Posted on 01/26/2006 1:47:10 PM PST by jennyp
High taxes. And icky bugs.
It may require intelligence, but it doesn't require a designer.
Creationists are the one group on FR that can be counted on to flat-out lie on a routine basis. It's an accurate observation.
Bad article.
Evolution obviously occurs in nature but some of us don't accept all of its wild claims. If I were an atheist, I would still be dubious BECAUSE of my scientific training, not in spite of any lack of knowledge of science. It has nothing to do with God. Call us skeptics, not scared.
Just what icky bugs are you afraid of?
BTW, you keep your hands off St. Rose.
They are afraid of the ego-damaging experience of being very wrong about something so fundamental and so universally espoused. They are also afraid of the implications of creationism, which probably drives the bulk of their objection.
If there really is a God, then there are all kinds of uncomfortable moral implications which follow.
So was heliocentrism.
Intelligent design is not science. Evolution and Christianity coexist peacefully.
It is inconceivable that a "scientist" would declare the presence of a guiding hand simply because the object of analysis was "too complex" to understand. Imagine if we traveled back in time and presented a pair of walkie talkies to Charlemagne. Would he not believe that they were a gift from God? Could something so complex actually be the product of man?
Evolution itself through natural selection is the "guiding hand". There is no inconsistency in holding that it is God's way. As ID represents an end state in search of support, it does not qualify as science. It is rationalization.
Example #1 of my previous post. There are tens of thousands of transitional fossils in collections all over the world, and have been for years.
Exactly.
Fear-mongering placemarker.
Though most evolutionists (particularly in this country) believe in a God, which throws a giant economy-size monkey wrench in your argument.
Except sea bugs, they look icky but taste divine so I just close my eyes while I rip their claws off.
BS
Some may be wrong on some issues but they aren't liars. If you can't disagree civilly then don't post.
Salient point of the economic model is that no individual actor in the economic activity has the knowledge needed to do all the things required to produce and deliver the simplest of goods, nor is any individual participant needed to direct oe coordinate the activity of hundreds of thousands of others in order for a product to be created, and even more stunningly, none of the people who contribute to the production of a particular product even need to care if it is ever made; a pencil is the example that Leonard Read used to illustrate this. No one on this planet possesses the knowledge required to make a pencil from scratch, and yet pencils are made and sold, cheaply, by the millions, every year, with no shortages or massive surpluses. No all-knowing, all-seeing "intellect" is required to plan, coordinate, or regulate the entire economic activity that is ultimately required to make a pencil.
Pretty cool....
No, evolution meets the requirements to be called "scientific theory". Neither ID nor "creationism" meet those requirements.
Sorry but this is only a puff piece supporting social Darwinism which is the path toward communism.
"Creationists and advocates of intelligent design come to their beliefs in part through honest errors and in part from evasions of facts and close-minded dogmatism."
After reading this little quote tucked at the end of the article, it was obvious that the author had to get in a personal attack without presenting any evidence.
No? Maybe not on a very small scale, but for it to work on a large scale, a free economy absolutely requires a designer. It requires recognized laws, standards and enforcement. It requires the close monitoring and regulation of monopolies. It requires a standardized and controlled monetary system. It requires laws and enforcement of those laws.
In conclusion: A complex economy requires a designer, or designers to be successful. Frankly, I'm amazed that he chose such a poor angle from which to approach the subject.
If you think this outcome requires no intelligence, why don't growing, wealthy economies spring up from schools of fish, or swarms of bees?
The complex, sophisticated results of a vibrant economy are the result of intelligent, voluntary participation in transactions viewed as beneficial by all involved parties.
Score one for intelligent design.
BUMP!
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.