Now THIS is LAVISH!!!
Posted on 06/03/2005 6:25:25 PM PDT by Crackingham
The Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History has withdrawn its co-sponsorship of a showing later this month of a film that supports the theory of "intelligent design."
The museum said it would not cancel the screening of the film, "The Privileged Planet," but would return the $16,000 that the Discovery Institute, an organization that promotes a skeptical view of the Darwinian theory of evolution, had paid it.
Proposals for events at the National Museum of Natural History are reviewed by members of the staff, and it shares sponsorship of all events. After the news of the showing caused controversy, however, officials of the museum screened "Privileged Planet" for themselves.
"The major problem with the film is the wrap-up," said Randall Kremer, a museum spokesman.
"It takes a philosophical bent rather than a clear statement of the science, and that's where we part ways with them."
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
You operate with a definition of "science" that may be hazardous to clear thinking. Try not to spread it around.
Really??? With the screen name, and the lavish use of color, I just assumed...
Nothing about the text of Genesis is irrational. The evidence of an orderly universe is substial enough to conclude the text is a reliable foundation for the rest of science to operate under the laws God created. If there's anything irrational going on here, it is your dogged fear of acknowledging the things common sense knows to be true.
Go ahead and lock yourself up in that little "science box" over there. Go ahead and tell the world how you are a free thinker who operates without any foundational assumptions. The evidence speaks differently on all counts.
Why would the total disintegration of the universe falsify ID? The designer designed the universe; surely he/she/it could rip it apart, right?
Now that the universe has been created and is in process, intelligent design is unfalsifiable. Had the universe never existed for us to observe, then ID would never be up for discussion, let alone falsifiable.
I take comfort in knowing intelligent design is unfalsifiable. It should be, because it is self-evident and true. One cannot falsify the truth, but he can certainly deny it. Science operates with the given that an orderly universe exists, and orderly things are what intelligent beings design, create, and build. Intelligent stands to reason as the foundation for all human knowledge, but it need not be the object of science and more than you need be my reason and senses or I need be yours.
2 Peter 31. Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking.
2. I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.
3. First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.
4. They will say, "Where is this `coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."
5. But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.
6. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.
7. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
8. But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
9. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
10. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.
11. Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives
12. as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat.
13. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.
14. So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him.
15. Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
16. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
17. Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position.
18. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.
Rational people operate with given assumptions, and honest people admit them. Clearly you appear capable of neither.
. . .your "evidence" was evaluated with the presumption that the Book of Genesis is accurate . . .
Yep. I take the propositions of the Book of Genesis at face value. There is nothing about the words contained therein that negates, or contradicts, my obervation of an orderly universe. I figure it had to come from somewhere.
Everything else I've seen that is designed by humans operates with consistency (to a degree), and purpose. It is no big stretch to infer that in other cases where consistency and purpose are evident that intelligent design may be involved there, too.
I've seen a good many intelligent beings in my day. I've asked a few of them if they thought, with all of their intelligence, they could build a working tree, and so far none of them have replied in the affirmative. Why would they even answer that way if they hadn't tried it? Why don't you give it a try? Or are your somehow limited in the intelligence needed to do so?
I would especially like to see someone build a tree without the aid of intelligence or design. You, apparently, are of the belief it can be done. So much so, that you are willing to have your belief preached as empirical science. Bully for you!
If you knew anything about ID, and the fact it does not support your idea of a young earth nor your angst about evolution you would not be so quick to jump on the ID bandwagon.
...Since you are a woman, I do not think I need to give a diagram of childbirth to fully illuminate my point....
220 posted on 06/06/2005 4:34:05 PM CDT by CarolinaGuitarmanTo: PatrickHenry"Elsie isn't a woman"
I knew :) That's why I said that :)222 posted on 06/06/2005 4:46:47 PM CDT by CarolinaGuitarman
The idea that little pink unicorns created the earth last Thursday is also unfalsifiable. You should consider that ID and Pink Unicorn Last Thurdayism have the same logical truth value when you feel comforted.
There ya go again.... ;^)
ass u me
Worse yet, I could care less if a barking pissant claims to know more than I do!
Now THIS is LAVISH!!!
That is true, however there has been no evidence presented to my reason and senses to affirm that such an assumption has any basis in reality. In fact, you are the first human to suggest such a thing to me, you creative little darling, you. Had you written it down a hundred years ago and I read it, I would still take no stock in it other than as a mildy amusing proposition. Wonder why that is.
I thought I told you to keep my picture to yourself.
Every assumption entails a conclusion. Assumptions are starting points, basic givens, points of view, premises, what have you. Yes, I begin by having concluded that the words of Genesis are true. When a proposition is made and accepted, then certain conclusions are implicit and explicit. So yes, I assume and conclude at the same time that God created the heavens and the earth in six normal days, and that He continues to sustain them to this very moment.
What is your basis for asserting differently about the origins and purpose of the universe? Do you even have any basis? Do you really believe you are operating without any assumptions or conclusions? If so, you've fooled yourself well, but you don't fool me.
I begin with a "conclusion," and I admit it. Is it a problem if I take your words at face value? Am I assuming a conclusion in so doing? Or must I subject all your statements to the rigors of scientific method before I accept them as true or false or somewhere in between?
And so, upon making this arbitrary decision that "it had to come from somewhere"
Such a decision is far from arbitrary. It would be arbitrary if I had a multiplicity of choices and then spun a spinner to make my choice. This one is about as basic and important as it gets. It is neither an arbitrary decision, nor it is one to be made arbitrarily, because it ultimately governs how I view the universe and interpret what it brings to my reason and senses. If you want to see the essence of "arbitrariness" at play in science, consider the semantic tap-dancing done in the name of "natural selection" and "random mutations;" the late and recent magic wands of evolutionary philosophers.
How do you know that intelligence is even required [to make a tree]?
I infer it from the fact that no other intelligent agent with which I am familiar admits to having the necessary tools and intelligence. What is it that prevents you from making a tree? Is it just a matter of the right mutations and natural selection occuring? What is it that prevents you from making a tree? What is there about a tree that you can design and implement without the aid of intelligence?
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.