Posted on 12/25/2005 1:41:41 PM PST by RussP
Some of the evidence for continental drift was evident as soon as accurate maps of the South Atlantic coasts were available, which was in the 1800s. Abundant additional evidence was presented by Wegener and others in the early 20th century. Yet orthodox geologists continued to reject it, just as dogmatic Darwinists continue to reject anything which challenges their pet theory. Ruthlessly suppressing anything but an orthodoxy is not science! What should really be asked is why Darwinists are so obsessed with having their theory taught at the secondary or even elementary level. As a trained scientist, I know that knowledge of evolution is not necessary in most areas or science. One could even get along in geology without it, although one would have to keep one's ignorance hidden, and recognize that life did progress through geologic time. This doctrine is really being pushed, not so much because it is needed to succeed in life, but because of its absolute necessity to the determinist-materialist worldview which underlies socialism.
You can find more info here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1544485/posts
Archival ping.
No. A theory does not have to be reproducible in the way you are using it here. Did you ever take any science classes after 5th grade?
As a trained scientist, I know the evidence for ID is nil, and As a trained scientist, you should too.
Yes, you can speculate about ID, you can speculate about space aliens too, but teaching ID or that space aliens exists in school is stupid.
"ID theory has not enough evidence for it to be taught in school. Maybe if there is more evidence for it, but little or none exists for it."
Translation: "I have successfully ignored the evidence in favor of ID."
Read Spetner, Behe, and Dembski for mountains of evidence for ID. See the links at the bottom of the online version of my article.
Mind haash? Especially if we have to contemplate thoeries.
How old are you?
If ID is intelligent, then why the heck are there so many extinct species. If a species goes extinct, I fail to see what was so intelligent about its design.
Further, if we humans allow any species to go extinct are we not destroying the work of the creator ? Should we not immediately adopt a zero tolerance policy on species extinction ?
Moral Absolutes Ping.
Merry Christmas, pingees!
I wasn't going to ping anything today, but I really like this article.
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
Note: The proponents of the TOE remind me of characters from "Through the Looking Glass".
Long-standing member of the GOP and a devout Lutheran. Not an ACLU member. Impugn the motives of the judge all you want. Maybe you ought to consider the bearing false witness that occurred as the ID folks testified that religion had nothing to do with their efforts.
The entire SETI program is nothing more than a philosophy based in part on Drake's equation which even Drake found problems with.
Millions of dollars, and untold amounts of time, have been poured into a program that attempts to prove a negative.
Why? Because scientist have their own religion, and two of the disciples of that "religion" are Sagan and Asimov.
The whole idea of Intelligent Design is based on design by an intelligent being or beings for which there's no scientific rationale to believe exists at this time.
Neither is there a scientific rationale to believe intelligent life exists beyond this planet. So, if the scientific community wants to ban ID then, by extension, they have to ban SETI as well.
Thanks Arthur Dimmesdale! Give my regards to Hester.
"I think you'd better look at this PA judge for an example of who sounds like a liberal. Is he, by chance, an ACLU member? I have no idea, but it wouldn't surprise me. He certainly shares their hostility to anything reflecting a reverence for God."
LOL....he is a Pres. Bush 43 appointee who is very respected in the Pennsylvania GOP.
"If ID is intelligent, then why the heck are there so many extinct species. If a species goes extinct, I fail to see what was so intelligent about its design."
Well, I don't follow your reasoning. If the bi-plane goes "extinct," does that mean it wasn't designed by an intelligent being? It's only an analogy, but it answers your question. Please don't read more into it than I wrote. Maybe the "Designer" had reasons to let species go extinct.
If the bi-plane goes "extinct," , it usually has be supplanted by a superior model. Survival of the fittest I believe.
Judge Jones is not a member of the ACLU, and is, in fact, a GWB appointee.
ID is not a challenge to evolution. At best it is a challenge to Creationism.
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.