Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution Critics Are Under Fire For Flaws in 'Intelligent Design'
Wall Street Journal ^ | Feb 13, 2004 | SHARON BEGLEY

Posted on 02/13/2004 3:14:29 AM PST by The Raven

Edited on 04/22/2004 11:51:05 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Even before Darwin, critics attacked the idea of biological evolution with one or another version of, "Evolve this!"

Whether they invoked a human, an eye, or the whip-like flagella that propel bacteria and sperm, the contention that natural processes of mutation and natural selection cannot explain the complexity of living things has been alive and well for 200 years.


(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creationuts; crevolist; evolution; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 621-628 next last
To: unspun
Thank you so very much for your excellent post, unspun!

Beware the corruption of meaning and the redefinition of words. There are many ways to be wrong. That fact that there is wrong doesn't however mar the clarity of what is true.

Agreed!

381 posted on 02/15/2004 8:21:15 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
I am a scientist, Sonny. Evolution is junk science, in the same league with the so-called "Big Bang" and "Cassini Divisions

LOL!! What kind of scientist - er scientologist are you??? No self-respecting scientist could have unloaded that tripe with a straight face, Daddy. Evolution is the product of long and careful observation and experimentation. The Big Bang amasses more evidence each year. We even have pictures of the Cassisni divisions, with a decent telescope you could see them too - but I guess you disbelieve the pictures of a round Earth too with your kind of fuzzy thinking so you would be blind to any real thought process. There is no capability of science or scientific understanding in you - it clear that nothing can exist outside of your narrow minded interpretation of your Bible. You are NOT a scientist.

A scientist can evaluate data objectively. You fail miserably in that.

That was not true from the beginning of our nation. It occurred for the first time during the middle of the last century (mid 1900's) via the usurpation of power by tyrannical judges. Your kind cannot win by constitutional methods (via a lawful constitutional amendment), so you resort to judicial tyranny to force your will on the people.

Wrong- yet again. The early American school system depended upon private schools where it is perfectly fine to teach one particular brand of religion. Very early, most schooling depending upon home or church, again content is not an issue. The first public schools were funded by business so, as Horace Mann said, that they would have more intelligent and productive workers. The early schools were for learning skills for better employment not for indoctrination.

The first public schools came out of Massachusetts and New York where the first debates of religion in schools started. Charges were that the schools were to Protestant or that the state was funding Catholic schools. Debates that involved Horace Mann and John Huges. New York City, torn by the debate in the early 1800s, made the schools secular if they were to receive tax dollars. This set the trend for the nation.

Teaching one, and only one "approved" religion, in a public school is anti-Constitutional even to the most conservative. Conservatives understand this part of the first amendment, not to be confused with it being "ok" to having Christmas decorations in the town square or a stature with the Ten Commandments in a courthouse. However, teaching Genesis in the classroom is not constitutional unless that classroom is a Sunday school class or a private school.

It is the fanatic that demands his religion be taught to all students in all schools by government law and that any "heretical" science be banned.

Don't confuse Christianity with Islam, sonny. It make you look even more stupid than you already look.

Sorry, Daddy, fanatics fighting for a fundamentalist theocratic state are all of the same stripe. Same goals, same motivations. Schools in fundamentalist Islamic nations are only allowed to teach materials that are in accordance to the teachings of fundamentalist Islam.

The exact same thing you propose for this nation.

You claim that you do not want people ramming their beliefs down your throat; but what you are really saying is it is okay for you to ram your beliefs down others throat. You are a hypocrit.

Wrong yet again. A science class in a public school has an obligation to teach current scientific though and knowledge - not science from two or three hundred years ago and not science vetted by one particular church view. If you want your kids to only be exposed to church approved views, educate them at home or in a school run by that church.

To suppress knowledge from all children because it goes against your narrow religious beliefs in a dishonorable disservice to those who believe differently.

Many people came to this nation to escape the oppression you demand.

That is another tool of the tyrant: labeling anyone with a belief in Christ as a Nazi.

How easy lies escape your lips. Notice I have never said anyone who believes in Christ - I have said those who have one particular, narrow, fundamentalist view who are trying to force all others to believe only as they do. Calling anything that disagrees with their singular viewpoint a "heresy" and demanding it be banned.

But anyone with half-a-brain knows that totalitarianism is an ungodly disease, brought on by tyranny of various stripes, such as communism, facism, etc

Tyranny is an ungodly disease and how odd it is that certain people professing to be doing "God's work" have the same aims as the worst of all tyranny - the suppression of freedom of thought and the freedom to learn without a ruler telling them what can't be learned or discussed.

You advocate the suppression by government edict the learning of a scientific subject because it is not approved, it is heresy, it must be banned. That is the essence of tyranny.

-- never true Christianity.

There's the magic phrase - The only "true" Christianity is the one that you advocate - all others are false. Can you not see fanatical call of hate, prejudice, and destruction in that.

In fact, history has shown 26 times to be precise how nations that rebelled against God were destroyed. You really do need to learn some history, sonny, before making any more foolish statements.

Twenty six times, oh Daddy-boy? Not 25 or 27, but precisely 26? What were these 26 nations "that rebelled against God"? Did they lob mortars at the angels?

The really sad part is that you believe that evolution is rebelling against God, and that all those Christians who really are scientists and know that evolution is a genuine process must be some sort of false Christians that must be suppressed for the good of the nation.

Christianity and science are not mutually exclusive - but that is a concept that your rigid stricture that poses for thought won't allow.

382 posted on 02/15/2004 8:27:04 PM PST by Ophiucus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: donh
To pretend that the founders had no strong notions of denuding churches of the power to be authorized state religions, in even the most trivial matters, is to fly in the face of the evidence of the 1st amendment and the writings of Jefferson, Adams, and Madison.

Okay, sonny. Give us the evidence from the writings of Jefferson, Adams, and Madison. We eagerly await. (while you are at it, explain Franklin Delano Roosevelt when he led the nation in prayer over the radio).

... I suggest you look at the actual documents, such as the Bill of Rights, or the Federalist Papers, or the correspondences of the two main culprits--Madison and Jefferson, rather than at some half-baked creationist web-site pulling quotes from Washington's barber's second cousin.

Uh, Sonny, I have read the Bill of Rights, and it clearly reinforces my stance. Jefferson was not a "main culprit" in the creation of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Federalist Papers (however, Jefferson did declare that George Mason was the author of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, from his letter to Henry Lee on May 8, 1825).

Jefferson, in his letters, agreed with me. However, I am curious where you got your notions that he agreed with you. Why don't you enlighten us!

By the way, the letters that Jefferson wrote to Madison (that I am aware of), were:


383 posted on 02/15/2004 8:37:47 PM PST by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%; All
I'll let him speak for himself in this article from 1997:

Thank you, you are correct - agnostic Jew with a qualification:"I am not, personally, a believer or a religious man in any sense of institutional commitment or practice. But I have enormous respect for religion," The "institutional commitment" sounds like he turned away from the organized or dogmatic aspects of religion but kept his respect for the spiritual side. I know a few 'agnostics' like that - like the religion but not the church.

Interesting point in this article:

At lunch, the priests called me over to their table to pose a problem that had been troubling them. What, they wanted to know, was going on in America with all this talk about "scientific creationism"? One asked me: "Is evolution really in some kind of trouble. and if so, what could such trouble be? I have always been taught that no doctrinal conflict exists between evolution and Catholic faith, and the evidence for evolution seems both entirely satisfactory and utterly overwhelming."

Question - Are Jesuit priest scientists "true" Christians? Can a "true" Christian hold that evolution is "both true and entirely compatible with Christian belief"?

384 posted on 02/15/2004 8:57:25 PM PST by Ophiucus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: donh
Not if your meter stick has fine enough gradations.

The point was it depends on the framework of observations. You don't use micrometer calipers when a meter stick is significant for your measurements.

385 posted on 02/15/2004 9:05:00 PM PST by Ophiucus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: donh
You have learned sloppy usage, in your little corner of science's realm, and you keep insisting your sloppy usage is some kind of established dogma. It is not.

Yep, sloppy enough for Science, Journal of Neuroscience, JAMA, American Journal of Physiology...we're known as a sloppy lot.

It's just a suggestion that you might want to lighten up on the usage. If it can be accepted as in a peer seminar setting and peer reviewed journals as proof, then it is accepted usage as proof.

To the general public, calling something a theory is as misleading as calling something a law. The law of gravity is incontrovertible but the theory of evolution is immediately assumed as an uncertainty.

386 posted on 02/15/2004 9:13:55 PM PST by Ophiucus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: donh
biological science does not rely on inductive reasoning about experimentation and discoveries to increase our confidence in theories? Say again?

We've been over that in previous posts - it uses both. Even to develop proof of theories. ;-)

387 posted on 02/15/2004 9:17:22 PM PST by Ophiucus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
do you have a better explanation for the observed recession of galaxies than the Big Bang?
do you have a better explanation for the observed microwave background radiation than the Big Bang?
do you have a better explanation for the observed abundances of hydrogen, deuterium, helium and lithium than the Big Bang
It's just there. ;-) Just like the dinosaur fossils were created deep in the strata and "aged" to look old to our tests.
388 posted on 02/15/2004 9:34:06 PM PST by Ophiucus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: Ophiucus
No self-respecting scientist could have unloaded that tripe with a straight face, Daddy. Evolution is the product of long and careful observation and experimentation. The Big Bang amasses more evidence each year. We even have pictures of the Cassisni divisions, with a decent telescope you could see them too.

Uh, sonny, Voyager proved that Cassini was 100% wrong. Junk science is messin' with your brain. You might want to consider the possibility that if so-called "scientists" were so wrong with Cassini Divisions (which, if correct, would have occurred locally, in our solar system, and in our time frame), then maybe they are just plain foolish in their so-called Big Bang theory, which supposedly occurred no-where, and gillions of years ago.

A scientist can evaluate data objectively. You fail miserably in that.

Like I did with Cassini? You are pitiful.

New York City, torn by the debate in the early 1800s, made the schools secular if they were to receive tax dollars. This set the trend for the nation.

Wrong again, sonny. As late as the 1960's public schools taught morality via Christianity (maybe not in New York City, but New York City was always perverse). The 10 commandments and the golden rule were commonplace on the walls of public schools.

Sorry, Daddy, fanatics fighting for a fundamentalist theocratic state are all of the same stripe. Same goals, same motivations. Schools in fundamentalist Islamic nations are only allowed to teach materials that are in accordance to the teachings of fundamentalist Islam.

You have been thoroughly brainwashed, sonny. When Christians controlled our public schools (and our nation's morality, in general) you could go on vacation without locking your house; for the life of your car without locking the doors; children had nothing to worry about, at school and at play, except for an occasional fistfight; you could count the number of loose girls in high school on your fingers; and lawyers were not getting filthy rich suing everyone who was trying to make society a better place (e.g., doctors, industrialists, public schools, you name it). Since your perversion took over, our children have to be constantly watched to keep them from harm, our daughters have been turned into whores, our homes and properties are threatened with invasion, doctors are so afraid of lawsuits that they do a bewildering array of unnecessary procedures, and industrialists are so threatened they simply pick up and move to other nations. Fundamentialist atheism (which includes junk science fanatics and Islam) is the real danger.

Tyranny is an ungodly disease and how odd it is that certain people professing to be doing "God's work" have the same aims as the worst of all tyranny - the suppression of freedom of thought and the freedom to learn without a ruler telling them what can't be learned or discussed.

Fine, then let schools teach intelligent design, or is that too much "freedom of thought" for you? If you are anything but a hypocrit you will be vehemently supporting the teaching of intelligent design.

Twenty six times, oh Daddy-boy? Not 25 or 27, but precisely 26? What were these 26 nations "that rebelled against God.

I thought you were some sort of history expert. I guess not.

The really sad part is that you believe that evolution is rebelling against God, and that all those Christians who really are scientists and know that evolution is a genuine process must be some sort of false Christians that must be suppressed for the good of the nation.

Where did you get that idea. I think everyone should learn about the THEORY of evolution, intelligent design, and God's word. Freedom of thought should always reign supreme. What I despise are arrogant bigots, such as evolutionists, who claim their way is the only way. When I run into such fools, I always confront them and challenge them.

389 posted on 02/15/2004 9:41:08 PM PST by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau; Ophiucus
Uh, sonny, Voyager proved that Cassini was 100% wrong.

Wrong in what? Cite your sources. The Cassini division is real.

the THEORY of evolution,

You do know what the word "theory" means in science don't you?

And lose the "sonny" stuff. It is rude.

390 posted on 02/15/2004 10:27:29 PM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
If you are anything but a hypocrit you will be vehemently supporting the teaching of intelligent design.

In rhetoric class, not science class.

In science class, all that's needed is the fact that *any* possible observation is consistent with ID, therefore it is not a scientific theory. (It is unable to make predictions). This is in contrast to evolution, which makes specific, testable predictions.

The students will also learn that ID/creationists do *no* research - all they do is attack standard biology.

In rhetoric class, the students can use ID/creationism as a case study in dishonesty - arguments from made-up "quotations", misleading, out-of-context "quotations", the fallacy of equivocation, the fallacy of using inappropriate authority, and so forth.

391 posted on 02/15/2004 11:02:43 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: donh
Einstein destroyed the objectively fixed universe that Newton's theories require. A universe in which time can pass at a different rate for one person than another, is not remotely the same universe Newton projected.

Well, not exactly. Einstein actually preserved an objectively real universe, one which all observers could agree upon, notwithstanding the relativity of their motions and thus their perceptions of time. The Newtonian universe wouldn't have been proposed if it had been known that observers everywhere in the universe perceive the passage of time differently. Only relativity (a horribly named theory in my opinion) holds it all together.

392 posted on 02/16/2004 4:02:06 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American

Big Bang...

Isn't that the same as....


"Let there be LIGHT!"

?
393 posted on 02/16/2004 4:50:18 AM PST by Elsie (When the avalanche starts... it's too late for the pebbles to vote....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: Ophiucus
I have always been taught that no doctrinal conflict exists between evolution and Catholic faith...

True, so far; since the pope has embraced the concept: but faiths OTHER than the Roman Catholic Church DO have a problem with it.

394 posted on 02/16/2004 4:53:27 AM PST by Elsie (When the avalanche starts... it's too late for the pebbles to vote....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
They tend to actually BELIEVE the Bible that ONE man, the FIRST man, was responsible for sin entering into the world.

Evolution advocates say that there was no 'first' man, but a gradual accumulation of human like traits into the creature we now have described as Sapien.
395 posted on 02/16/2004 4:58:46 AM PST by Elsie (When the avalanche starts... it's too late for the pebbles to vote....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
I guess if you don't get it you call the other person ignorant.
396 posted on 02/16/2004 5:33:39 AM PST by biblewonk (I must try to answer all bible questions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
LOL, those are funny!
397 posted on 02/16/2004 5:35:44 AM PST by biblewonk (I must try to answer all bible questions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Not quite. Photons were not free to travel (what we commonly call the electromagnetic spectrum or light) until about 300,000 years after the Big Bang. The photons existed, however they were "bouncing" amongst the electrons and could not freely travel. (In other words, the universe was opaque prior to this event that is called "matter radiation decoupling")

This "allows" us only to "See" to about 300,000 years after the big bang happened.
398 posted on 02/16/2004 6:45:36 AM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
My genes came from my parents.

Not all your genes are exact copies form your parents.

399 posted on 02/16/2004 7:01:58 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
400. Hey, RA. Placemarker.
400 posted on 02/16/2004 7:05:49 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 621-628 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson