[Buddha-l] life force vis a vis Xianity & Hinduism

[SJZiobro at cs.com]

Richard Hayes <richard.p.hayes at comcast.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 09:55 -0400, Stanley J. Ziobro II wrote:
>
>> But this seems beside the point
>> inasmuch as the argument for an Intelligent Designer would likely claim
>> that it is not the Designer that is being measured, hence It cannot be
>> proved or disproved on the basis of the measureability of emperical things or
>> data. 
>
>You have just articulated why intelligent design cannot be regarded as a
>scientific hypothesis and therefore has no place in a science classroom.

Yes, I understood this when I replied to your note.  And, again, scientists have no business speaking outside of their area of competence.  This also needs to be stressed.

>The very fact that people who like this dogma spell the words with
>capital letters--Intelligent Design--shows it is just another way of
>trying to smuggle God into science.

There are plenty of scientists who do not note any contradiction between science and theology, or between faith and reason.  Obviously, you and others disagree, or is this simply a mistaken inference on my part?

>Now relate this to Buddhism in some way or drop it. This discussion has
>no place here.

How does Buddhism account for the complexity of phenomena and their inter-relations other than by simply asserting a form of dependent co-origination?  I tend to think that such an assertion is necessary but insufficient.  With regard to this discussion, how did the Onion parody relate to Buddhism?  Should the matter have been dropped there?

Stan Ziobro