Posted on 03/29/2008 6:54:19 PM PDT by wastedpotential
Of all the factors that led to Mike Huckabee's demise in the 2008 presidential sweepstakes (insufficient funds, lack of foreign policy experience), there's one that has been largely overlooked: Huckabee's disbelief in the theory of evolution as it is generally understood – without the involvement of the Creator.
Perhaps you're thinking: What's evolution got to do with being president? Very little, as Huckabee was quick to remind reporters on the campaign trail. But from the moment the former Baptist minister revealed his beliefs on evolutionary biology, political commentators and scientists lambasted him. Some even suggested those beliefs should disqualify him from high office.
We believe most Americans
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
"Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick.
When Jesus heard [that], he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby." --John 11:3-4
And then later:
"Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been [dead] four days.
Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?"--John 11:39-40
Need I say more?
Perhaps.. or an appreciation intensifier..
Sorry, that happens not to be the case.
Most scientists have a hard time accepting ID because it is religion masquerading as pseudo-science hoping to be mistaken for junk science.
Its history is clear; the modern iteration of ID came about after the Edwards decision of the U.S. Supreme Court removed creation "science" from the classrooms. On old and dormant idea was dusted off and repackaged as "science" in the hope of fooling some school boards.
Remember "cdesign proponentsists” from the Dover trial? Here is the smoking gun (courtesy of Panda's Thumb):
Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34: “Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.”Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”
Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”
Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”
Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.”
The authors of this book did a cut-and-paste to change "creationists" to "design proponents" -- but one cut-and-paste wasn't done correctly. We have a missing link between the two terms -- "cdesign proponentsists" which shows the evolution of creation science into intelligent design.
Now, can you think of any reason scientists would reject religious belief dishonestly masquerading as science?
Teach the Contoversy!
I have to admit that as a science hating creationist, the biggest downside is all the bandaids I go through due to all the knuckle dragging I do. ;)
But seriously, I really love science. I don’t think must of what is described as “evolution” is science. It is a form of dogmatic religion similar to global warming True Believers.
The two actually have a lot in common. Not least of which is a spammers heaven of “supporting data”. :)
I am a creationist. I do not see creationism as science. Of course I do not see evolution as science. I DO see the work done to attempt to find evidence of the history of bioligical life forms to be science however.
Science is not our God nor is it an intellectual panacea. It is one field of human study, as is art and phylosophy. It does not have all the answers to all the questions, because some belong in other field.
After all, science is about how, while religion is about WHY. Even if we DO discover everything there is to know about science, we still will not know WHY anything exists.
And there are no verifyable or proveable hypotheses about the origin of life. It is all just speculation at this point.
All of it.
As I said. I’d be more impressed if such blessings were universally distributed rather than tossed at random. I’ll thank God for my good fortune just as soon as I see it made universal.
We have asked you to keep your mouth shut on this issue yet you continue to talk.
I fear we have no other option then to send in the giant space lizards to ‘reeducate’ us. And by ‘reeducate’ I mean turn into GSL food.
Why do you feel that way?
‘...with someone who makes up their own rules and definitions as they go along...’
I think you are projecting your actions on others.
ID is not science of any kind, so it has to pretend. So far, junk science is about as high as its pretensions and aspirations have been. If it had been trying to be a real science it would not be pushed largely by a PR campaign by a religiously-funded "think" tank, the Discovery Institute. Rather, it would be doing research and other scientific endeavors and trying to get into respected peer-reviewed science journals.
I do not wish to debate Evolution with someone who makes up their own rules and definitions as they go along, so as to handicap their opponent.
Science works under a pretty-much fixed set of definitions, and these do not change at a whim. I have a good list of these definitions on my FR home page. I did not make them up; some are from respected websites such as CalTech.
What does change as one goes along is the definitions used by creationists. For example, theory, as used by scientists, becomes "theory" (a wild guess) when used by creationists. They do this to imply (dishonestly) that the theory of evolution is not real science but is just "a theory."
Look at the transcript of the Dover trial and note Behe's definition of theory under cross examination. He had to admit under oath that his definition of theory (deliberately made as vague as possible so that ID qualifies) also includes astrology!
I am afraid what "handicaps our opponents" is their inability to do science rather than any changes in definitions on the part of science. Science refuses to change its methods and definitions to include religion and other non-scientific beliefs, and this is a pretty large handicap for those pushing religion. Hence, their resort to dishonesty (“cdesign proponentsists" for example).
But why is there such an emphasis on pretending to do science on the part of IDers? Because they are seeking the respectability of science without having to do the work (that's kind of like buying your Ph.D. from a diploma mill for $30). And they are seeking scientific respectability to get back into the classrooms. Creationism and creation "science" have been removed from sciences classes by U.S. Supreme Court decisions, so some way had to be found to sneak religion back in. "Hey, lets pretend to be science! We can get some creationists elected to school boards and they can help us sneak this one through!") This little trick hasn't been ruled on yet by the U.S. Supreme Court, but it was ruled on by a Federal District Court (Dover). ID was determined to be religion in disguise.
That's why ID has a hard time being taken seriously by scientists. Its religion, not science!
It doesn't matter whether you see evolution as a science. You are not a scientist, and your opinions on what is or is not a science are meaningless.
And there are no verifyable or proveable hypotheses about the origin of life. It is all just speculation at this point.
If there were verifiable hypotheses about the origin of life they would be called theories. Theories are the highest level attainable in science. Proof is for mathematics and whiskey.
And hypotheses about the origin of life are entirely separate from the theory of evolution. They are two different fields. The only folks who lump them together, and resist all efforts we make to show that they are different, seem to be creationists. Why is this?
>>Why do you feel that way?<<
It is not a feeling. It is a belief. I realized that the thing that annoyed me about both evolution True Believers and global warming True Believers is not what they believe, but their attitude about anyone that disagrees with them.
Very similar and almost identical actually. The parallels are striking, right down the mountains of “evidence” both sides have.
>>You are not a scientist, and your opinions on what is or is not a science are meaningless.<<
I disagree, with both assertions.
>>Proof is for mathematics and whiskey.<<
...Said the Creationist. And evolutionist.
>>And hypotheses about the origin of life are entirely separate from the theory of evolution. They are two different fields. The only folks who lump them together, and resist all efforts we make to show that they are different, seem to be creationists. Why is this?<<
I think that is a false assertion.
It depends on the evolutionist with which you are arguing.
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.