Posted on 04/10/2005 3:53:04 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
A pro-evolution group has organized what appears to be a successful boycott of Kansas hearings on intelligent design.
Alexa Posny, a deputy commissioner with the state department of education, told the Kansas City Star that only one person has agreed to testify on the pro-evolution side for the hearings scheduled for May.
"We have contacted scientists from all over the world," Posny said. "There isn't anywhere else we can go."
Harry McDonald, head of Kansas Citizens for Science, charged that the hearings, called by a conservative majority on the state board of education, have a pre-ordained outcome.He said that testifying would only make intelligent design appear legitimate.
"Intelligent design is not going to get its forum, at least not one in which they can say that scientists participated," he said.
Backers of intelligent design, the claim that a supreme being guided evolution, say it is a theory with scientific backing. Opponents believe it is an attempt to smuggle religion into public education.
If you contort any more, you'll strain something. Give it a rest.
The change from being a familial name to an imperial title can be loosely dated to AD 68, the so-called "Year of the Four Emperors". -Wikipedia
Caesar was a family name until it was used as a title. Other than the misnomer "Emperor" this is the surviving title.
What did I contort? They were dictators and tyrants. Hitler was as well. They used the senate to get their power.
How is this contorted? The senate existed, but was over-run by an overbearing figure of power.
What would you accept or suppose as evidence?
First of all, I'd appreciate it if you would quote the post you are responding to si I don't have to hunt it down.
You are asking about what kind of evidence would support a stoppage in the earth's rotation in recent historical times.
First of all, you would need to do some calculations of the physical effects of stopping a rotating sphere, the outside of which is spinning at 1000 miles per hour. Having calculated the expected effects, you would look for evidence. I imagine at the very least, all coastal cities and villages would be wiped out by tidal waves.
So we either have
A: Darwin included a Creator to appease the theologins of his time and gain acceptance. And thus was an atheist.
or
B: Darwin wasn't an atheist and included a Creator in his statement as recognition that the mechanism (theory) he provided an entire text for had an origin.
Your using his words to point out that he "wasn't an atheist" is either being intellectually dishonest about the intent of Darwin's writing; or a statement from Darwin himself that he recognizes a Creator and an origin of the life process. In this life process is evolution, but at the start of it is....? Darwin says the beginning came from a Creator.
Whether you accept the beginning of life as a part of life is entirely up to you.
Do you really imagine that such wordplay will help you to score points? The issue, in case you've been in a coma these past several months, is that the beginning of life is not -- shall I repeat that? -- NOT part of the evolution of species. Evolution cannot begin until there is life. Then, and only then, does evolution begin. The theory of evolution [Run, Spot, run!] is about the proliferation of species. It is not [I'll repeat it one more time] about where life itself comes from].
Your homework assignment is to read this post 50 times. When that's been accomplished, we will grade you on your comprehension.
Do we have free will?
Please tell us what you mean by free will.
You can repeat all your "powers of logic" red herring and dissemble even more but you cannot hide. You did answer the ID/"free will" statement by MacDorcha with an answer claiming "As best as I can figure it, it's a purely religious concept concerning man's ability to act independently of God." Now why did you not say what you are now saying to that question? Your answer to MacDorcha should have been, "Actually, ID gives no more meaning to free will than straight evolution."
The answer is "yes" or "no" or "I don't understand the question". Not, "it depends on the meaning of 'is'"
Why can't people be open-minded and willing to consider both? And how can evolutionists be so sure?
Its not "open mindedness" to use theology to challenge scientific studies.
Considering that this exchange started when I said I didn't think free will had a useful definition, that question is pretty stupid.
No. The purpose is to tie you down to a "yes" or a "no" to the question. Now is it "yes" or "no"?
A little panicky, are we? I gave my definition of free will to MD and asked him for his. You reiterated his position so I explained why I thought the point was moot. You seem to be taking a developing point and claiming that if all was not put out up front in a single posting then all the points are thus refuted.
What about my second question?
Projecting doesn't solve your problem. You're getting deeper into "doodoo", your answer to MD denies the existence of "free will" in a natural sense. Your answer to me equates ID and "straight" evolution.
Questions that have undefined terms cannot have a yes or no answer. In this case I would go further. Your question is rubbish, because the key term is undefinable. If any bright person in recorded history had been able to give a satisfactory definition to the term, there would be no debate on the answer.
Your question is pretty much equivalent to asking whether a photon is a particle or a wave.
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.