence of some gods. Evolution stems from evidence, not Eastern religion/Paganism. Again, just because it bears similarities to some old myths.

[quote]You cannot claim either that Charles views about evolution are independent of Erasmus because Charles is his grandson. Charles inherited the pattern of evolution from his grandfather all he had to do was was find the evidence.[/quote]
Right, and since my grandfather has views about God, I'm a Christian. His grandfather never thought of evolution, he wrote a poem that happened to speak of different life forms

[quote]When Monboddo and Erasmus Darwin have evolution pinned down you cannot credit Charles as taking decades to come up with the same results. Charles had the end game before he ever left on the Beagle. The Evolutionary tree was not a response to the evidence but a structure that Darwin had already. [/quote]
They don't. They have nothing about evolution pinned down. There is no mention of natural selection, genetic drift, punctuated equilbrium or any of that. They did not study genetics either. Plus, he DID take decades. Simply look at the year he came to the Galapagos and bergan his research and the year he published his book. He would have taken even longer had not another evolutionist(who was NOT related to Erasmus, which seemingly repudiates your already stupid theory) been coming up with the same theory at the time.

[quote=john rushworth]I think you are forgetting that Charles Darwin knew nothing about genetics either DNA was not discovered until a few decades ago.

You having a Christian grandfather does not make you a Christian. However it would stop you from claiming to have invented Christianity yourself.

The other guy who was about to publish at the same time was called Alfred Russel Wallace. He was a Spirit Medium, his views on Spiritualism were interwoven with his thoughts on evolution. This is completely in line with the link I am making, thanks for bringing this up (as it is not mentioned in our articles).

[url=http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/essays/ARWPAMPH.htm]
http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/essays/ARWPAMPH.htm[/url]

Erasmus poem and other writings have far more of the theory of evolution than just describing different creatures. They describe a line of descent:

"From thus meditating on the great similarity of the structure of the warm-bloodied animals, and at the same time of the great changes they undergo both before and after their nativity; and by considering in how minute a portion of time many of the changes of animals above described have been produced; would it be too bold to imagine, that in the great length of time, since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of ages before the commencement of the history of mankind, would it be too bold to imagine, that all warm-bloodied animals have arisen from one living filament (i.e. cell), which the GREAT FIRST CAUSE endued with animality, with the power of acquiring new parts attended with new propensities, directed by irritations, sensations, volitions, and associations; and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down those improvements by generation to its posterity, world without end?"

Darwin, Erasmus, Zoonomia, Or the Laws of Organic Life, In Three Parts, p. 392 - 401, 1803

Have a great weekend!
[/quote]

Well of course, that's exactly what evolution is! it's just that poem! it has nothing to do with the propensity of evidence from all different fields, geology, biology, zoology, astronomy etc... it's just that poem. You're right, I worship that poem at night.

[quote]"From thus meditating on the great similarity of the structure of the warm-bloodied animals, and at the same time of the great changes they undergo both before and after their nativity; and by considering in how minute a portion of time many of the changes of animals above described have been produced; would it be too bold to imagine, that in the great length of time, since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of ages before the commencement of the history of mankind, would it be too bold to imagine, that all warm-bloodied animals have arisen from one living filament (i.e. cell), which the GREAT FIRST CAUSE endued with animality, with the power of acquiring new parts attended with new propensities, directed by irritations, sensations, volitions, and associations; and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down those improvements by generation to its posterity, world without end?"

Darwin, Erasmus, Zoonomia, Or the Laws of Organic Life, In Three Parts, p. 392 - 401, 1803[/quote]

:shocked:

Why... Why isnt there any evidence in the poem?

I dont understand...
Its like watching American Idol, Im Simon and this is one of the bad singers.