Posted on 01/20/2005 12:54:58 PM PST by Jay777
ANN ARBOR, MI The small town of Dover, Pennsylvania today became the first school district in the nation to officially inform students of the theory of Intelligent Design, as an alternative to Darwins theory of Evolution. In what has been called a measured step, ninth grade biology students in the Dover Area School District were read a four-paragraph statement Tuesday morning explaining that Darwins theory is not a fact and continues to be tested. The statement continued, Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwins view. Since the late 1950s advances in biochemistry and microbiology, information that Darwin did not have in the 1850s, have revealed that the machine like complexity of living cells - the fundamental unit of life- possessing the ability to store, edit, and transmit and use information to regulate biological systems, suggests the theory of intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of life and living cells.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm representing the school district against an ACLU lawsuit, commented, Biology students in this small town received perhaps the most balanced science education regarding Darwins theory of evolution than any other public school student in the nation. This is not a case of science versus religion, but science versus science, with credible scientists now determining that based upon scientific data, the theory of evolution cannot explain the complexity of living cells.
It is ironic that the ACLU after having worked so hard to prevent the suppression of Darwins theory in the Scopes trial, is now doing everything it can to suppress any effort to challenge it, continued Thompson.
(Excerpt) Read more at thomasmore.org ...
I reckon nobody has a monopoly on that kind of behavior. I've always thought honesty is the greatest academic virtue, but a semblance of honesty its most dangerous vice.
Holy Grail or another evolutionary tale?
"The fossil generating all the excitement is quite different from any Ediacaran fossil found to datequite simply, its believed to be a fully-fledged vertebrate (an animal with a backbone). Only 6 cm (2.4 inches) long, it has also been shown to have had muscles, a fin on its back and a head. And yet its supposedly 560 million years old, a time when it was previously believed vertebrates had not evolved yet! This is so stunning, that when it was first mooted in the press in late 2003, most evolutionists denied that it could be a vertebrate. Vertebrates were just not supposed to be there. ....
"It would have been too much to hope for the evolutionized media to acknowledge the fact that this find is great news for creationists (because with a stroke it appears to wipe out all and any previous multicelled fossils as candidates for the ancestry of all vertebrates). Instead, this is being beat up [touted] in such a way that the public will mostly get the impression that it somehow supports evolution! (The ABC report referred to even said, in what would have to rate as irrational exuberance even to an informed evolutionist, that this fossil could be the elusive Holy Grail that scientists dream ofshowing the origin of life itself.1 Huh?)"
The following article on the Cambrian asks the following:
"Why havent new animal body plans continued to crawl out of the evolutionary cauldron during the past hundreds of millions of years?"
Think about it. Every phylla is represented in Cambrian rock which y'all claim was 50 million years, but not a single new phylla has been generated since then. And according to y'all, it's been 500 million years.
The following article on the Cambrian asks the following:
"Why havent new animal body plans continued to crawl out of the evolutionary cauldron during the past hundreds of millions of years?"
Think about it. Every phylla is represented in Cambrian rock which y'all claim was 50 million years, but not a single new phylla has been generated since then. And according to y'all, it's been 500 million years.
It's pretty bad, no doubt about it. But -- wouldja believe it? -- there are far worse. In my service on the evolution threads, I've seen most of them. At least answersingenesis has this article:
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use.
All the rest of that website is, like all creationist websites, utterly worthless. (And creationists still use all of the "don't use" arguments anyway.)
Since it has not been authenticated, it is clearly the right thing to do even if you strongly suspect it was a real "white paper" on the basis of Johnson's book.
It seems to me a Nominalist's propositions would have to be based on his own mental abstractions. Your original statement and its rephrasing would apply in either case (Nomalist or Realist):
2. the truth or falsity of a proposition follows from the definitions and/or assumptions upon which it is based
**Darwin never discussed the Origin of Life in a single published book or article in his life.**
So, he discussed the Origin of Species. So, how did the species orginated, other than life? The Origin of Species is equivalent to speculating on the origin of life.
This all appears to be a matter of recognizing the Primary Cause.
A Materialist, an adherent to ID and a Young Earth Creationists are standing on a bridge overlooking a river. Just upstream from them is a bend where they can't see beyond. Floating towards them is what appears to be an abandoned rubber raft. The ID scientist says, someone must have lost that raft up near the park a mile away. The Materialist yells an insult at the ID scientist and says No way! That rubber raft formed itself out of debris around this river's origin hundreds of miles away. So the two argue about the source of the raft, while the Creationist goes down, wades into the water and intercepts the raft. "What are you doing!?" the two on the bridge yell. The Young Earth Creationist yells back, "My wife just called and told me that our son's raft got loose and was floating down stream and asked if I would go get it.".
The point being, both the ID and the Young Earth Creationists knew instinctively that there is a reasonable explanation for the evidence. The Materialist, seeing the exact same evidence categorically rejected the idea that the raft was made and released in the river only twenty minutes upstream and believed that the raft came together purely by accident and that it began its journey from debris only found at the beginning of the river. The Creationist, relied on the information given to him by an eye witness of the event, and acted on this information to actually accomplish something while the others stood above it all arguing and doing nothing.
A better rebuttal would have been to answer the questions they raised or at least spell "idiots" right.
Specifically...
DannyTN, an "idot" who believes in God, the Bible, Creation, and who doesn't buy the evolutionist's interpretation or dating of the geologic column. And who believes man is pretty arrogant to challenge God on past events when man didn't even know what a dinosaur was two hundred years ago; can't create life; doesn't know how most DNA works; can't create matter, a planet, much less a solar system or galaxy or a billion galaxies; and has a very incomplete knowledge of physics;
LOL, that's great!!!
Top Bonehead Arguments of Evolution"
Author: Doug Sharp
Subject: Creation-Evolution Overviews
Date: 12/1/1999
All of these arguments are either patently false or so ridiculous they dont merit the time spent to answer them. If a person resorts to arguments like these to bolster evolutionary theory, their thinking is so out-of-whack foundationally that it would take months to straighten it out.
Quite a few now, and there will be no end to it. I've been mentioning the Galileo affair for about five years on this website, and I've posted links to the Pope's 1996 statement for almost that long. It never makes a difference -- at least not to those who remain to fight what they consider to be the "good fight."
I understand that the Pope isn't regarded as authoritative by most Americans. Still, he is very well advised in matters of science; so even if one doesn't consider himself bound by such statements, it's very useful to review his opinion on the matter. It's rather well reasoned. And it embraces Galileo's method of reconciling apparent science/scripture conflicts. I regard it as very significant. It's an intellectual milestone in the history of the West, really -- it marks the end of the Galileo affair.
Some denominations seem determined to be left behind, as the rest of the society moves on. Like the world of Islam, they will be increasingly isolated from our civilization, and increasingly embittered. Even now, on this website, we can see their adherents waging what they call "spiritual warfare" against science. Google that expression. There is a whole genra of books on the subject. It's a comic-book way of presenting a war against reason -- a most unhealthy situation.
We're not just talking about some quibbles concerning the theory of evolution. The issues go way beyond that.
Here's your specific quote. If you are going to make a claim such as this, surely you have a few quotes of an evolutionist or two merging the two within the past 10 years(even 15 years)?
I'm not looking for you to prove a negative, I'm just looking for some examples of what you say. No need to get all defensive.
You are reading it wrong. I'm saying they started separating the two about 10 years ago. I need to show quotes OLDER than 10 years where they were combined, which I have done. The quotes on this thread alone will suffice to show that they are now separating the two.
Sorry. I went out of town over the weekend, and just saw your post this morning.
Is it your contention that there are no theoretical mechanisms that have been offered to explain what might be considered the "fact" of evolution? Or are you simply challenging whether or not certain posters here can state these mechanisms?
I've been looking around. The "white paper" describing the Wedge strategy appears to be entirely genuine. Check this out:
The "Wedge Document": "So What?" That's posted at the website of the Discovery Instutute. They defend the document. I'm removing the disclaimer from my homepage.
600
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.