Evolution Disclaimer Supported

The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^ | 12/11/02 | WILL SENTELL

[f.Christian]

There are no check // balances for liberalism // evolution . . . open throttle - - - runaway train // spin ! ! !

[js1138]

I haven't stopped asking questions. In fact I can think of the perfect class to teach ID in. It would be called the history of science. This is the place to unload all the arguments.

I have no respect for credentials per se, but I do look at track records. The computer scientists of 1966 fully expected to have artificial intelligence well in hand by 2001. So much for their assessment of what can and cannot be done.

The only strong argument for ID is statistical. You cannot, in physics, say that something cannot happen, only that it is extremely improbable.

But the assertion of improbability always ignores selection.

[betty boop]

Unless it's a democrat about to raise taxes.

Hahahahahahahaha! Still, one thinks even a tax-hiking democrat would not use the explicit language of Christian mutual duty.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

I absolutely agree with you - however, the evolutionists will define inception right off the table because the theory of evolution excludes it.

But that really has nothing to do with testing for intelligent design by looking for algorithm at inception. They are two separate issues, but so few understand. Sigh...

[Condorman]

Honest scientists will tell you that the more we come to know, the more we realize how much there is that we don't know.

There is always more to discover. In the meantime, our approximations of reality are continually improving.

But there is much evidence that points to creation, not a lack of such evidence.

Ferinstance?

Escapist nonsense. Do you look both ways before you cross the street?

The preceding was written tongue in cheek, for the humor impaired...

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

My poor dog is crossing his paws, so I'll have to make this short. But I wanted to address this:

The computer scientists of 1966 fully expected to have artificial intelligence well in hand by 2001. So much for their assessment of what can and cannot be done.

Penrose (Emperor's New Mind) believes it can never be accomplished to the degree hoped. However, we do have an A.I. expert on the forum, tortoise, who might have more information for you if you are interested.

Kudos to you for never stopping to ask questions!!!

[f.Christian]

cm...

approximations

FC...

bet the farm on THAT ! ! !

[exmarine]

BUT, this does not mean that Creationism should be taught in science class. ;)

What is wrong with a class on bible in a high school - for students who want to take it? How is this a violation of the Constitution - someone please point me to the clause in the Constitution (don't point me to a liberal marxist judge) where it says this is not allowed. It is contrary to historical precedent. The reason all of this has happened is because the government got into the education business and public schools became govt. schools. The Constitution does not allow for the State to be the educator. Where does it say that is a function of the Federal Govt. in the Constitution? Because they delved where they do not belong, they then said any religion in schools falls under "separation of church and state" with the schools being an extension of the state.

[f.Christian]

Main Entry: ap·prox·i·ma·tion
Pronunciation: &-"präk-s&-'mA-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 : the act or process of drawing together
2 : the quality or state of being close or near < an approximation to the truth > < an approximation of justice >
3 : something that is approximate; especially : a mathematical quantity that is close in value to but not the same as a desired quantity
- ap·prox·i·ma·tive /-'präk-s&-"mA-tiv/ adjective

[Condorman]

BB: If I found any fossils at all, there would be no way for me to tell whether they were hominids or not.

JS: I think you underrate the state of science in Darwin's time. Biology and geology were both established on sound footings before Darwin began his voyage.

Leonardo da Vinci weighed in on fossilized shellfish back around 1500 when he disputed the idea of a Biblical Flood.

[js1138]

for the humor impaired...

That reminds me... The Muslims have already attacked us with biological weapons -- the retro virus. It's vede series.

[Aric2000]

Of course it does, but god cannot be used for the causation because god cannot be proven nor disproven to exist.

When you can PROVE scientifically the existence of god, then we will talk about god being used in science, although if god is PROVEN, then there will be no need for science because then god will give us the answers that we seek.

The only way to prove that god exists is to get him/her/it to come down to earth, say "I did this" and then it will be proven that he/she/it exists. In the meantime, god cannot be used as a causation because he/she/it, cannot be proven to exist.

It is called curcular reasoning, and has NO place in REAL science.

To say "I don't understand how this could have happened" and then to say, "since I don't understand, then god did it" is NOT scientific, it is a copout, a lazy mans way out of a dilemma that he does not have the knowledge to get out of. So, instead of experimenting and working to find out the causation, he says goddidit, and he doesn't have to work on it anymore.

This is ID, since we don't understand the full complexities of how life evolves, nor how it got so complicated, though there are some EXCELLENT scientific theories, creationists and ID'rs say, GODDIDIT, evolutionists, say, we just do not understand it fully yet, but we will.

One stops the study, GODDIDIT, the other makes the study continue, we do not understand, YET, but let's find out!!

The Theory of Evolution is a threat to the literal meaning of the story of genisis, but when not looked at literally, it fits quite nicely. Alamo Girl has it pretty well worked out in her mind.

She uses god a lot in her theories, therefore it is philisophical and religious, not science, but still interesting all the same.

Evolution as scientific theory, SHOULD be taught in science classes. Creatinism and ID should NOT be taught in a science class, because they are NOT scientific. Want to teach them in a philosophy class or a religious class, fine, be my guest. BUT NOT IN SCIENCE CLASS.

Also, a disclaimer is not only silly, it is unnecessary. THe definition of a THEORY should be taught at the beginning of ALL science classes. Without questions, science would come to a halt.

I welcome anyone to question the Theory of Evolution through the scientific process, but to say that GODDIDIT and then argue that it is science is just silly.

Because GODDIDIT is religion, the causation cannot be proven, therefore it is NOT science.

[f.Christian]

Here come the zombie mantras . . . knee jerks - - - rigor mophisis // evoolootion!

Fire torch rally // parades . . . book burners too ! ! !

[Junior]

At this rate we'll top 4000 posts by this evening.

[js1138]

A.I. expert

Sounds like military intelligence.

[exmarine]

Euthyphro dilemma

Socrates was a Greek pagan as were all of the Greek philosophers. Plato had some things right - ideals do exist - problem was the greek gods were not big enough to be the source of the ideals. So, using Greek philosophy as your proof God's moral precepts are arbitrary doesn't work. It may have been arbitrary for the Greek gods, but not the REAL God. The Christian God is much bigger than any of the Greek gods - their gods were limited in their power and authority.

Your problem goes deeper than this, however. If morals are arbitrary, then there is no right and wrong, except that which man states as his personal preference (or societal preference). On this basis, relativism is your only refuge. If relativism is your only refuge, you are in big trouble because moral relativism is logically and practically indefensible. I can e-mail you a sound refutation for moral relativism if you like.

[f.Christian]

open throttle . . . full evolution // speed ahead - - - bridge(TRUTH) out(crash) ! ! !

[f.Christian]

Here come the zombie mantras . . . knee jerks - - - rigor mophisis // evoolootion!

Fire torch rally // parades . . . book BANNER // burners too ! ! !

[js1138]

At this rate we'll top 4000 posts by this evening.

Things go better without gore. Has anyone notice how civil things are? Lots of disagreement, but generally on point?

[Aric2000]

What is wrong with a class on bible in a high school - for students who want to take it? How is this a violation of the Constitution - someone please point me to the clause in the Constitution (don't point me to a liberal marxist judge) where it says this is not allowed. It is contrary to historical precedent. The reason all of this has happened is because the government got into the education business and public schools became govt. schools. The Constitution does not allow for the State to be the educator. Where does it say that is a function of the Federal Govt. in the Constitution? Because they delved where they do not belong, they then said any religion in schools falls under "separation of church and state" with the schools being an extension of the state.

Absolutely NOTHING, I agree with you, please see my statement again. I don't have a problem with a voluntary bible class in public schools, I never said that I did.

This is what I said, please see the part in bold.

BUT, this does not mean that Creationism should be taught in science class. ;)