Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Jim_Curtis
Long response ahead ... feel free to take a short break before continuing, then batten down the hatches, the water's about to get choppy:

The local church has its own religious ideas, why would they want to promote a different religion? You can only apply that analogy if you want to say that Darwinism is a faith.

I threw a religion one out for fun. I was responding to a statement that is a group was really comfortable with "x", they wouldn't be afraid to discuss alternate theories ... and was trying to point out that there are plenty of reasons other than fear to not accept alternate theories ... or, in the case of ID, things that aren;t even scientific theories yet.

That is a man made question for man's observation. What "brought man to be" happened outside the power of man...I think we can all agree that man didn't create man but he did create math.

The theory of evolution is based upon man's observation ... it doesn;t state the existance of an outside force either way, while ID actually makes A MORE EXTRAORDINARY claim that an external intelligence IS required. This means it NEEDS to show evidence of the need for an external intelligence in order to provide more value than a theory of evolution ... not just the possibility of one, as evolution already covers the possibility ... it just states that evolution is the process that occurred.

Demons driving people insane might be one particular established religious belief but we aren't talking about promoting some established religion. We are considering if "all this" is an accident or not.

Sometimes it doesn;t seem that way ... and ID is actually not considering the question. It's stating, outright, that there's NO WAY this could have occurred without on outside intelligence.

For every theory there is someone who doesn't accept it. I don't care if the teacher tells her class that so-and-so doesn't accept this theory. Tell them that someone somewhere doesn't accept Darwinism too...who cares?

But WHY is it limited to this supposed Darwinism thing, and, I suppose, the theory of evolution? If, for every theory, there is someone somewhere that doesnn;t accept it, mustn't we by the logic being used, before every statement made in a classroom, state that someone somewhere doesn't agree with it?

"Considered valid" by whom?

(This referred to who would consider a potential theory of ID valid.)

It would need to follow the scientif method. It would need to be peer reviewed in scientific journals ... also imprtant so there is a theory of ID we can refer to, and can attempt to refute. It must be internally consistant. If it presents claims beyond what the theory of evolution claims, they must be backed up ...

It certainly shouldn;t be examined by lawyers or politicians (unelss they want to adhere to the scientific method ... not that many of them even knoww economics.)

I don't even know what "it" is

ID ... which should have been obvious by my statement about "it" being presented in the statement:

Why not wait until ID is considered a valid scientific theory --- if you consider it to be true

Did you not under stand that "it" was a standin for the phrase "ID", or were you trying for a more philosophical statment of not knowing what "it" is?

I'm for balance and I believe that Darwinism alone doesn't provide all the answers just as I don't believe Freud provides all the answers in psychiatry but Freud sure has consumed the time of many classrooms at the expense of other psychological theory.

... which is why the theory of evolution has moved beyond Darwin's initial theory ... these things do change over time as we understand more about the world.

In some ways, I think Darwinism is a religion unto itself.

Neat ... how do you feel about the theory of evolution, which is what we are discussing? If "creationism" must be referred to as non-religious "ID", IDers should at least have the courtesy to refer to what they'd call "Darwinism" as the "theory of evolution". Or does cloaking religious ideas in different terms only apply when actual religion is involved?

Right Wing Professor mentioned "existence angst", I believe some folks become devoted to Darwin to rid themselves of their existence angst...I think RWP showed an instructive bit of projection there.

And there are some people who become addicted or devoted to almost anything to make their lives fell better ... alcohol, TV< sports, movies, driving, work.

None of that addresses the theory of evolution, or that ID does not yet meet the standards of a scientific theory.

307 posted on 08/04/2005 7:50:58 PM PDT by bobhoskins (I'm tired ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies ]


To: bobhoskins
I appreciate your intelligent response but the problem with all of the "to that, there's this"...it leaves one unfulfilled...like evolution with no consideration of catalyst.
333 posted on 08/04/2005 8:51:10 PM PDT by Jim_Curtis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson