Posted on 12/21/2005 7:15:48 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
Just because the author can find someone who misused or misrepresented or was wrong about evolution doesn't invalidate evolution.
You don't have to go back 50 years to have people misuse or misrepresent Christianity but that doesn't in any way invalidate Christianity.
This article tries to make evolution look bad. In reality, quotes like the above make the ID people look bad.
Let's not. The arguments stand on the facts as we know them today, not some stupid ad hominem attacks on people not alive to defend themselves.
You're right - this kind of nonsense is childish whining.
Maybe you're speaking with the passion of the moment, Tailgunner Joe. I hope so, because this petulance doesn't reflect well on conservatives.
I beg to differ. I think the left and the atheists need a good dose of their own medicine. ;-)
Christianity was used for centuries to justify slavery. Both the Old and New Testaments give a pass. The New Testament even instructs slaves to obey unjust masters.
Because ID is NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY!
Can't wait for all the homeschoolers to apply for a degree in any of the sciences in college. Good luck!
Here we go with another stupid thread where the ID crowd goes on and on ad nauseum about how " Well, ID isn't creationism!" For crying out loud... at least be honest about it. ID=Creationism. Yes, that puts us right back to 1925....meanwhile, international scientists soar ahead while we stumble around in the bog of La La Land.
The homeschoolers may be black-balled by the biology departments, and shunned by those who fear them in other behavioral and animal sciences.
But meanwhile they'll be top of the incoming class, pushing out all those poor public school students who got the best education 50 years of liberal thought can provide.
I was a firm creationist in high school and college, and had no problems whatsoever getting straight A's in my high school and college science classes. I can memorize anything, and back then they just made you prove you had learned the material, they didn't require a blood oath to the god of evolution like so many programs do today.
Every science student should be able to correctly describe evolution. NO science student should be asked to pledge that they believe it.
And I can guarantee you that my children will have a more open mind, and a more skeptical outlook and thirst for scientific inquiry, than most children raised to simply accept whatever their current high school text book might teach.
Because who knows in 75 years how much of what is in those textbooks will be laughed about and dismissed in the way the current evolutionists are the "state-of-the-art" evolutionary textbooks of 1925.
And no, I don't homeschool my children, although I do teach them stuff about real science.
If God had nothing to do with creation then we are to conclude that God evolved from nothing as well or that God does not exist.
Atheism and State is religion too. Atheism is an absolute belief there is no god. Agnostics don't know (and often don't care much one way or the other).
Uh, yes you did say " let them study both THEORIES" .How is that for reading comprehension?
And now, science is not vital to functioning? What do you think computer SCIENCE is? Guess we are back in 1925...there are a million ideas out there and parents can teach their children what they want.Just don't call "any" idea "science". And yes, this is upsetting when we are trying to compete globally and have to import scientists.
Can"t even begin to reply to this ridiculous reply.
You got through bio 101 cause you memorized stuff? Whooppee. You sure didn't make it into a graduate or post graduate program where the scientists are.
A creationist? How do you explain dinosaur bones?
what has a belief in God to do with evolution?
NOTHING!
And while you are at it...why not just be a Christian Scientists and not have blood transfusions? Cause that is "science" and we certainly can't have science and believe in God.
ID has both scientific and philosophical components - as does the reigning Darwinist orthodoxy. ID seeks to address the unprovable baseline assumption in the current orthodoxy: "only random mechanistic explanations will be accepted because that is all that exists " - a methodological naturalism that has unfortunately been elevated to a worldview. Prominent Darwinists routinely make pronouncements about the world that are far more metaphysical and theological than scientific, so let's be fair about things. ID proposes a framework for testability when encountering complexity that exceeds all probable mechanistic explanations. Stay tuned.
Re: applying for a science degree in college
I remember being handed my graded final in Ecology at my Ivy League school (A on exam, A in course) and then seeing the look of incredulity on my prof's face as I related that, while I found Darwinism interesting (and was conversant in it), I couldn't accept solely random mechanistic processes as the final solution to life. Three Ivy League science/engineering degrees later, I'm still at the same point.
Ain't buying your story. You are not in biology. You are an engineer, if your story is at all true.
Can't wait for all the homeschoolers to apply for a degree in any of the sciences in college. Good luck!
I replied that, back when I went to college, you didn't have to BELIEVE evolution to pass high school and college science classes.
Your position has now "evolved" to something about a post-graduate degree in biology.
Apparently ignoring my statement that I agreed that biology programs wouldn't likely accept anybody who believed in creation anymore.
So, I would have to agree with your conclusion about your own reply:
Can"t even begin to reply to this ridiculous reply
Maybe you could have tried to clarify why you think that "homeschoolers" would have trouble getting into a college science program? That was a rather broad statement which seems to have no basis in reality. It presupposes that all homeschoolers are creationists, it suggests that they are all incapable of doing what it takes to learn and test on science materials, it treats all science as if it is centered on evolutionary biology when in fact most branches of science could really care less, AND it assumes that colleges are actually applying an evolutionary litmus test for their undergraduate programs.
But I presume you can't actually back up your claim, which is why you said you couldn't reply. Calling my reply "rediculous" I guess was simply an emotional, unscientific outburst rooted in your frustration of not being able to defend your statement about homeschoolers, or about someone suggesting that you could get through college without believing everything you were taught.
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.