Posted on 04/20/2008 6:09:13 PM PDT by Soliton
Ben Stein was just on Fox News with Geraldo. He was asked If ID versus Evolution was a "left, right thing". He responded,"No, It's an atheist versus a non-believer thing". Stein inadvertantly admitted that ID is a religious argument, not science!
Get back to me when experiment proves the hypothesis that one species can develop into another.
"Ah, but man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?" ~ Robert Browning.
And what experiment do you have that proves the identity of the intelligent designer?
No, I can’t say that I have. I just scan the recent posts and see if anything is interesting.
I hope the film does win but, what are the chances considering "Sicko" is considered worthy of awards?
You miss my point entirely. I love Ben. The film may be a good film. But it even has political allies discussing evolution instead of academic freedom.
As a counter example, if Ben had made a film about how Marxism is pushed in college and disagreement is punished, he would at least have the economics departments of prestigious universities as allies regarding the demerits of Marxism. Then, the debate would focus on academic freedom. Instead, he not only picks a debatable topic as his example, he picks one on which he disagrees with the vast majority of practicing scientists.
He might as well have made a film based on the ousting of a scientist who had a wacky idea about string theory or black holes. The vast majority of us would not be able to even understand enough to decide if the scientist in question was a nut or if the other scientists were tyrants.
Evolution seems understandable to everyone. If understanding the issues involved were so easy it wouldn't take over eight years of education after high school to work in the field. I think Ben made a tactical error basing a movie on a scientific issue that 99% of the audience, including other scientists in physics or chemistry, don't have a working knowledge of. It confuses the debate.
I also fear, that faithful people, by debating established science, will compromise their faith and do damage to the very cause they support. Why would a Christian make Jesus' sacrifice or God's grace dependent on what goes on in a lab somewhere? Are Christians admitting that if evolution is true then Jesus didn't die for our sins? I hope not.
None needed.
No proof needed.
Just saying that the “fact” of evolution should be questioned, and this is NOT ALLOWED by judicial fiat.
Do you realize that the argument in the Scopes trial was that “both sides should be taught” in the interest of academic freedom?
Anyone who argues on the leftist side of any issue never argues from good faith.
The moderators over there seem to have a quaint tradition of taking an extremely dim view of making claims about other people’s motivations or agendas.
What if evolution was the process God chose to use?
Man is the only living being with a soul and an inborn sense of right and wrong.
Please prove the existence of the soul. Please explain societal behavior seen in most mammals, which would include how young and elderly are treated (and would show at least a rudimentary understanding of "right" and "wrong").
Clearly, belief in evolution takes a lot more faith than a belief in ID/Creation.
You don't get it. ID and evolution are NOT incompatible! Once again: ID is how it started; evolution is how it continued. The two are FUNDAMENTALLY different.
If you can't understand this fundamental point, then you really are unwilling to simply read and accept things at face value, and are no better than the "scientific fascists!" - the target of Stein - that so many in this thread decry.
ID makes no claims about the identity of the designer. ID simply argues that the scientiffic evidence demonstrates that their must have been some designer due to the irreducible complexity of some of the biological machines and the DNA code. So, the identity of the designer is outside the scope of ID just like most evolutionists argue that the ultimate beginning of life is outside the scope of evolution.
Fortunately, it seems like every time we answer one question through science, 3 more pop up! :) I don’t think we’ll ever know everything about everything - we’ll always still have questions to answer.
It is in the exercise of our gift of the intellect to learn about His creation that we glorify God.
If ID is true, there is no need for macro evolution. The ID argument maintains that evolution is impossible, so they can't be compatible; at least in the macro-evolution senes.
Those that believe in evolution are atheists
_______
You forgot to add that all atheists are communists, homosexual, perverts, monkey boys, Nazis, ape lovers, hippies, free love types who use Darwinism to ensure that they can have sex with as many people (gender unimportant) as possible. Oh, I nearly forgot that they kick small dogs for sport.
I can't stay, I just wanted to say this to you.
You're thinking in the literal, think in an allegorical six days. God has infinite time on his hands. What you would call a 24 hour day in the modern sense could be a million million million days with God. Perhaps more.
Where in the Bible does it tell us six LITERAL days?
3 ¶ And God said, Let there be light: and there
was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God
divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he
called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first
day.
Now, it that first day 24 hours as we know it to be or is it God's measure of the first day?
Why not?
ID simply argues that the scientiffic evidence demonstrates that their must have been some designer due to the irreducible complexity of some of the biological machines and the DNA code. So, the identity of the designer is outside the scope of ID just like most evolutionists argue that the ultimate beginning of life is outside the scope of evolution.
In other words, ID doesn't try and present evidence to support it's position but instead tries and says evolution must be wrong because of A, B, and C. Therefore we must accept that if evolution is wrong the ID is right by default. That is not science.
LOL. You are almost always the most shrill voice on any crevo thread, but somehow the evolutionists are threatened.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
That is not science, that if faith.
Just saying that the “fact” of evolution should be questioned, and this is NOT ALLOWED by judicial fiat
Questioned by what? By ID, which you say requires no proof?
Do you realize that the argument in the Scopes trial was that “both sides should be taught” in the interest of academic freedom?
No I don't because your claim is not true, as any history book would tell you. The teaching of evolution was outlawed in Tennessee. That was done by act of the legislature passed on March 13, 1925 which said that the teaching of any theory which denied the biblical version of creation was a crime. There was no academic freedom involved, only religion masquerading as science.
Anyone who argues on the leftist side of any issue never argues from good faith.
Anyone who turns ID vs. Evolution into a conservative vs. liberal situation is a fool. What your trying to say is science is a liberal position.
Thats one of the two arguments that ID makes. Its second argument is that it can create a matrix or test for identifying design. Then when it finds things in nature that meet that test that shows that they have been designed. This is the positive argument that goes alongside with the negative argument against evolution. I actually wasn’t aware of this part of ID untill I read their law review article.
Also, why is the negative argument not science. It is based on poking scientiffic holes in the theory of evolution. To be perfectly honest I am not as concerned about seeing ID taught in schools as a theory. However, I do want the scientiffic arguments against Evolution that ID has discovered to be discussed in the schools. So, that people have a chance to realize that there are serious problems with the evolution model as it currently exists.
You must have misunderstood.
Those arguing FOR the teaching of evolution argued that both sides should be taught in the interest of academic freedom. Of course, this was disingenuous.
Funny that atheists/evolutionists claim the mantel of science and claim that anyone who doesn’t reject a Creator is not a scientist, when, not only the founders of modern science referred to a Creator, but the FOUNDATIONS of modern science itself rely on the concepts of the Judeo-Christian God.
You posted: “Are Christians admitting that if evolution is true then Jesus didn’t die for our sins?”
How do we know Jesus died for our sins?
How do we know mankind is sinful?
How do we know the scriptures are true?
How do we know there is a resurrection?
Was there an Adam, and an Eve? Or a Abraham?
Is Genesis true?
Is the rest of the Bible true?
I think that if Christians believe macro-evolution is true, they have to invent a new method (schizophrenic) of interpreting the Bible to continue to believe Jesus died for our sins, rose again, and is coming again. If you get to pick and choose in the Bible, what basis do you have for knowing what you accept is right, and what you reject is wrong?
Jesus seemed to have a different view of the Old Testament scriptures, as did the apostles, from our modern day viewpoints that have capitualted to “science, falsely so called.”
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.