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 ...
>>I’ll thank God for my good fortune just as soon as I see it made universal.<<
And if you ever become a god you can give that a try. Let me know how it works out for you.
The problem is that their are libraries full of evidence support the TOE.
>>That’s why ID has a hard time being taken seriously by scientists. Its religion, not science! <<
ID is not science, I agree. But it is really not religion as most define religion. Religion generally involves the worship of a deity as creator. ID simply says there was one. The demons discussed below would not really be considered “religious”.
James 2:19 (New International Version)
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
First I do not consider what I said as an attack, but if it is doesn’t that mean that you attacked Coyoteman?
So that that mean that your behavior is the same as the behavior you accuse scientists of?
If ID isn’t religion why do so many that support ID say that those who don’t are going to hell?
And why do they insist that their god is the god behind ID and that any other suggestion is blasphemy?
Sounds like a religion to me.
No problem (you can keep the rest of my reply for a later date). ; - )
I'm sorry that you think I'm twisting your words--that's not my intention. I do like the picture of my crushing a Cheap Strawman with my Ideological Spin, though. It sounds like something from a martial arts movie--"your Cheap Strawman cannot stand against my Ideological Spin of Doom!"
Except for those practitioners who believed Bloodletting to be the 'current science of the day'...
My point has been that your statement makes no sense because bloodletting was not science. There was no "current science of the day" when it came to medicine, just as sacrificing virgins was not the "current science" when it came to volcanoes, and reading entrails was not the current science when it came to weather forecasting, and stories about gods in chariots was not the current science when it came to astronomy. The fact that the people who thought those things were grappling with questions that today we use science to address, does not make them scientists.
Besides, even if they were, so what? The current science of today also includes atomic power and electronics. Are they also wrong because people used to believe in bloodletting? The fact that scientists were wrong before doesn't prove anything about whether they're wrong now.
I was simply trying to demonstrate that, something believed to be true by many, has been proven to be incorrect.
It appears to me that you are not interested in serious debate on the subject, but rather petty sport, therefor I digress.
Most things believed by many are untrue. But unless the "beliefs" are the product of methodological naturalism, they are not science and not mistaken science.
[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.]
My observation leads me to believe that, you consider any source of research that does not support the position you take on Evolution, to be non-scientific in nature.
[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.]
Science should be perfectly compatible with regular dictionary definitions from 1981.
Anything that needs its own different set of definitions is theology.
[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."]
Are you claiming that Creationists change the meaning of a word half way through a sentence?
Or are you saying that, Evolutionists use words differently than Creationists.
According to "The New Britannica-Webster DICTIONARY & REFERENCE GUIDE":
| theory 1: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory> -- compare PRACTICE 2: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light> 3 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: SUPPOSITION 1, CONJECTURE 4: abstract thought : SPECULATION SYN: SEE HYPOTHESIS |
| theoretical 1 a: relating to or having the character of theory : ABSTRACT b: confined to theory or speculation : SPECULATIVE <theoretical mechanics> 2: given to or skilled in theorizing 3: existing only in theory : HYPOTHETICAL |
(bold emphasis mine)
To me, it appears You have made a blunder that many ID proponents make [concerning the days of creation], in assuming a word has only one meaning.
Now it may be that a particular word has only one suitable use in a specific setting, but to say Creationists are changing the definition is incorrect.
(Requiring a word [with multiple meanings] be used as though it has a single definition is not science, but dogma.)
[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 would have to say that Webster agrees with Dr. Behe.
[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).]
I would agree that your opponents are wholly incapable of doing evolutionary science to your standard.
[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.]
Any dogmatic hypothesis or theory of origins is theology.
[That's why ID has a hard time being taken seriously by scientists. Its religion, not science!]
More correctly, ID goes against everything most scientist have been taught.
Summation:
(Note: I will be using the word "proved" below, with the meaning of "found to be correct more than 95% of the time")
If ID is completely false, and Evolutionary hypothesis has been empirically proved, then whats the issue?
Shouldn't ID just vanish away much like Bloodletting did?
If Evolution has been empirically proved and ID has no substantial evidence, then the proponents of Evolution should not be required to debate the ID issue.
Don't we all know that 'religion' cannot threaten science?
And if ID is just religion with no substantial evidence, why is science so afraid of it?
It has been said that, the majority is right most of the time.(paraphrase)
That said, if Evolution really doesn't have anything to fear from ID, why not teach both, side-by-side, in public schools and see which one the students decide is correct?
(That is, after all, the most democratic thing to do)
Then, if Evolution is found to be correct, the argument for ID will be over.
But when people say that Evolution has been proved and that students should not see both sides of the argument, it becomes a dogma and the probability of evidence existing for ID becomes quite high.
As a side note, I happen to know that, when Evolution and ID are tought side-by-side, the students get it right.
(In other words, they figure out what is true, not what is popular.)
Theory
A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory.
Can't you understand that a theory, when the term is used by scientists (by SCIENTISTS, not EVOLUTIONISTS), is not a wild guess or speculation or the like, as claimed by creationists? And as you claimed in your post.
Who cares if there are five or five hundred definitions? Scientists are not using all of them for their work. They are using a definition like the one above.
Until you can understand and follow this one point any further discussion with you is an absolute waste of time.
(Maybe you should go talk to betty boop and Alamo-Girl. They like metaphysics and other squishy subjects.)
A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory."
Does this mean that, a theory can only be overturned if a new contradictory phenomena is observed?
What it there is an old contradictory phenomena being currently observed?
How does a phenomena relate to evidence?
If there is old contradictory evidence being currently observed, can the theory be overturned?
Can a hypothesis still become a theory if claims of contradictory phenomena have not been refuted?
[[fact that your “god” acts in 1/0 parameters indicates that what you worship is not God]]
Now how do you get that from anything I’ve said?
[[And if I am wrong, I can accept being wrong — for all eternity if need be. If you’re wrong, can you accept it?]
What if I’m wrong? I’ve lsot nothing- IF there is no God- I lose absolutely nothing- but when we find out there is a God- I’ve gaiend eternity with Him for obeying His word
[[Let me make one more thing clear: I believe God exists. If you write again that I deny God exists, you are a liar]]
I said You deny God? Where? Yuo see? That’s your problem- you don’t follow conversations- I said IF you choose to deny God, then YOU are responsible for your decision, and that you can NOT place the blame on God. IF you are suggesting that God has many different ways of attaining Salvation, then you call Him a liar, and Christ died in vain-
[[On the contrary. I take responsibility for my actions and I intend to answer to God for them. I accept that.]]
Well now your story is changing- before you were suggestign that God must be psychotic because he laid down a path of salvation and will judge htose who refuse to beleive in Him, and you inferred that because God has such a demand, that He woudl be to blame for ‘sending us to hell to burn’, now you’re saying you will take responsibility? Which is it?
[[On the contrary. I may insult those who think they follow God. However, I do not, unlike you, malign or defame God as a simplistic creature,]]
Mind explaining how I malign God? This aught to be ripe with twisted logics- can’t wait- on pins and needles.
[[I will thank God for my personal well being when I can see that such favors are equally distributed. Until then I do not believe God hands out treats or meddles in the laws of nature.]
So- you beleive God is only fair when He personally hands out equal ‘favours’ to everyone eh? Your love is a very shallow love indeed- “What’s in it for me” type love- Love- True Love, doesn’t hinge on health wealth or any other materialistic goodie you can perceive, and people have learned that greater love indeed comes from trials and tribulations
you are arguing with someone (coyote) who apparently is completely ignorant of what ID science is and is not- Coyote is only inteerested in making false claims about ID and voicing his disdain using accusatiosn that are not only false, but entirely irrelevent to any intellectually honest conversation about science. Any conversation with him can only result in a futile excersize in redundancy and willful ignorance on his part- When showed tiem and time again that ID studies biological sciences, he simply ignores those FACTS and keeps repeatign the same lame tired out mantra of his over and over again. I’ve been on FR for several years now, and his message has not changed one iota in all those years despite ample evidneces to refute his rediculous accusations.
[[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.]
I’m afraid you’ll have to if you wish to debate him. You see- believing in a bioligcally impossible hypothesis to him is pure sicnece while the study of IC/ID- a study that investigates actual empiracle evidences that can be tested and produced and shown is a ‘religion’- nothign but pure religion- nothign but an attempt to ‘sneak religion into classrooms’ you see. An evil plot to present biological FACTS- whoops- I mean ‘religious beliefs’ into classrooms. (Coyote is apparently unaware of the true definition of ID)
Good luck debating him.
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.