Evolution Disclaimer Supported

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

[js1138]

I can well imagine creationists making genuine scientitific discoveries but having them ridiculed and discarded via evolutionist "inquisitions" in certain universities.

Ridicule does occur in science, but it never influences genuine progress for long. Even Einstein, with all his clout, could not stop quantum theory.

Besides, there is all kinds of money available to ID and creation research. Can you outline a program of research that would satisfy creationists? I guarantee that any promising research program would find massive funding. So where would you start?

[Junior]

Yes.

[Junior]

Dear God, Ted, are you angling to be banned again?

[Tribune7]

Why do you believe rights to be inherent?

[js1138]

Does intelligence necessarily carry the baggage of "God." I don't think one is forced to go there logically...

So tell us a plausible story about the intelligent design of life that does not include God. Just give us a hypothesis, not necessarily one you believe in, just one that makes lokical sense.

[js1138]

...or even logical sense...

[Junior]

In the post 2525...

Because what we refer to as "rights" are enjoyed by all critters in their natural environments -- specifically, the right to life and liberty. All other rights derive from these two.

[Fester Chugabrew]

"Man, I wish you were my physics professor in college! "But Professor Chugabrew, what I really meant was...""

Ha! The tests on my exams would tend to avoid the creation vs. evolution issue and stick to the observed facts within the discipline. As for a more thorough treatment of further assumptions and conclusions to be drawn from those facts, they do indeed belong under the discipline of "Philosophy of Science."

"Or better yet, my dad after that course was graded, 'But Daddy Chugabrew, that 'D' stands for 'Delightful!'"

I suppose it could have been predicted that an adherent of evolutionist presuppositions would try to weasel his ass out of a jam with semantic chicanery. Studies may one day result in the Theory of Evolutionist Fourberie gaining wide acceptance.

Does the introduction of some form of creationist thought automatically result in the need to launch off into all kinds of creation theories? Of course not. Those who know how to indulge in educational pursuits also know how to put the reins on implications arising from the same.

[lds23]

HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?

Depends on how you define "Earth". Do you mean the currently-climated Earth? The swirling dust that coalesced into the Earth? Or way, way back when it was just a twinkle in God's eye?

[js1138]

The tests on my exams would tend to avoid the creation vs. evolution issue and stick to the observed facts within the discipline.

So you would stick to listing observations, and eliminate constructs like Newton's laws, because they do not fit all the observations?

[balrog666]

HCl + NaOH -> NaCl + H2O

Hey, that only works because the Goddess has enough tiny, invisible, assistants to manipulate all of those subatomic particles each and ever time they gather to worship Her through their eternal dance.

[Leatherneck_MT]

If Evolution is fact, where is the proof?

There is no proof because they've never found "The missing Link".

Until they find the proof Evolution is a theory and will remain a theory.

But then again if they found proof of Creationism all of the brain dead morons who post here bashing people who believe in Creation wouldn't believe it anyway so why discuss it?

Cheers

[BMCDA]

Actually it's not the rights that are inherent but our needs.

[Tribune7]

Because what we refer to as "rights" are enjoyed by all critters in their natural environments -- specifically, the right to life and liberty. All other rights derive from these two.

If these are inherent why do critters in their natural environments get eaten?

[Aric2000]

Science would not be able to function if there were no such thing as design. Can we at least agree on that?

Science would not be able to function if we could not think and had intelligence, science is helped by things that WE design to see the world in better and different ways, microscopes, telescopes, radio telescopes etc.

Design could neither exist nor be comprehended unless there were such thing as intelligence. Can we agree on that?

We could NOT design unless we had intelligence, we would be living out on the plains and eating fruits and berries if we had not developed(evolved) greater intelligence.

The next step would be to infer something about that intelligence, and I think this is where the hang up is. Does intelligence necessarily carry the baggage of "God."

This is where we have a problem in communications, when you infer something, it is normally based on facts and knowledge.

Here, let me give you an example, this comes from a cartoon I saw, so it is not at all original.

I will make it basic, because that scientific mathematical stuff is WAY beyond me.

6+6+8+ then a miracle occurs 6+4+9= whatever crazy answer you want to make up.

I don't think one is forced to go there logically, but I certainly do not count it as crazy or unreasonable that throughout the history of mankind this has been assumed.

When the process is NOT understood, the easiest way to get out of it, is to say, a miracle happened, or godidit, or it MUST have been intelligent design.

THAT is NOT scientific, it is laziness. If you do not understand the process, you KEEP studying until you do, you do not throw up your hands and say, someone MUST have designed it, BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO PROOF that that is what occurred. Not even a smidgen of evidence that such an intelligent designer exists. THEREFORE IT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC!!!

The sheer amount and intricacy of design in the world makes that kind of assumption very reasonable.

Only if you are too lazy or are unable (due to technology etc.) to go out and find the REAL answers.

THe answers are out there, but to say, "it must have been an intelligent designer AKA: God, is laziness, or wishful thinking at best.

It is circular reasoning at it worst. I don't understand how that could have occurred, since I am a man, I will never be able to understand, because GODIDIT, so why bother trying to go any further.

No matter how you try to logically talk about ID being science, it ain't gonna happen. Not until you CAN PROVE that an intelligent designer exists.

When you can SCIENTIFICALLY prove that god exists, we will talk about ID being Science, until then it is just as much religion as creationism is, why? Because the premise is the same. GODIDIT.

[js1138]

But then again if they found proof of Creationism ...

Would you care to describe what form such proof might take. I would probably listen to a burning bush (I'm not being sarcastic here -- I would be open to direct observation of a miracle). I would also be impressed by the "signature of God" found in some natural constant. But I am mistified by what you have in mind by proof of Creationism.

[Tribune7]

Actually it's not the rights that are inherent but our needs.

You and Junior must debate.

[BMCDA]

Hmmm... Leatherneck, eh? Methinks everything above your neck seems to consist of leather too.

Regards

[Aric2000]

Go play in those caves again, please, it has been so nice without you.

How can we miss if you don't leave?

[f.Christian]

globdidit...NO intelligence/design in you---your mind!