Posted on 12/03/2005 5:28:45 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
I'll go a step further and say that Madonna is will make a falsifiable prediction before ID or its retooled replacement ever does.
Don't post from that site again. Thanks.
True. ID doesn't belong in science class. Why? Because it doesn't adhere to scientific method.
When the proponents of ID produce a testable hypothesis I promise that we'll start calling it science instead of philosophy. Until then...
This article is bogus. It is wishful thinking for the g-d haters. Intelligent Design is sweeping the country and has already been implemented into many of the curriculum of the public school system.
Okay. I assume you meant Landover Baptist...not God's Ark.
LOL! That cartoon is hysterically funny!
To the detriment of children everywhere.
Whoopee! Riduiculing Christians to make a point is still ridiculing Christians...
Evolution through Stochastic processes? Sounds intriguing. Do you have a reference link for that?
Teaching evolution is "teaching Darwin" as much as genetics is "teaching Mendel" or the theory of relativity is "teaching Einstein."
Now, I would agree that the HISTORY of the modern evolutionary principles start with Charles Darwin, but that doesn't mean evolution is studying darwinism. Darwin didn't claim to be a prophet or a leader or anything for SCIENCE to study. He was just a man who happened to have a rational idea in a superstitous time... and now his principles are the basis of modern biology.
There are several academics in my field (speech communication) who have been prominent supporters of ID, and they also happen to be left-wing, po-mo types who view science as it is currently practiced as also being an expression of Western imperialism and male domination, making natural allies of both the IDers and the "Science for the People" crowd. I wrote a paper critiquing some of their arguments for a history of biology class, and I'm thinking of revising it for publication.
1. Life from non-life is a major hurdle for evolution, and it has not even begun to be overcome. In fact, you guys have pretty much quit on this issue and tend to ignore it as though it's not relevant.
2. The fossil record is an embarrassment for Darwin's theory. Because the fossil record fails to confirm the theory (as Darwin recognized it did not but hoped in the future it would, but hasn't), evolutionists have "cheated" on the falsifiable-ness (so to speak) of common descent and instead developed alternate theories such as "punctuated equilibrium" to explain the problem. There is absolutely no evidence for punctuated equilibrium because, of course, it was developed to explain away lack of evidence.
3. Modern evolutionary theory pre-supposes there is no God. In fact, it is really cowardly of the Darwinists who claim that religion and science are mutually exclusive in this regard. Many of you don't even have the guts to state the obvious. This is a choice between God and no God.
However, I won't hold my breath for a burst of honesty from that quarter.
Next time you link to that use a barf alert!
Sound familiar? These self-appointed intellectuals can not stop whining and name-calling.
ID is the only reasonable approach to doing science. They know it and they can not tolerate the truth. Let them squirm and whine. Appealing to the NYT sounds the death knell of their extremist pseudo science.
When man is able to produce life in the lab, {shouldn't be a problem since it happened by accident} I figure the probability is high we'll hear all about it.
"When man is able to produce life in the lab, {shouldn't be a problem since it happened by accident} I figure the probability is high we'll hear all about it."
Nice show of ignorance. :) Bravo!
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.