Only if they're bikinis 
J/K
Posted on 08/01/2005 10:58:13 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
The half-century campaign to eradicate any vestige of religion from public life has run its course. The backlash from a nation fed up with the A.C.L.U. kicking crèches out of municipal Christmas displays has created a new balance. State-supported universities may subsidize the activities of student religious groups. Monuments inscribed with the Ten Commandments are permitted on government grounds. The Federal Government is engaged in a major antipoverty initiative that gives money to churches. Religion is back out of the closet.
But nothing could do more to undermine this most salutary restoration than the new and gratuitous attempts to invade science, and most particularly evolution, with religion. Have we learned nothing? In Kansas, conservative school-board members are attempting to rewrite statewide standards for teaching evolution to make sure that creationism's modern stepchild, intelligent design, infiltrates the curriculum. Similar anti-Darwinian mandates are already in place in Ohio and are being fought over in 20 states. And then, as if to second the evangelical push for this tarted-up version of creationism, out of the blue appears a declaration from Christoph Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna, a man very close to the Pope, asserting that the supposed acceptance of evolution by John Paul II is mistaken. In fact, he says, the Roman Catholic Church rejects "neo-Darwinism" with the declaration that an "unguided evolutionary process--one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence--simply cannot exist."
Cannot? On what scientific evidence? Evolution is one of the most powerful and elegant theories in all of human science and the bedrock of all modern biology. Schönborn's proclamation that it cannot exist unguided--that it is driven by an intelligent designer pushing and pulling and planning and shaping the process along the way--is a perfectly legitimate statement of faith. If he and the Evangelicals just stopped there and asked that intelligent design be included in a religion curriculum, I would support them. The scandal is to teach this as science--to pretend, as does Schönborn, that his statement of faith is a defense of science. "The Catholic Church," he says, "will again defend human reason" against "scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of 'chance and necessity,'" which "are not scientific at all." Well, if you believe that science is reason and that reason begins with recognizing the existence of an immanent providence, then this is science. But, of course, it is not. This is faith disguised as science. Science begins not with first principles but with observation and experimentation.
In this slippery slide from "reason" to science, Schönborn is a direct descendant of the early 17th century Dutch clergyman and astronomer David Fabricius, who could not accept Johannes Kepler's discovery of elliptical planetary orbits. Why? Because the circle is so pure and perfect that reason must reject anything less. "With your ellipse," Fabricius wrote Kepler, "you abolish the circularity and uniformity of the motions, which appears to me increasingly absurd the more profoundly I think about it." No matter that, using Tycho Brahe's most exhaustive astronomical observations in history, Kepler had empirically demonstrated that the planets orbit elliptically.
This conflict between faith and science had mercifully abated over the past four centuries as each grew to permit the other its own independent sphere. What we are witnessing now is a frontier violation by the forces of religion. This new attack claims that because there are gaps in evolution, they therefore must be filled by a divine intelligent designer.
How many times do we have to rerun the Scopes "monkey trial"? There are gaps in science everywhere. Are we to fill them all with divinity? There were gaps in Newton's universe. They were ultimately filled by Einstein's revisions. There are gaps in Einstein's universe, great chasms between it and quantum theory. Perhaps they are filled by God. Perhaps not. But it is certainly not science to merely declare it so.
To teach faith as science is to undermine the very idea of science, which is the acquisition of new knowledge through hypothesis, experimentation and evidence. To teach it as science is to encourage the supercilious caricature of America as a nation in the thrall of religious authority. To teach it as science is to discredit the welcome recent advances in permitting the public expression of religion. Faith can and should be proclaimed from every mountaintop and city square. But it has no place in science class. To impose it on the teaching of evolution is not just to invite ridicule but to earn it.
I might ask the same questions. They are appropriate and valid questions that can be answered. They are not, "rabid and belittling statements about God."
Hmm. I question someone attempting to use an unjustified assertion as a premise on equal footing with scientific observation, and that's "Anti-God".
A scientific theory cannot become a law. Even if we went back in time, and confirmed common descent of species, etc, etc evolution would still be a theory.
;-)
oop-oop-oop-oop-oop-oop
I didn't have to ask, you gave it in your posts about how one side was Godless.
And I am not on the West Coast right now.
Only if they're bikinis
J/K
Yes.
LOL
http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/basics.htm
Bikinis might liven it up...
No. In order for a theory to be so, it must have some proof of validity. The strength of the proof determines it's rank as fact. The number of theories is irrelevant as far as strength of fact goes.
The strength of the proof for evolution has determined it's rank as strong fact, in a field of one. The stregth of proof is why the field contains only one theory.
Well really it is that the same actions have so far yeilded the same results every time. A law could potentially be disproved. The first law of thermodynamics which basically states that energy can neither be created or destroyed could be shown false one day for example. A scientific law is not absolute truth. It hasn't been proven.
His evidence comes from the fossil records, but I can state that the fossil record does NOT show evolution, but a series of individual creatures who have similar attributes and my theory is just as valid as his. After all, I observe that the creatures exist in the fossil record, I observe that there is a similarity, but my conclusion is different. If my theory is not as valid as his, explain why.
Because your theory does not explain why fossils are found in that particular order.
A theory is taught as one of many interpretations. If there are no alternatives supplied within a source material, then one must conclude that the only material supplied is factual, not theoretical.
Does this apply to a textbook on Atomic theory too?
You assumed without asking a direct question.
As far as Im concerned some Godless are more Godly then those who profess to be God's little favorites.
My perception may be defective, but it cannot be corrected or improved except through specifics.
Take a look at my post #294 above for a detailed explanation of Darwin's culpability. In fairness, Darwin's responsibility is not personal but intellectual.
Well really it is that the same actions have so far yeilded the same results every time. A law could potentially be disproved. The first law of thermodynamics which basically states that energy can neither be created or destroyed could be shown false one day for example. A scientific law is not absolute truth. It hasn't been proven.
If a law is disproved, then it can no longer be considered a law. Until then, scientific laws are still laws.
His evidence comes from the fossil records, but I can state that the fossil record does NOT show evolution, but a series of individual creatures who have similar attributes and my theory is just as valid as his. After all, I observe that the creatures exist in the fossil record, I observe that there is a similarity, but my conclusion is different. If my theory is not as valid as his, explain why.
Because your theory does not explain why fossils are found in that particular order.
In truth, neither does his. It is taken as fact that they follow a particular order, but since none of us was there when the fossil was being formed, all we have is an educated guess as to the ages of the fossils. Even carbon dating has proved to have inaccuracies.
A theory is taught as one of many interpretations. If there are no alternatives supplied within a source material, then one must conclude that the only material supplied is factual, not theoretical.
Does this apply to a textbook on Atomic theory too?
Yes, if there is a possibility that Atomic theory will yield inconsistent results, then alternative theories need to be discussed.
His explains why we should find the same sorts of animals in the same strata, why we shouldn't find mammals in the cambrian, why early mammals should be more reptile like than later mammals, why creatures with both reptile and bird features should be found in a certain area of the fossil record, etc. It explains a lot about the order of fossils that is found.
It is taken as fact that they follow a particular order, but since none of us was there when the fossil was being formed, all we have is an educated guess as to the ages of the fossils. Even carbon dating has proved to have inaccuracies.
The order of fossils is seperate from their ages (and carbon dating is not really used to date fossils)
Yes, if there is a possibility that Atomic theory will yield inconsistent results, then alternative theories need to be discussed.
and if there isn't?
"When Jews become materialists and atheists, they still remain Jews and tend to remain within the embrace of Judaism's mostly wise and humane culture."
My initial response - 'WTF'??
Ever hear of Leon Trotsky? Did he remain 'within the embrace of Judaism's mostly wise and humane culture.'?
What the He** does that type of meaningless crap mean? Its a fact that communism was founded by a (lapsed) Jew, Karl Marx, and its initial proponents included a large number of (lapsed) or non-believing Jews.
What kind of CRAP are you peddling here?
Atheist 'Jews' turn EVIL every bit as much as atheist 'Catholics' do, or atheist 'Protestants' do.
They are not excepted from the law of good and evil.
You can serve God, or...there is only one other alternative...
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.