Posted on 04/29/2008 8:38:43 PM PDT by Soliton
What prediction did you have in mind?
And yes, he lost the war, but his death was a result of his state of mind, not a military operation.
They don't? I don't think we needed Darwin to tell us that.
It is also my understanding that, according to Evolution, humans are just a highly advanced animals.
It would be more accurate if you left out the "just." Whether humans are something else too is not the domain of evolutionary theory.
Basically, the survival of the fittest.
Agreed. Nor will they care what scientific theories or religious principles have to say on the matter. Which is why blaming either one for the actions of evil men is a mug's game.
Was it the survival of the fittest, or was it the survival of the majority.
Even the fittest could die on the beach.
And some, less than fit person, could man a machine gun in a bunker.
So in that case, it would be, survival of those not on a beach.
MUST-SEE WWI/WWII era post here.
I’m inclined to consider the entire subject more apropos for a survey of religions and belief systems class.
A distinction between all these different belief systems and hard, replicable true science would go a long way toward making the whole discussion more honest.
And where there are historical proofs, such as the finding of Sodom, of the submerged Egyptian chariots circa the Exodus, etc. then let them be considered historial proofs, yet not science.
Sorry, pics of Hitler standing in front of a church don't make him Catholic. But they do say something about you.
Thanks for the ping!
Course of Study for ID
I. Premises & Paradigms (P&P)
A. Supernatural vs. Natural
B. Implications of P&P
II. Overview of Evolution vs. ID vs. Creation
A. Scientific implications if Evolution is real
B. Eternal implications if Creation’s God is real.
C. Compare and Contrast
III. Fiscal Motivations Behind P&P
A. Publishers
B. Professors
C. Preachers
IV. Moral Implications of P&P
V. Compared: Scientific Method vs. ALL Origins Hypotheses
I think you have demonstrated my point quite well; there is no ID apart from religion.
I prefer giving credit where credit is due; your victory is pyhrric.
If your belief system (faith in no-God) is correct, I’ve lost my investment in tithes and I have no soul or eternity in Heaven.
But if my belief system (faith in God) is correct, you can lose your eternal soul but if you repent it is not lost.
Libs always see themselves as “victims”. Boo-Hoo.
If nothing else, because evolution doesn't have beliefs. As Dawkins says in the letter that kicks off this thread,
"natural selection is a scientific theory about the way evolution works in fact. It is either true or it is not, and whether or not we like it politically or morally is irrelevant. Scientific theories are not prescriptions for how we should behave."This is something I've been wondering about recently. Let's say you're right--Hitler was a big fan of Darwin and really thought he was acting in accordance with some kind of evolutionary principles. So what? What does that have to do with whether the theory is correct or not? People have used the Theory of Relativity to argue that everything is subjective, that there is no objective reality or morality--is that an argument against the validity of the theory? Charles Manson thought a song about a playground slide was a coded message about race war--does that mean I'm supposed to stop listening to the Beatles?
And still, the theory of evolution is silent on the subject of whether humans are endowed by a creator. Not all of those who accept the theory are silent, of course, and come down on all sides of the question. The nature of the endowment isn't really for science to decide.
You either don't know what you are talking about or you are a liar.
Darwin’s hypothesis removes all moral restraint.
When you remove all moral restraint, you get people like Hitler, Harris and Klebold.
Evolution as a belief, should not be rejected because it has such admirers, but because it promotes them.
You should be aware that Darwin’s hypothesis cannot be ‘incorrect’ because it is based on philosophical assumptions, which cannot be disproved.
Something that is held to be true, but cannot be disproved, is not empirical science.
A belief is what you end up with.
If your belief system (faith in no-God) is correct, I’ve lost my investment in tithes and I have no soul or eternity in Heaven.
But if my belief system (faith in God) is correct, you can lose your eternal soul but if you repent it is not lost.
The subject was a curriculum for ID in science classes. Your suggested curriculum, as well as the above post, are laced with religion. You proved my point: ID is religion, not science. The reason there is no ID curriculum is one can't be formulated without exposing ID's religious underpinnings.
Why don't you just admit it -- you don't really care a wit about science or evolution, you just want your religion taught in schools.
As far as I know, many people have dismissed Behe’s arguments but no one has actually made any real attempt to disprove them.
If evolution is taught in a science class, it should be taught as a hypothesis and only real supporting evidence should be presented. Most texts on the subject are full of distortions and lies such as Haeckel’s Embryos and Homologies.
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.