Posted on 02/10/2005 6:39:50 PM PST by gobucks
PHILADELPHIA - Evangelical Christians, buoyed by the re-election of President Bush, are turning American schools into a battleground over whether evolution explains the origins of life or whether nature was designed by an all-powerful force.
In at least 18 states, campaigns have begun to make public schools teach “intelligent design” — a theory that nature is so complex it could only have been created by design — alongside Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.
“It’s pretty clear that there is a religious movement behind intelligent design,” said Steve Case, chairman of the Science Standards Committee, a group of educators that advises the Kansas Board of Education. The board will decide later this year whether to include intelligent design in biology classes.
Some scientists who espouse the theory say intelligent design does not question that evolution occurred, but how it occurred: They believe more was at play than random mutation and natural selection. The theory, they insist, does not support the religious concept of a creator.
Those who advocate giving it equal treatment in schools have a different interpretation.
*snip*
The poll found greater support for teaching creationism among Republican voters — 71 percent of Bush voters favored teaching creationism alongside evolution.
*snip*
John West, (located) at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which pioneered intelligent design research, said the theory was too complex to teach at high schools and was better-suited to a college setting.
“There is a concern that intelligent design has been hijacked by people who don’t really know what it says,” he said. “We don’t think it should be a political football.”
*snip*
“Intelligent design is a religious doctrine,” said Wayne Carley, executive director of the National Association of Biology Teachers. “There is no research to support it, and it is clearly religious in that it posits a higher being.”
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Nice baiting, but the facts are clear. With regard to origin of life, you have a greater chance of winning the powerball lottery every second you are alive 10-17 than the chance life has of spontaneously generating on earth during the geologic timeline 10-164 314. Or in simpler terms probability = ZERO.Curious assertion. What are you assembling in that model, and how is it being assembled? I never bother to check the math on these creationist dumb-dumbisms. I check the model. It's always something jumping together all at once from tiny parts. ("Half a cell is useless and would promptly 'die' before it could live.")
Your models and their improbability are an argument against, say, a human being made from dirt in one afternoon. Even God wouldn't try to make a bacterium that way.
Evolutionary models are gradual. They involve massive parallelism of experiment. They involve boostrapping from and building upon stable or semi-stable simpler precursors. They allow time.
If your model isn't that model, and it clearly isn't, then you have just made a good argument against creationism. All of your arguments are based on ignorance--your own.
Someone somewhere published some dazzling numbers and, grasping for any straw you can find, you took them. Or, vaguely remembering arguments of this sort, you whipped some up out of your little head to look like what you remembered.
Doesn't matter. Bad model = garbage in = garbage out.
A detailed history of cretinist bad models with critical analysis.
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations, an across-the-board generic debunking.
Yes, the facts are clear. You haven't said a true thing yet and you don't have the integrity to care.
1) Darwin's book is two-thirds theory and one-third problems he had with his own theory.
2) Many scientists consider science as their religion.
3) Anarchists and Atheists are militant about their beliefs.
Why does everyone except Christians have a say in what is taught to our children?
Darwin apparently tried to anticipate and weigh on the balance scales every argument that could ever be made against his theory. He had a remarkable facility for doing just that. If he didn't anticipate them all, he came close.
He was sharing the adventure of his own intellectual voyage of discovery, and reassuring his readers that he had really thought things out thoroughly. (This he had certainly done.)
By comparison, creationist literature seldom anticipates even the most obvious objection and is never well thought out. There is a reeking intellectual dishonesty to the whole thing, including the way Darwin's rhetorical questions to the reader (which he always went on to dissect to death) are lifted out and offered as evidence that he "had problems with his own theory."
He looked at his theory from every angle and knew he had discovered something important. A lot of other people had problems with it.
Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (Red letters indicate words spoken by Jesus Christ, emphasis added)
Jhn 6:67-69
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. (Red letters indicate words spoken by Jesus Christ)
Now you know. What will you do with the Son of living God? Pray about these things, they are critical in the coming times. I will do likewise.
There are forms of life that are neither male nor female. Snails I think are one of them. Also exists a fish that is able to change his gender.
So tell me about "them" He was taking?
You refuse to check the math, you again use plurium interrogationum, and summarily dismiss the conclusion. Then you resort to argumentum ad hominem.
I would gladly share the boundary conditions for your own calculation. This assumes you understand statistical mechanics. But given your emotional state, IMHO we would start aruging over whether the age of the earth is 1.4 (1017) seconds, whether 0.0001% of a genetic chain such as Amoeba proteus with 2.9 (1011) base pairs would be adequate on a geometric model of a prime organism's increased genetic replicative efficiencies, whether 1010 primordial pools is acceptable, the chance of trail success given geometries of the sugars and phosphates, etc...
You haven't said a true thing yet...
I said, "Temporal life exists." Is this not true?
...and you don't have the integrity to care. All of your arguments are based on ignorance--your own. et al
Friend, if you wish to argue, then argue. There is no reason to insult me because you disagree with my conclusions. Buh bye.
Don't ping me for this stuff please.
Your wish is my command.
I am sorry you feel the way you do. The Bible has much to say about the reality in which we live, otherwise it could be relegated to a relativistic mythology as the secularists so strongly desire. the Bible specifically address who Created us, and the evidence throughout the pages of Scripture consistently point to it having occurred on a specific day in history. These truths close the door on the justification of many malicious behaviors men are capable of, and is that which our Republic is founded. "All men are created equal."
"If it works for you, great. Putting people in a wood chipper works for me, and you need to just pull back and let me be me. I like to call these experiments science, and your book says nothing about science, so again, back off." Paraphrase of Saddam Hussien.
I understand that you are not personally taking things to that extreme, however according to your logic, cloning, embryonic stem cell research and pre-birth body part farming are in the realm of science and outside the realm of Scripture. Trust me, the courts have used this legal secularist argument since Roe v. Wade, which would have the Founding Fathers turning in their graves. We already had one guy convince 30 million Germans that this was reality, lets not go there again.
Some of the pathways science is taking are fraught with evil intent. Reality must be derived from a Higher Source, otherwise it becomes to each man his own. Then we can wave goodbye to goodness and respect.
If you read through the posts by the ardent evolutionists on this board you will notice their desire to keep the Bible out of science. They are committed to separating scientific reality from Biblical reality. The reason for this is because it is their attempt to continue disregarding the truths of Scripture from their reality. Nothing untestable needs to be completely obeyed. It is subjective truth.
Look through the posts and consider the implications. By separating the truths we open the door to racism, eugenics, human cloning, euthanasia, abortion... Science must always be subjected to a moral compass. None on FreeRepublic condone these ideas, however because of the position they have taken they have no way to speak against these things. Within their worldview these things must be possible.
So you are saying the Bible has no relevance to science whatsoever. Just as I have contended.
Just because the Bible was not designed to be a scientific text does not mean it's comments have no scientific ramifications.
To quote Behe:
"Still, some critics claim that science by definition can't accept design, while others argue that science should keep looking for another explanation in case one is out there. But we can't settle questions about reality with definitions, nor does it seem useful to search relentlessly for a non-design explanation of Mount Rushmore."
God created the universe and all that there is within the universe, that is science. Because you deny He did it has no significance to the reality.
Aerospace Engineering 101A: How Planes are held aloft by Angels.
God made the tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands ...
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.