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 ...
Let me tell you what’s funny. What’s funny is the fact that physicists can see proof of ID, but biologists cannot.
Biologists study an aspect of nature that is “higher level” than what physicists study (in the sense that organic matter is made up of basic matter), hence ID should be even easier for them to see — but they are blind to reality.
I suggest you read Hugh Ross, Paul Davies, Fred Hoyle, or any of a number of other physicists for an explanation of the exquisite fine tuning of the basic physical parameters of the universe which essentially proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the universe was designed.
Isaac Newton was brilliant about some things and a real kook about others. He spent a ridiculous amount of his time on alchemy.
The problem with the ID people is that they have yet to set forth a falsifiable hypothesis, collect data to test it, analyze the data and publish their findings in a peer-reviewed journal. IOW, they talk (almost nonstop) but they don’t deliver what is expected of people who want to be taken seriously as scientists. Until they do, they are going to remain a fringe element.
I’ll take a wild guess that your definition of proof is rather different from mine.
And I “hpoe” you stop talking trash about people you don’t know a thing about. And I “hpoe” you enjoy seeing “all this” as a product of meaningless chance.
the truth of the matter is that there are still no true transitional fossils that would be throughout the fossil record...they would be clearly showing many different life forms morphing into others as the theory says. This is a fact that many good scientists simply acknowledge. Fact. You can try and spin it any which way, but facts don’t lie.
And you named a bunch of neat organizations that most definetly have much science info, anyone with an open mind can find that out. What you did was take the most orthodox evangelical one and posted that to try and make all of them sound the same by implication. Sorry, just doesn’t work. Try again.
I understand, but the ID people insist that ID is not creationism. They insist it is as much science as the biology I learned in college.
I was trying to say that ID won’t be considered science until its proponents conduct research consistent with the scientific method and publish it in peer-reviewed journals.
If they want to say ID is creationism, I have no problem with that whatsoever. None.
Fred Flintstone in his younger days?
And any information that is given by the privately ran Creation research programs is discounted by evolutionary people as useless as somewhere in the explanation is supernatural power. [emphasis added]
(The reason it is discounted is that it is not science, nor is it subject to the scientific method.)
When I studied evolution in grad school there were quite a few transitional fossils. There are even more now. The problem is that folks who, for religious reasons, have to discredit the theory of evolution simply proclaim -- "There shall be no transitional fossils" and close their ears to any evidence to the contrary. They are following religious beliefs, not the scientific method or the evidence.
And I don't need to "spin" it. I actually studied the fossil evidence for evolution for six years in grad school, which is more than most creationists would be willing to do.
And you named a bunch of neat organizations that most definetly have much science info, anyone with an open mind can find that out. What you did was take the most orthodox evangelical one and posted that to try and make all of them sound the same by implication. Sorry, just doesn’t work. Try again.
OK, here is another one.
The Creation Research Society has the following on their website:
The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation. The Society was organized in 1963 by a committee of ten like-minded scientists, and has grown into an organization with an international membership.
CRS Statement of Belief All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:
1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.
Does this sound like science to you? Does this sound like research?
Any time preconceived beliefs, such as these, override the scientific method, an individual is doing (or teaching) apologetics (defense of religion), not science. It doesn't matter what scientific degrees one may have; to agree to a set of standards such as these, which is common (whether explicit or implicit) in creationist circles, is to cease doing science and move into the realm of apologetics.
TOE is heaped with preconceived beliefs that have been used to establish what is called the scientific method. And that system is fenced off like others religious holy sites or relics.
Genesis says kind after kind, DNA this day demonstrates that is the case. Now somewhere out there in the realm of a preconceived belief the scientific method decided that time is the missing link to devolve or evolve into the literal living breathing evidence this day. NOT even the literal word of Genesis says there was only one fully grown male and one fully grown adult female human formed.
“Isaac Newton was brilliant about some things and a real kook about others. He spent a ridiculous amount of his time on alchemy.”
Newton was arguably the greatest physicist ever, yet kooks like you chide him for not also being a great chemist — back in what century was it?
That’s like saying that Joe Montana was not a great football player because he stunk as a linebacker.
“The problem with the ID people is that they have yet to set forth a falsifiable hypothesis, collect data to test it, analyze the data and publish their findings in a peer-reviewed journal. IOW, they talk (almost nonstop) but they don’t deliver what is expected of people who want to be taken seriously as scientists. Until they do, they are going to remain a fringe element.”
I can *always* count on seeing the same old crap being regurgitated again and again.
Let me ask you a couple of questions. Do you consider the study of abiogenesis (the origin of the first living cell) to be “scientific”? If so, please explain to me how one can disprove or “falsify” the notion that the first living cell fell into place at random.
That would be like “disproving” the idea that the Gettysburg address once spontaneously appeared on the sands of the Sahara desert by random chance.
Creation Science has always been on the fringe since scientists (many of them clergymen) recognised, in the early 19th Century, that it (then called Biblical Science) was incompatible with observation of the real world.
They had a choice between looking foolish or accepting that a literal interprtaion of the Bible might be incorrect.
Nothing new there
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.... Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. - Augustine of HippoAmerican Creationistas have chosen to look foolish
“I’ll take a wild guess that your definition of proof is rather different from mine.”
I’ll take a guess that you are pendant. I can’t “prove” it, but you sure come across as one.
The word “proof” has several valid meanings. At one extreme is mathematical proof. In a court of law, on the other hand, we talk about proof “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is obviously not mathematical proof.
In science, nothing can be proved mathematically, but we sometimes use the word proof in the less formal sense. For example, we might say the fact that the earth is not flat is “proved.”
If that is “rather different than your definition,” then I suggest you invest in a dictionary.
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.