Posted on 12/20/2005 7:54:38 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
From Naturalism.org "Tenets of Naturalism:"
Naturalism as a world view is based on the premise that knowledge about what exists and about how things work is best achieved through the sciences, not personal revelation or religious tradition....
...Human beings act the way they do because of the various influences that shape them, whether these be biological or social, genetic or environmental. We do not have the capacity to act outside the causal connections that link us in every respect to the rest of the world. This means we do not have what many people call free will, the ability to cause our behavior without being fully caused in turn.
and elsewhere:
The naturalist view of ourselves is of course very different from traditional religious or supernatural understandings, and it has profound implications. We don’t have souls that continue after death....We don’t have free will in the sense of being able to choose or decide without being fully caused in our choices or decisions.
Please spare me the ad hominems about paranoia.
BTW: Who is the "us" to which you are referring?
How would you feel if Christians who believe evolution is compatible with the Bible advocated teaching evolution in schools, but a judge said it cannot be taught because the proponents are religiously motivated?
You postulate an absurdity to prove your point? Your ability to present your case is on a par with the people who presented the case for creationism, oops sorry I meant ID, in court.
Sunday school class or the pulpit.
But what if an explaination is contrived in such a way that prevents it being even potentially disproven? For example the theory that lightning is caused by invisible and undetectable beings is contrived in such a way that it can't possibly be ever disproven.
What is "religious" abvout the idea that organized matter behaving according to predictable laws may be explained by design as opposed to some other "force of nature?" Is this an Episcopalian idea? Jewish? Muslim? Baptist? Bhuddist? Hindu? Lutheran? Which particular religion is the government endorsing by allowing such a discussion in a scientific setting?
I think there's a window of newness that surrounds any idea. First, there's a fleshing out of the idea. This includes any debate around the idea itself.
Putting legs to an idea in terms of research isn't generally the first step.
Anymore, and unfortunately, any new idea has to go to court. Looks like that stage isn't complete yet.
If I were to begin looking in any area, I think I'd focus on "similar forms and functions" if the designer were a sentient being. If the designer is a process and not a sentient being, then I'd look at quick fossil fuel creation processes.
The populations of humans who were stomped on by Western Imperialism probably wouldn't share your rosy view of Western moral superiority. "The Christian West" is growing up and becoming the Postchristian West, and we will all be the better for it.
I've never seen one of those. Where would I get one, and how do I know that's what Jesus actually looked like?
We cannot observe God either.
But we can observe the predictions that evolution theory makes are true. And that potential falsifications of it are not.
Evolution should be referred to correctly in the government schools. As a theory.
Similar to the Theory of Relativity, of course.
Not to mention the Theory of Gravity, Atomic Theory and Germ Theory.
Important to remember what "scientific theory" really means....
You are correct. I do have a problem with my definition of the word "speciation" and I apologize for all involved in this discussion for any confusion I caused. I'm very sorry.
I was using the term erroneously to refer to changes within species. That's not correct.
Having said that, yes, you are correct. Adaptation has occurred. Speciation has not. Speciation is not observable, reproducible, or predictive. Therefore, it is not good science.
ID has been around in its current form since 1802. How many centuries need to pass before it loses its aura of newness?
I never had any of the courses when I was in government school. I don't see any of them in the curriculum of my local schools. Do you propose we start them in the government schools where I live?
You my friend are the one who is blind.
- plewis1250
Lewis accepted evolution but was most certainly NOT an evolutionist.
"The later Acworth letters, however, indicate that during the 1950s Lewis became increasingly critical of evolutionism and what he called “the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders.” He had much earlier come to feel that evolution was often held for dogmatic rather than for scientific reasons. Thus in “The Funeral of a Great Myth” he quoted D.M.S. Watson’s assertion that evolution “is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur…can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” Lewis’s later writings reveal his belief that evolutionism had become a theological creed, a view that found humorous expression in his poem “Evolutionary Hymn".
"You mean to tell me Zeus doesnt hurl lightning bolts down from Mt. Olympus?"
Ace, how long did the ACLU have to shop before finding a judge descended from a chimp. Does anyone know what stage of transition he is in?? Can you tell me what stage of transition must be reached in order to enter law school and become a judge?? I asume you darwinists have this info at your finger tips.
No you have convinced me!. Im going to go out and buy a plastic ape for my dashboard. The "believer" has lost his faith over the rambling of a faithless egghead who thinks he is smarter than his maker.
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.