only1percent, You and I are of aligned mind on the subject at hand. I will fully admit that I am perhaps overly sensitive to Creationism and ID in conservative thought, largely because I work in a field (computational security) in which the large-scale principles of evolution (macro-evolution- the self replication of successful patterns of information in a computational environment) is beyond proven- and is in fact a fundamental assumption and staple of my day-to-day professional problem solving. The entire notion of creationism - that the way things are, are because they were made that way, runs as antithesis to my professional requirements day to day, where I must evaluate why things are they way they are, understand the forces which allowed them to be that way, and put in place practices and procedures those organisms which I Shepard ("White-List Software") to prevail over those organisms which would take advantage of them ("Black-List Software").
Before you play "gotcha" on me, yes I understand that the computational environment I work in was quite explicitly "created" by human means. No I take absolutely no stand on the abiogenesis of the computational environment in which I exist or live (Reality, Truth, The Universe, etc), whether it be created or evolved. Those questions are simply not relevant to my professional needs, and I have not the ego to assert my personal cosmology above any other, aside to say that I am very thankful for a very strong personal relationship to a Subjective figure in my life whom I know as Jesus Christ.
But I digress, the remainder is directly directly towards tpanther (with the utmost respect and admiration for your passion for The Conservative Cause, sir)
There’s ... millions of reasons to think science has to somehow remain pure only when it’s godless.
With all due respect, there is only one reason to think that science "remains pure only when it's godless," and that is nothing less than it's fundamental academic definition:
Science is a pattern of recursively built objective observations which allows me, the objective professional, to do my job. The Almighty God is a subjective observation which allows me to find my ultimate place in his universe, and shape my macro-level behavior towards that which is beneficial to my soul and my fellow man.
Cosmology is the intellectual conclusion of existence, Science is a pile of Objective Observations which hint to us what the First Cause Question was. If it is an uncertainty and a question, it is science, if it is a Conclusion, it is cosmology. ID is a conclusion, it is a Cosmology, not a science. They are Antithetical to one another.
Or, at least in order for me to both put food on my table AND live a spiritually fulfilled life, professional intellectuals such as myself NEED them to be antithetical to one another
When you go and make assertions about "Evo-cult" or tell me that I cannot believe both the Objective practice that feeds my family and the Subjective practice that feeds my soul, you put me into a fundamental crisis of faith... which should I do? Let my children starve by not utilizing the objective observations of evolution which let me do my job, or give up on my soul and dedicate my life to continuing to put food on the table for my family? That's a horrid choice to have anyone make, is it not?
The Academic line between Cosmology and Science is the very thing that allows Men like myself to be both successful engineers (predictors of objective reality) and Faithful Children of the Lord. It is what allows us to compartmentalize between what we can observe as true, and what we Know As True.
Why you think I’m concerned about the liberal kool-aid drinkers spreading their endless lies is way beyond me though!
I fully understand that you are not concerned with this liberal cool-aid drinkers' lies, and hence, you see absolutely no problem with feeding them with further ammunition to make me question my beliefs. They tell me that I cannot both feed my family and be accepted by Our Lord. In My Heart, Jesus Tells me this isn't true, but then you agree with them. You eagerly place value judgments on the very beliefs I require to sustain this life. Your lack of concern on this matter leaves you open to be exploited by the Godless to drive His Children Away from Him. Please sir, I beg of you - consider this when you make your assertions in the future.
That is all I have to say, sorry for the rant. Good day and God Bless!
[[You and I are of aligned mind on the subject at hand. I will fully admit that I am perhaps overly sensitive to Creationism and ID in conservative thought, largely because I work in a field (computational security) in which the large-scale principles of evolution (macro-evolution- the self replication of successful patterns of information in a computational environment) is beyond proven-]]
Yes, simple patterns do exist and can ‘evolve’, as in vortexes, and other natural phenomena, however, they in no way correleate to extremely complex biological realities- it is impossible to create the metainfo seen in species via simplistic patterning of genetic ifnromation.
[[Before you play “gotcha” on me, yes I understand that the computational environment I work in was quite explicitly “created” by human means.]]
Big Big difference between ID computer systems and natural life I’m afraid- Again, what you are workign with is a simplistic form of DESIGNED metainfo, and controlled outcomes that protect the ‘random’ happenings that hte software is designed to protect. However, you can’t argue that because we design metainfo that nature is capable of creatign metainfo without a designer. The metainfo in life species is far more compelx and designed than what you work with, and if anythign, this should indicate that a designer really is behind life’s metainfo and complexities
Hoo boy!
It’s not a conservative positon to side with the godless NEA liberal agenda, it’s just not.
It’s not the conservative position to demand all others be silenced when their cult of evolution is criticized and sues dissenters into silence, science as only enforced by courts, not scientific debate; it’s just not.
And it’s certainly not the Christian position to demand of children to accept ideeas such as “there’s no place for God in science class”, indeed in schools in general, it’s just not.
Metmom has posted many links many times explaining the conservative position and that this ideology is the more successful scientific model as home-schoolers and private schoolers fare better than the NEA socialized kids.
This is not even close to being debatable either.
I forgot to address this nonsense about starving to death and not being able to put food on the table...pre-NEA science flourished, and no one starved. And we didn’t have a theocracy, no one was burned at the stake, there was no inquistion, and the dark ages didn’t replace enlightenment...(whatever that is post NEA I for one will NEVER understand!)