Posted on 08/04/2005 6:47:03 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
The human race has been out of direct contact with the spirit world for a long time, and yet all evidence points to the reality of the spirit world and to our biosphere having been created and not just having happened somehow or other.
I look for contact to be re-established before too much longer.
Charles Colson needs to do more research in this subject.
Therein lies the problem with Intelligent Design. Nobody can challenge it because the theory draws no conclusions that are falsifiable, the hallmark of any good scientific theory. Absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence.
Intelligent Design - interesting philosophy; bad science.
/....'Star Children'.....
(Chuck Colson for 'Pope' of ECT 'Reformed' NAE Ecumenical Philosophy Schools?)
Re: Richard Nixon's famous line,...."Chuck It!"
/sarcasm
I agree. There's no reason to keep American students ignorant any longer. They should be allowed to debate both ideas. In my opinion, they'll choose intelligent design over Darwinism. It's more logical, and I think that's why the legions fear it.
The biblical texts attest to a Creator Whose power is made perfect in weakness. Hence, when Jesus says, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father," it becomes clear just how intimately involved the Creator is with His creation, particularly the crowning glory of His creation: mankind.
Science can do just fine without the philosophy of evolution and the theology of the cross, but we do ourselves and our children a disservice in constructing a false dichotomy between science and theology, as if they must be rigidly pigeon-holed for education properly to take place.
Nonetheless he obviously can prove that macroevolution is impossible (it's BEEN proven), thus eliminating the worst choice from the picture. That's progress.
Aboslutely. But please apply this point all around. An absence of evidence for God is not evidence of an absence of God or some sort of Intelligent Design, either. And if evolution advocates would be more flexible in their teaching to allow for the possibility of the hand of God in the creation and development of life on Earth rather than using evolution as proof of a Godless universe and treating religion with contempt, this issue might not be the polarized "all or nothing" debate that it's become. Science and religion don't have to be enemies but the reason why so many religious folks have seemed to become anti-science is that they see science as being anti-God.
How so?
Sorry Mr. Colson, this is very short-sighted on your part and I disagree with your central thesis and description.
This should read "rational forces of Enlightenment that have made this the most successful Country in the history of the World".
BTW, I also disagree vehemently with the President's Pro-Illegal Immigration Policy and think he's dead-wrong on it.
Neither do I.
I have no problem with the idea of intelligent design as an idea, but to call it a scientific conclusion? If a cell, for example, appears irreducibly complex, it either means
A) God (aka. the Designer) is directly responsible or
B) It evolved through naturalistic means (natural selection, genetic drift, etc.) but we don't know how yet.
How can the choice between these conclusions be falsified? We know of several cases of very complex systems (e.g. blood clotting mechanisms, antifreeze in Arctic fish blood), once thought to be irreducibly complex, where solid testable theories of their naturalistic evolution have been found. Does intelligent design say some systems evolved naturally but others require the intervention of the Designer? How does it empirically distinguish between which are which?
I believe science is important; I believe religion is important, but both have limits - muddying the waters between the two does a disservice to both, in my opinion.
ID is not so narrow as to be totally exclusive of that idea, it is one of the competing ideas. What has been dead(for the last 35 years) is evolution by random chance (Darwinism.) What took its place was chemical evolution. This is where the action is where serious study is concerned. But... the leading proponent of CE, actually the guy that literally wrote the book on it is now ID. I do not now the specifics of his view on ID, if he follows the deism track like you or is a creationist.
When properly applied, yes.
How so?
The theory of evolution makes falsifiable predictions (some examples), which can be tested by evidence.
To refer to the current state of evolutionary research as Darwinism is inaccurate; the theory as advanced by leaps since Darwin's time; Darwin's basic idea still holds, but has changed considerably since Darwin's time.
There are still gap's in evolutionary theory, admittedly, just as there are gaps in any scientific theory (even the theory of gravitation). More and more of these gaps are continuously filled in as research continues.
I couldn't agree more on this point.
Many, many scientists who acknowledge evolution have strong faith in God. Evolution really has nothing to say about God, one way or the other; and I do agree, some scientists are guilty of treating religion with contempt (a small minority, in my experience); you will find people in just about every career who are guilty of this. I agree that the politicization of anti-God viewpoints among scientists has hurt both science and religion.
God is not empirically detectable (at least He hasn't revealed himself to be so far) - that's why the theory excludes Him; science is (and should be) silent on this issue, either pro or con, and good science acknowledges it limits.
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.