Posted on 11/15/2007 5:26:11 AM PST by js1138
I also say it as a professional molecular biologist, who has worked daily (or at least week-daily) for years with biological problems
What amazes me (and I'm speaking as someone familiar with the relevant journal literature), is how question-begging so much of the evolutionary aspect of biology, especially evolutionary biology and molecular biology, really is. In many cases, the author(s) will present their entire work, and then as an after-though throw in the obligatory "oh yeah, and evolution did this" nonsense at the end. So much of the time, evolution is simply an add-on, and it's obvious that evolution is irrelevant to the actual, evidentiary science which they've presented. Evolution is not science, it is a philosophical worldview through which actual evidence is interpreted. Science is a process, evolution is an interpretation. Calling evolution "science" is like calling literary criticism "playwriting".
Yup.
While the argument is purely rational and without need for Scriptural proof, the Bible nevertheless confirms this idea, and with an added warning.
Romans 1:20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
They don't really say, but which is irrelevant to my reply to you. My statement was questioning your assertion that they *only* try to disprove evolution, not present positive evidence FOR their position, which is a false assertion on your part.
Because...?
Just like Mac Johnson writes in Human Events, most of the ID people here have the intellectual equivalent of bad breath. If these arm-chair scientists, or should I say cdesign proponetists, actually want to do science, they need to get off their asses and do more that shout ‘God did it’ and leave biology to people who know what they are doing. Creationists are a vocal minoity of Christians, an embarrassment to conservatives and are doing a fine job of helping conservatives lose elections.
Well, if the left hates it, then it must be a good thing.
By the way, I doubt that it is truly a 'political loser'. Most recent polls that I've seen (posted here on FR in fact) show that more Americans believe in ID or creationism than in evolution.
Out of curiosity, what elections have creationists helped conservatives to lose?
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Name ten scientists with earned PhDs from reputable universities who are currently employed doing recognizably substantial, peer-reviewed work in the biological sciences --and who also publish in favor of "intelligent design".
Can't? Name five.
O.K., Name one.
Darwinism is the not science.
Evolution is not about science, either. Evolution is about refuting any idea of a Creator. Science is not about “where do we come from?”, but rather “How does it work?” Evolution is about history and theology.
It'd allow us to do away with science altogether, wouldn't it? Why does it rain? God does it. Why are there earthquakes? God does it. Why do airplanes fly? God does it. Hundreds of thousands of high school students would be saved from hours of chemistry or biology or physics.
Ok, what exactly is ID and what is the evidence that supports it? And who is the intelligent designer?
I have asked this question a couple of times on these threads and gotten zero response.
All scientific theories are the basis for which evidence is interpreted. You should had back your degree, if the school included a postage paid return envelope with your kit. At least evolution makes predictions that have been tested. If you are so knowledgeable about ID, what are the testable predictions? I'll answer for you. None. All ID does is to say science doesn't know some things so some magic invisible dude did it. Then science studies those gaps and learns something, thereby kicking the magic invisible dude in the crotch. ID is the theory that science should give up and not do research.
That's something of a false dilemma, since anyone familiar with the process knows that journals, because of philosophical bias, wouldn't publish anything promoting ID, since it conflicts with the WORLDVIEW of the peer reviewers relied upon by the journals.
Your argument is akin to asking me to point to ten widely-renowned arch-conservatives who are published in Marxist agitzines. It allows you to "make your point", even if the point is irrelevant due to the known biases in the process.
Was Hitler a Christian? [Dinesh D’Souza rebuts atheist canard]
Townhall ^ | November 5, 2007 | Dinesh D’Souza
Posted on 11/13/2007 9:33:06 AM PST by rhema
The Heavenly Father that created all souls sure allows more freedom of thought than those of the unholy TOE.
In what way is that marvelous? I have no problem with this. Why do you? Please explain.
Uh oh.
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein
And most Americans read horoscopes which, last time I looked, were forbidden by the Bible.
I suspect that many people who say they agree with ID would be horrified to learn that ID proponents accept common descent and a 4.5 billion year old earth. Some, like Michael Denton, accept the whole Darwinian ball of wax.
You really have never thought through this issue, have you?
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.