Posted on 08/06/2005 7:44:39 PM PDT by Crackingham
Scientists who moaned when they read this week that President Bush favors teaching "intelligent design" along with the Darwinian theory of evolution should be grateful for how far the president has come. In 1999, as Texas governor and GOP presidential front-runner, George W. Bush said much the same about creationism, which tried to force natural history to match the biblical creation story. At least creationism's successor, known as ID to its adherents, makes room for paleontology and human descent from apes.
Beyond that, politicians' support for what they call "balance" still damages both science and faith.
In a broad interview Monday with Texas newspapers, Bush agreed with the idea of teaching intelligent design as well as evolution, saying, "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought." If only different schools of thought (say, capitalism versus Marxism) were involved, we'd say, sure, go for it. However, ID and evolutionary theory are not just irreconcilable; they are in realms as distant as astronomy and the polka.
ID posits (quoting from the Intelligent Design Network website) "that certain features of the universe and of living things" — the eye is often cited — "are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process like natural selection." Its adherents see the "intelligent cause" as a divine one.
Evolutionary theory doesn't claim to explain everything, but theorizes that from the earliest life, genetic mutations providing a survival edge were retained and amplified, leading to species diversity and specialized traits (such as Lance Armstrong's lung capacity or fluorescent deep-water fish).
Both are, to a certain point, about biology. But ID also demands belief in the untestable. There it becomes faith, not science.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
FLASH for all of our 'evo' friends: there is only ONE set of evidence. The different conclusions drawn from that one set of evidence is based on one's presuppositions about the world, the sources of knowledge, and the amount of intellectual integrity one brings to the lab.
A being that can stretch starlight across the expanse of the universe would know if He was designed. An eternal being can have no beginning, by definition.
Isa 57:15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name [is] Holy;
Quite an advanced idea for a goat herder!
Only one outside of time can know the future.
Isa 45:21-22
21 Tell ye, and bring [them] near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? [who] hath told it from that time? [have] not I the LORD? and [there is] no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; [there is] none beside me.
22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else.
Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and [there is] none else.
Wow, I've heard that a million times... and it was no more valid the first it was used...
Setting aside ID as a particular mechanism of design for the moment, the argument of thestic vs. atheistic origins is not a "yes or no" question: "Does a creator God exist?" Rather, it is a multiple choice question: "What is the first cause?"
When the steady-state model for the universe was widely believed true, this question had a nice, tidy, atheistic answer: "the universe is its own first cause." Thanks to the continuing reinforcement of the Big Bang hypothesis and rejection of the oscillating model, that answer can no longer be valid.
So now we find it no longer possible to simply shove God aside in favor of a more rational answer; it assumes a place of equal rational merit alongside other completely unverifiable hypothetical first causes like "quantum soup", "multiverses", and so forth.
I don't think eternity fits into present scientific physical principles.
FLASH for LiteKeeper. You do not hold all truth. Sorry. See below for an alternate creation story.
The first people of the earth had to endure winter for the entire twelve months of the year. Most of the land was covered by massive, moving layers of ice and deep snow. No trees or bushes, or flowers could survive in the harsh gripping cold. The lakes and rivers were frozen, so no water flowed. It was a land of endless cold. One day when the first people were out hunting they came upon a bear who had a sack around his neck. The hunters were very curious and asked the bear what was in the sack. The bear growled a reply that he had a sack filled with the abundance of summer's warmth and light. The hunters wanted the sack and offered to trade, but the bear would not part with his sack. The hunters begged the bear, but still he refused to give up his sack. When they saw that it was useless to argue any longer, they decided to return to their people and think of some plan to take away the coveted sack. The chief heard the entire story and called his people together to arrive at a plan of how to take the sack away from the reluctant bear. They decided to lure the bear to a great feast, fill him with food, and when he slept, steal the sack. A tempting feast of moose and caribou was prepared. The hunters searched for the bear and located him. They asked the bear to attend the feast in his honour and the bear readily accepted. The bear arrived in the evening, but did not have the sack around his neck. Although disappointed the people served the feast anyway. The bear ate his fill and fell asleep. The chief was frustrated and wanted the sack. He ordered four of the village's skilled hunters to follow the bear home and steal the sack by any means. The next morning the bear awoke and bid the chief and his people farewell. The four hunters followed closely behind the bear for about an hour when they came upon a large cave. Peering inside, they spotted the sack laying upon the cave floor with two black bears guarding it. The hunters were very courageous and they sprang into the cave to demand the sack. A fierce fight killed three of the hunters and mortally wounded the fourth, but before he died, he grabbed the sack and unleashed the abundance of warmth and light. Instantly, the air became warm and the sky filled with bright sunlight. The snow melted into rivers and lakes. The hills and valleys were covered with trees, flowers and bushes. Strange birds flew in great numbers and built nests and streams filled with fish. Every year since that time, Summer has come to the Dene.
I've never seen that, especially since science has nothing to say about morals.
The writer clearly stated that "science worshippers" do. It's merely basic sentence structure. Persons leaning on "science" as some type of omnipresent theocracy-prevention guard DO overstate "its" reach.
The designer had no beginning so an initial design would be unnecessary. In a spiritual realm where there are no stars, planets, change of seasons or darkness to light for a time reference there is no time...i.e. beginning or end. That wasn't too difficult, was it?
It is hard for many folks living in a physical realm to comprehend this fact.....but nevertheless, that's the answer!
So does that mean we can discard multiverses and quantum soup as well? I hope so.
Bullsh!t! The story says nothing about morals.
It's merely basic sentence structure. Persons leaning on "science" as some type of omnipresent theocracy-prevention guard DO overstate "its" reach.
Such an interpretation is just another idiotic non-sequitur.
False dichotomy presented in the title. The two are not exclusive, but work in tandem.
Everyone acts on faith. Every time you push the accelerator to drive through an intersection, you are acting on faith that cross-traffic won't run the red light to slam into you. You do this based on certain evidences and logical processes. Nevertheless, there is no conclusive proof that you won't be broadsided and killed; which in fact, occasionally happens.
The two important questions are, in the architectural construct that forms your belief system, what percentage of the structure is comprised of faith, vs. hard evidence and logic, and how is that percentage distributed in the structure. If the foundation is primarily composed of faith, the structure will unstable, and susceptible to crumbling if given a good shake. If, however, faith is built upon a foundation of evidences and logic, the structure is more stable and will withstand many challenges.
That's why I don't mind being lumped in with such mentally deficient types as C.S. Lewis, Dostoyevsky, A.E. Wilder-Smith, and so on.
Don't forget Thorne Smith! (Google it if you don't know.)
I'll let my original statement stand as it is.
You can extrapolate to your heart's content, but your conclusions are your own.
Logic, faith and the written word. Somewhat similar to the way you refuse to know it.
What has this got to do with my statement. I was making a statement about epistemology - you are making a statement about conclusions drawn from a particular worldview. I don't believe I made any claim to holding "all truth."
So - your point is?
And what parts of evolution are testable?
With the inevitable scientific discoveries to follow, all that we "know" is sure to change again and again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.