“Yes, but as I pointed out, it’s not the scientists that concern me, rather the NEA and ACLU and other godless liberal types that have hijacked the theory to their own ends.”
—The NEA is simply listening to the scientists as to what should be taught in science class. I’m not sure in what way you think the theory has been hijacked.
“After all, how many godless libs do you know that support or embrace creationism?”
—How many “godless libs” do you know that are geocentricts? I’ve been to hundreds of geocentric websites and have read literature by geocentric clubs, and they ALL have been pro-Creationists. Does that mean that heliocentricism is godless?
Evolutionists are made up of the vast majority of scientists of the past century-plus of all backgrounds, religions, political philosophies, etc, the world over. Creationism is largely an American phenomena, of a particular religion of a particular persuasion. I think the evidence is pretty clear as to which side is driven primarily by religious/political reasons rather than the science.
(me)”I’m not sure why you would say that an intelligent designer is a better explanation than evolution when there’s nothing about evolution that says there isn’t an intelligent creator.
“(you)”Ok, so put your money where your mouth is and show me where evolution in public school textbooks supports an intelligent creator then.”
—Where does atomic theory mention an intelligent creator? Or germ theory? Or gravitational theory? Or relativity, QM, heliocentricity, etc? You’re again singling out evolution and criticizing it for being like every other scientific theory.
(me)“Neither ID nor “intelligent design” are theories (I’m not sure which one you meant there) as neither are falsifiable.”
(you)”So what? Neither are multiverse theory, string theory and probably other examples.”
—Last I checked, string theory isn’t taught in public schools (albeit that’s getting longer and longer ago – but I’d be very surprised if it’s taught in public school today). When I took physics in high school, it wasn’t even mentioned in passing – and the theory had been around for a couple decades. Even today it’s probably believed by a minority of scientists (although that may be a close call) despite how convincing the mathematics looks (or so I hear, it’s certainly beyond my ability to test that out). If the mathematics seems to work so well, why all the hesitation of scientists to accept it? Because of the problem of falsifiability. Many scientists refuse to call it a theory and instead call it a “mathematical model” or “framework”. Many scientists do say it’s falsifiable, but just really difficult to do so with current technology, and won’t think much of it until it passes some real tests (the LHC may possibly be able to test it, but that seems iffy). So you didn’t help your case.
(A multiverse is something proposed by a number of theories, such as string theory, and Smolin’s theory, and Everett’s theory, but isn’t really a theory in of itself.)
“Except that you overlook you have to have faith that we came from the same ancestor as apes, since there’s absolutely no evidence that we did. Evolution is as much if not more so faith than ID/creationism.”
—I can’t imagine a better series of fossils spanning from the very ape-like Australopithecines to modern man showing a gradual change in form of ape to man. And in chronological order no less. And thus I believe based on the thousands of fossils (and genetic evidence) that we have a common ancestor as apes. It’s not faith, just a belief – it could be wrong. I’d be quite surprised if it were wrong though.
(me)”Do the engineers concern themselves with how the laws of nature came about before building the bridge?”
(you)”Again, do bridge builders ignore the expanse they’re bridging, as well as the make-up of the soil, etc., along with the purpose for building the bridge in the first place? And asking an unrelated question is no answer of this question. Of course I understand your desperate need to ignore the question. I really do.”
-Scientists with a theory go digging for the information that’s relevant to that theory, just as engineers go digging for information relevant to building the bridge. You seemed incredulous when I mentioned that how the laws of nature came about is not relevant to evolution, and then you brought up the engineering example, so my question was hardly unrelated. Why would the origination of the laws of nature be any more important to evolution than to bridge building?
“If you care about the science then where are all your posts combating man-made global warming, string and multiverse theory? Or how about the tax-payer funded scientific studies over the effects of prayer, etc.?”
—String theory hasn’t come up to often, but the few times I’ve mentioned it here I wasn’t too flattering of it. As I mentioned in another thread or two, I’m rooting against it and hoping for something simpler that doesn’t require me to get a phd in mathematics to understand . Other than that, it’s a bit too far over my head to really comment on. As for man-made global warming – most of the arguments I’ve seen against it are completely inane, but I’m still pretty far from being completely convinced of it. But I’ve argued against the bad arguments from both sides (I don’t think I have on FR though, IIRC. The couple of times I looked at threads on global warming, they didn’t seem very ummm...very conducive to a productive correspondence. :-) )
(me)“Of course, we NEED there to be life in order for there to be biological evolution, but I can’t really imagine anything we could discover about the origin of life that would affect the theory of evolution.”
(you)”And the only way a person can make such an absurd statement is to conclude the results before ever hearing the arguments. In actuality, if one concludes that the origins of life is due to an intelligently designed creation, evolution, in it’s current form as a vehicle to promote shameless dishonest liberal secular humanism simply dissolves for the most part. So again, I do understand the hand waving and desperation.”
—If we discovered that life came about via intelligent design, no one would be happier than me. But that would have no affect on what I think of the theory of evolution which says that evolution occurs via the mechanisms of mutation, selection, etc. That’s what evolution is to me, and I got that from reading material from the leading scientists and journals of the past century and a half. As I said before, you may have gotten your info elsewhere than I have. I’m beginning to think you are confusing how some people are using evolution with what evolution actually says and is. I suppose secularism would take a hit if we found out that God created life, but finding out that God did anything would probably have the same effect.
(me)“The reason why not just “pretty much anything” is presented in science class has nothing to do with what evolution is “strong enough” to “stand up to”, it has to do with what’s science. ID isn’t science; baseball isn’t science; “pretty much” most things aren’t science. If an actual theory of ID were formulated, and it became a theory commonly believed by scientists, than by all means it should then be presented in science class – even if I don’t believe it.”
(you)”Then if this is true, evolution along with string theory, multiverse theory and so on should all be removed from science class. And again, the ignoring and hand-waving merely illustrate the various problems I’m addressing: the blatant hypocrisy, the double-standards, the disconnect of acknowledging a creator via ignoring Him, indoctrinating as opposed to educating children and so on.”
—I don’t think (I could be wrong) that string theory and multiverse theory are taught in science class (at least in public school). I have no idea what the rest of your comment was about.
(me)“Wait, you really don’t believe that snowflakes form naturally? Wow, I certainly didn’t expect that. So are the scientists who are trying to figure out how snowflakes form godless...”
(you)”Where’d you get that from?”
—When I said that Peltzer’s arguments against abiogenesis could equally be used to argue against snowflakes forming naturally, you actually agreed that they DO apply. How else should I have taken that than you believe that, like abiogenesis, snowflake formation can’t happen naturally? Peltzer was arguing that abiogenesis ISN’T like snowflake formation (presuming he believes that snowflakes form naturally), while you seemed to argue it WAS like snowflake formation (meaning either that you thought that abiogenesis was likewise a natural event, which I already knew wasn’t true, or that snowflakes can’t form naturally and require direct intervention from God for each snowflake).
Snowflakes form because of the laws of nature – it’s a natural chemical reaction. Peltzer’s argument is that abiogenesis, unlike snowflakes, can’t form naturally. Those that believe that abiogenesis occurred, believe it did so because of the laws of nature and that it was chemistry – just as with snowflakes, albeit more complicated. And they are attempting to find out what those chemical reactions were and in what conditions – just as those studying snowflake formation are attempting to find out how snowflakes form. A lot of progress has been made in the area of abiogenesis, although there are still a lot of mysteries – but such is also the case with snowflakes. And neither the theories of snowflake formation or abiogenesis are atheistic for not mentioning an intelligent creator.
“All of this is simple projection about what’s going on in public schools with “twisting” and “pet ideas”, ignoring that no one appointed godless secular humanist liberals to have the keys to science, or the gate-keepers to what is or isn’t “acceptable” science.”
—How about if we listen to the scientists? You know, that group that many of which are Christian? If I was putting together material for a science class, that’s what I’d do. What would you do?
“And I can’t count how many times I’ve seen right here on FR the ACLU is referred to as the Anti-Christian liberties union, but I’d be willing to bet you’ve somehow managed to either ignore this or miss this completely as well.”
—Sure I’ve seen the ACLU described as anti-Christian. They are on the list with PBS, the post office, democrats, republicans, the Roman Catholic Church, protestants, evolutionists, Creationists (yes, them too), Disney, Hollywood, the media, Europe, Canada, Wal-Mart, Darwin-Fish, Linux, etc.
The ACLU has actually been a major force defending religious rights (such as the right for students to pray and speak of their Christian beliefs when giving commencement speeches, and to give Christian quotes in yearbooks, and to have Christian symbols on private property, and to pray on public land, etc etc) but when they do so it’s usually ignored by Christians. (I always get a good laugh when I hear stories about the ACLJ racing to defend someone’s religious rights – only to find that the person is already a client of the ACLU.)
An ACLU defender. And you evos wonder why you're labeled as liberals.
Unreal.
Riiiiiiight. Scientists were the ones that decided to be politically correct in virtually ALL courses from history to science to whatever. Who knew?
Evolutionists are made up of the vast majority of scientists of the past century-plus of all backgrounds, religions, political philosophies, etc, the world over. Creationism is largely an American phenomena, of a particular religion of a particular persuasion. I think the evidence is pretty clear as to which side is driven primarily by religious/political reasons rather than the science.
And once again, it's time for you to get that movie 'Expelled'. There's a good segment in there about the Polish scientist that explains it's a particularly American phenomenon to sue evo-dissenters into silence, and stomp God out of the discussion.
—Where does atomic theory mention an intelligent creator? Or germ theory? Or gravitational theory? Or relativity, QM, heliocentricity, etc? You’re again singling out evolution and criticizing it for being like every other scientific theory.
All of these were and are utilized in studying space flight and eventually making the entire enterprize possible:
The Earth reminded us of a Christmas tree ornament hanging in the blackness of space. As we got farther and farther away it diminished in size. Finally it shrank to the size of a marble, the most beautiful marble you can imagine. That beautiful, warm, living object looked so fragile, so delicate, that if you touched it with a finger it would crumble and fall apart. Seeing this has to change a man, has to make a man appreciate the creation of God and the love of God. - James Irwin, USA
Obviously, he isn't alone:
Frank Borman was commander of the first space crew to travel beyond the Earth's orbit. Looking down on the earth from 250,000 miles away, Borman radioed back a message, quoting Genesis One: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." As he later explained, "I had an enormous feeling that there had to be a power greater than any of us-that there was a God, that there was indeed a beginning."
It's quite obvious to these astronauts (a fine example of a scientist if there ever was one btw), who are more than capable of putting all of the above you mentioned together and understanding ALL of them mention a creator, in actuality.
(A multiverse is something proposed by a number of theories, such as string theory, and Smolin’s theory, and Everett’s theory, but isn’t really a theory in of itself.)
Really?
The Multiverse theory for the universe has been a recently accepted theory that describes the continuous formation of universes through the collapse of giant stars and the formation of black holes. With each of these black holes there is a new point of singularity and a new possible universe. As Rees describes it, "Our universe may be just one element - one atom, as it were - in an infinite ensemble: a cosmic archipelago. Each universe starts with its own big bang, acquires a distinctive imprint (and its individual physical laws) as it cools, and traces out its own cosmic cycle. The big bang that triggered our entire universe is, in this grander perspective, an infinitesimal part of an elaborate structure that extends far beyond the range of any telescopes." (Rees 3) This puts our place in the Multiverse into a small spectrum. While the size of the earth in relation to the sun is minuscule, the size of the sun, the solar system, the galaxy, and even the universe, could pale in comparison to this proposed Multiverse. It would be a shift in thinking that may help explain our big bang theory and possibly give light to the idea of parallel universes.
http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu/Projects/moderncosmo/Sean's%20mutliverse.html
—I can’t imagine a better series of fossils spanning from the very ape-like Australopithecines to modern man showing a gradual change in form of ape to man.
Well that's just it, you did very much imagine it. That's the point! It shows no such thing!
Those that believe that abiogenesis occurred, believe it did so because of the laws of nature and that it was chemistry – just as with snowflakes, albeit more complicated.
No, not more complicated, but with intelligent design from a creator. As with the astronauts this is quite obvious. For someone that says "no one would be happier if life came from intelligent design" as you put it, you sure have a peculiar way of showing it! Kind of like posting on FR all this tme but oblivious to the fact that the ACLU, NEA, etc. are what they are.
—How about if we listen to the scientists? You know, that group that many of which are Christian? If I was putting together material for a science class, that’s what I’d do. What would you do?
Well again, you're making my point for me!
www.dissentfromdarwin.org.
I've always been for hearing both sides and getting all the information.
gun:”—The NEA is simply listening to the scientists as to what should be taught in science class. I’m not sure in what way you think the theory has been hijacked.”
The NEA is one of the most rabidly, anti-Christian, actively anti-conservative organizations going.
If you’re going to be making excuses for them, you ought to either find out what their real agenda is, or be prepared to live with the label of liberal.
The NEA and ACLU are essentially bed buddies and are not known for taking traditionally conservative stands on much of anything.
Read and learn......
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/nea/index?tab=articles
NEA General Counsel Complains of Attacks from “Right-Wing Bastards”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2289108/posts