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 ...
I don't get your point because Nations that do remember God do not last either. The Visigoths, Vandals, Ostrogoths, Austrian-Hungry empire, Franks, Burgundies, Byzantines, Spanish empire, etc. were all very Christian and all of them didn't last.
Actually if anything Christianity was a bad thing for the Romans, Their empire lasted ~1100 years before Christianity and after Constantine converted the empire to Christianity the empire fell apart within 140 years. The same can be said of the Vikings.
Kinda like THIS??
Rev 8 8:9
You stated: "My problem with the theory, in general, is that is presupposes no divine intervention. "
If presupposition of divine intervention is your requirement for a theory, are you rejecting the other theories, gravitation, for example? If not, what is the criterion that a theory require divine intervention as opposed to others which do not?
No. The consensus is that there are both factual and theoretical aspects to evolution. The factual side would, for many, include things like common descent and faunal succession. Even creationists agree, in some cases or to some extent, that there are factual aspects. "Strict" creationists often attribute common descent to rather large groupings of organisms (e.g. horses, dogs, cats, weasels, etc) in part because they tend to be biblical literalists, and this makes for more room on the ark by reducing the number of "created kinds". "Progressive" creationists, OTOH, agree that fanaul succession is a fact.
Personally, I prefer a more restricted usage of "fact," where a scientific fact is defined as a "well confirmed observation." In that usage something like faunal succession (the claim that varying assemblages of species have inhabited the earth over time) would be an inference from facts, and the phenomenological aspect of faunal succession as found in the fossil record would be a law (a descriptive generalization of many facts).
All, I think, would agree that the explanatory aspects of evolution (the mechanisms, the why and how stuff, like natural selection) are theoretical.
Are you sure they remained "very Christian"? I recall some of them were Arian Christians, which was considered a heretical form by the Catholics. The Vandals declined under the rule of Huneric, the Byzantines under Justin, and Burgundy under Charles the Bold. Spain overextended itself in creating its empire (as did the British), but it has survived (so far). I am unsure why you included the Franks and Austria-Hungary.
Actually if anything Christianity was a bad thing for the Romans, Their empire lasted ~1100 years before Christianity and after Constantine converted the empire to Christianity the empire fell apart within 140 years.
The cause of the fall of Rome is widely contested. Gibbon blamed it on Christianity, but most modern scholars disagree. According to Weber, Christianity was part of Rome for its last 400 years (where did you get 140?), which led him to assert that four centuries was a long incubation period for a fatal illness, especially considering the rise and fall of the British Empire spanned only about 200 years. It is also worth noting that Christianity had lost some or most of its influence near the end. Pirenne blamed the fall on the rise of the Islamic faith in the east during the 7th and 8th centuries. Some even stated the Empire never really fell, but was transformed. But the most prevalent theory for the downfall appears to be economic in nature. Rome, like modern America, built a unsustainable welfare state (a welfare state is socialism, not Christian).
Interesting view - no proof in science. This implies it is all a house of cards based on assumptions.
As to your grue, you were merely stating an observation. Then used the fallacious logic example in reasoning for your proof, all dogs have four legs, a cat has four legs, therefor a a cat is a dog.
There is a theory of receptor mediated intracellular transmission. Cells can send signals to each each other and receptors are the receiving unit. To prove this theory, neurons were examined, receptors were found, separated from the membrane and the structure described. Various transmitters were found that binded to receptors. A signal was sent down one neuron, observed as it continued down the next, transmitters were recovered from the synapse. Receptors were removed - the propagation of signal failed. Receptors were blocked with antagonists, substance that binds to a receptor without causing the receptor action, and transmission failed. The neurotransmitter was applied to other neurons and induced transmission. The protein cascade inside the cell that caused the propagation of signal with receptor binding was discovered. All this, and more, added up to proof of the receptor mediated theory in the practical world.
In a pure theoretical world, your definitions are usable.
No, I have simply taken the position that your definition of proof is to rigorous for practical science, and is that of the abstract.
Creationists don't analyze, they believe.
One, she is stating her opinion. I was say for a larger discussion that you should have a basic understanding of the mechanism.
Yet, if you observe a ball A drop and bounce only 5 times. You drop it again and it bounces only five times. Every time you drop it, it only bounces five times. You may not understand a mechanism of why, but your observation that ball A bounces five times is a fact.
There are many complex theories in science with complex mechanisms, not every scientist or every professor could explain the detailed mechanisms, it doesn't make them less true.
Ok - Cassini dropped.
"Golden Rule" is Christian morality, in a nutshell.
There is a big difference between Christmas choral shows and requiring all students to profess a certain belief as stated by a certain denomination. That would go against the First Amendment without a doubt - "Madison then spoke, and said that "he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience." " and Thomas Cooley " Undoubtedly the spirit of the Constitution will require, in all these cases, that care be taken to avoid discrimination [472 U.S. 38, 106] in favor of or against any one religious denomination or sect; "
If your school required all students to attend services and in opening prayers, Christmas services, etc. promoted one sect, then it violated the Constitution and that practice was no doubt, stopped.
Give us an example of a successful, self-sustaining secular nation with reasonable longevity
Depends on your definitions - the US attempted to establish a secular government with a nonsecular people. The Roman Republic and Roman Empire lasted for about 600 years without a state religion, with discussion as to how much the enforced Christian Empire had on the decline. China lasted for a couple thousand years with only the State, with the ultimate representation of the Emperor, as a god. Secular? But if you look at nations with one state enforced religion, you see a pattern of upheaval, England, well, most of Europe, collapse of the Mohammedan Empire. I'll have to see what's out there on that when I have time.
I guess "Laws" need not apply, huh?
Laws and theories are interchangeable words as has been discussed before. The charge that theory implies uncertainty is a common and refuted charge from creationists.
What I was implying was that those who teach evolution, and at the same time deny the existence of, and the teaching of, a creator, are junk scientists as well as dangerous, arrogant fools who are assisting in the destruction of the social fabric of our nation. [snip] I don't agree with the fundamentalists. I believe evolution should be taught in schools; but as a theory rather than the "Gospel according to Science".
One of the main points from the opposition of the creationist movement is that as a scientific theory, evolution belongs in the science class and as an issue of theology, creationism belongs in the church or Sunday school class.
I have never come across a teacher or professor who has made the statement that evolution proves the nonexistence of God. That is not how evolution is taught. It is a reaction from literalists who make that assumption. They are wrong, and in my opinion, creation and evolution don't cancel each other out by definition - but they do not belong side by side in a science class or textbook.
I believe evolution should be taught in schools; but as a theory rather than the "Gospel according to Science".
It is taught as a theory, being a theory is that wide body of knowledge on a subject with observations, experimental data, postulates, etc. A theory is a more concrete things that 'oh it's just a theory' and has it's own evolution of thought. But it isn't taught as a Gospel - those are taught in churches, at least the four 'accepted' ones are.
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.