Posted on 12/20/2005 7:54:38 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
Fox News alert a few minutes ago says the Dover School Board lost their bid to have Intelligent Design introduced into high school biology classes. The federal judge ruled that their case was based on the premise that Darwin's Theory of Evolution was incompatible with religion, and that this premise is false.
People are too busy separating evolution and intelligent design. Evolution could have been created by an intelligent force, getting the ball rolling. I do believe that even Darwin believed that.
I didn't say man didn't have the capacity to invent things, just that they are not perfect . God has given all the capacity to think and do things.
I'm very grateful for all of Al Gore's work in creating the internet.
"Any judge will tell you that they welcome the opportunity to have important cases on their dockets. . . . That's why they take these jobs." -Judge Jones
-------
I guess we should assume the judge is motivated purely out of concern for science; atheistic science anyway.
Hardly.
I agree completely with your post #363..you have summed up, very briefly, very correctly, exactly how I, and certainly millions of others view this subject...
I could speculate that someday, it will be the precise instrument God will use to explain to some how he operates. But it's only speculation, not even a theory.
Problem with Wilson's (and/or George Neumayr's) argument here is that Darwin "rejected Christianity" years after developing his views on species and evolution.
In order to make this claim with certainty you would have had to search throughout the entire universe, because of the possibility that knowledge of God might exist somewhere you haven't looked yet.No. This does not follow. I am talking about the limitations of human knowledge, right now. On Earth. In the future the question may be answerable. That day is not this day.
Yes, I think it does follow, and as a necessary consequent of the limitation of human knowledge, which you acknowledge. The problem is that you still assert, "that day is not this day". There is no way that you as an individual are privy to even a small fraction of all human knowledge, so you cannot be certain that there are not other individuals who have knowledge of God. To claim as certain that humanity does not posses this knowledge, or presently have the means of obtaining such information is a claim of omniscience, which is an attribute normally attributed to God, which in this case would be self-refuting, not to mention arrogant. The certainty of lack of evidence is beyond the scope of your limited knowledge at present. How do you know that knowledge of God exists somewhere in the world where you haven't looked yet?
I can be sure that humans do not right now possess the ability to test for the existence of a deity. Do you know of any way to do so, scientifically?
Are you assuming that the only way to knowledge is by science and that science is the only valid knowledge?
Cordially,
Which most Christians believe in, how can you explain the dinosaurs...granted Leviticus makes mention of them. The theory is called Theistic Evolution.
That was my point. Forgot to add the sarcasm. I guess the "theory" didn't make the point.
It has taken many years and millions of lives to discredit and undermine Marxists and Freud is almost gone...it's going to take the same commitment to get rid of the dangerous old fool Darwin. Some people are still firmly stuck in the 19th and 19th century.
Marx was an ideologue with little respect for facts (he published outdated statistical tables in later editions of Das Kapital because newer tables contained data that undermined his economic views); Freud was a physician who spun imaginative theories out of the dreams and fantasies of repressed Viennese Hausfraus.
Darwin, on the other hand, was a hard-headed, fact-checking, observation-collecting machine, a man who theorized only after long years of work and reflection.
Darwin was a scientist; Marx and Freud were patzers.
Thanks, it gets so lonely at the top sometimes,,,,,:^}
Evolution is the supposed process. I don't think that evolution is the process.
We need a faster process than evolution.
A process can mimic "intelligence," yet in this case, evident complexity in our universe requires either vastly more time if evolution is the culprit process, or it requires a faster, different process.
I will research this. I am not a scholar of the area, but in the dusty recesses of mind I have read some of the writings of some of the Founders.
In those writings it was expressed that the govt assuming some of the roles that we all take for granted today, would be perverse in that persons opinion.
"There is no way that you as an individual are privy to even a small fraction of all human knowledge, so you cannot be certain that there are not other individuals who have knowledge of God."
Not testable knowledge.
"To claim as certain that humanity does not posses this knowledge, or presently have the means of obtaining such information is a claim of omniscience, which is an attribute normally attributed to God, which in this case would be self-refuting, not to mention arrogant."
What evidence is there then?
" Are you assuming that the only way to knowledge is by science and that science is the only valid knowledge?"
Of the natural world yes.
I researched those myself from google (try "Define:theory" for example) and selected the definitions I felt were most common in scientific reasoning.
Junior has added these to the bottom of his frequent post (go to Junior's homepage and select "in forum" and look for a long and colorful post).
I have added a couple of definitions since Junior's version.
Glad you found them useful.
"I don't have to. To assert the non-presence of God as a scientific necessity is to be dogmatic, plain and simple."
To assert the presence of God places the burden of proof on the one asserting that presence.
Let's look at it from the standpoint of actual evidence consistent with scientific methodology....and leave the religious aspect to a more appropriate venue.
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.