Posted on 08/15/2005 9:18:06 AM PDT by hc87
Exactly eighty years after the Scopes "monkey trial" in Dayton, Tennessee, history is about to repeat itself. In a courtroom in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in late September, scientists and creationists will square off about whether and how high school students in Dover, Pennsylvania will learn about biological evolution. One would have assumed that these battles were over, but that is to underestimate the fury (and the ingenuity) of creationists scorned.
The Scopes trial of our day--Kitzmiller, et al v. Dover Area School District et al--began innocuously...
(Excerpt) Read more at tnr.com ...
That's what old age does to you, makes you forget to do the important little things.
1. If something can be explained without the necessity of a designer, why is ID a better explanation?
Putting reality into a context.
Pure science (and I am speaking of more than evoloutionary theory) is the most effective tool humans have come up with for categorizing reality. Science is unmatched in the area of What, How, and Where. Some may argue with When, but at least science provides a coherent framework for that.
The problem, and I recognize that Science itself declines to ask the question, is that the Why is important to many people.
The willingness to grapple with the Why? many make ID "better' in the sight of some.
OH, I see: I suppose no posts, indeed no writings of any kind should ever be more than a couple of sentences? No topic could possibly warrant anything longer?
Also, now you claim you didn't read my post because I posted a Bible passage. Yet in your original reply, you didn't read it because I exceeded the allotted number of sentences, thereby proving that I couldn't communicate and didn't know what I was talking about. Which is it, narby?
As for my preaching to the choir, the vast majority of my published articles have nothing to do with Christianity or evolution. I write for a number of popular technology magazines. There ain't no choir.
MM
Some can. But you didn't maintain my interest.
Even in that short paragraph, you repeated virtually the same question twice.
Also, now you claim you didn't read my post because I posted a Bible passage. Yet in your original reply, you didn't read it because I exceeded the allotted number of sentences, ... Which is it, narby?
Both. I never said the "only" reason was "x". And you're still too long. Note the "...".
I write for a number of popular technology magazines.
Hummm. Well if you can do it. Certainly I can do it.
I first learned about Coyne's article through a Derbyshire posting on NRO's The Corner. I like to think of myself as a freethinker, but I find myself agreeing with just about everything Derbyshire writes on anything to frightening degree, except higher mathematics, in which case I must plead ignorance. I may be Irish-Canadian, but I'm no J.L. Synge.
I'm also a fan, even though he is a Brit :-)
The British tradition of conservatism is far more skeptical than the American.
This fight is important to them, and they will win it.
Not only that, they can create a rift between conservative libertarians and science savvy conservatives and the rest of the Republican Party.
I don't want to be governed by fanatical anti-science theocrats, Muslim or Christian.
I would suggest that it can be science and can be argued scientifically (mathematics) -a specific conclusion can not be proven; however, the same can be said of evolution's specific conclusion (cause)...
Keep in mind that evolutionists observe change over time (facts) and theroretically postulate an unproven cause of this (random chance)... To support the unproven case reuires faith..
On the other had ID suggests that the mathematical probabilities required to support the 'random' theory are impossible...
A Mathematical Proof of Intelligent Design In Nature
"Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes."-Pope John Paul II
All you ID proponents out there are gonna choke on your own desires when your kid comes homes and explains how krishna, budda, or allah created the heavens & earth!
A multiculturalist's dream.
I'm uncertain about that.
A very principled statement.
Fine. Most worthy. But religion already fulfills that function. The churches are flourishing, without pretending to be science, and without lobbying a bunch of witless school board twits into revising the curriculum.
So the question remains, what makes ID better?
"Better" in this case may be a subjective measurement. Not very scientific, I know, but some things are beyond the scope of accurate measure or classification.
Put simply, in my eyes, ID theory and advanced physics (those branches of theorectical physics that push into the realm of metaphysics) are worthwhile pursuits.
What makes them worthwhile is the possibility of fusing science with areas of thought that take on the "WHY?".
And hopefully, in the process, "evolving" theology into a pursuit that embraces science.
There are too many uncertainties about exactly how biology works for mathematics to be useful in discrediting evolution. It's an attempt to prove a negative (that evolution is impossible) that fails on it's face.
On the other hand, the number of individual actions such as cell divisions, gene turn on/off actions, etc are so huge that to believe that an intelligence is controlling things at that detail is just not believable.
And since we don't see, hear, feel, or electronically measure an intelligence in action at any level, I don't think He exists.
There was some earlier discussion on astrology, and whether it is science. Perhaps since religion is attacking science, maybe science should turn some of it's attention to religion to see whether any of it's claims are valid.
I'm sure they will conclude that Jesus existed. But so did Mohammed. And I don't doubt they will find zero evidence for a deity, except in the emotions and faith of the believers.
In fact, it is the opposite that will destroy conservatism...conservatism hinges on the inalienable rights of the individual as established and endowed by The Creator.
Remember the Declaration of Independence...or has that become too hokey and beneath you "conservative" intellectuals?
Do you also find the founding fathers' statements destructive to conservatism when they attribute the creation of the Unites States to the will of Sovereign God?
I would'nt be too sure about that. IIRC, anytime polls are taken, its usually about 60%-35% with the majority supporting some form of "creation" or ID. Those poll results are usually published with a scientist wringing his hands about the horrible state of US science instruction in the public schools.
That does not mean the 65% are young earth creationists, not by any means, but unless the left suceeds in equating YEC with ID, they will come out on the short end of the stick.
Again.
IDers are about as much as asset to the conservative movement as flat earthers and baseball card economists.
This fight will damage conservatism in the political realm. I.E. Take votes away from us, and reduce our ability to affect supreme court nominees and more.
This fight hasn't really been presented to the general public yet. As it is, there's a considerable number of people on the left that hold creationist views (check out the threads on DU, where many disagree on evolution just like on FR).
The lefties are nothing if not a political herd with many litmus tests. When the litmus test is that they have to accept evolution, they will. Overnight.
That blows away any "majority" in the population that accepts evolution, because the conservative side is split on the issue and we're generally too stubborn to follow political litmus tests even when we should for our own good. The result will be only 30-40% minority against evolution, and they will be pilloried in the MSM that will have a genuine majority on it's side for the first time in practically ages.
This fight is a classic wedge issue, and will damage conservatism. And it has no chance of doing any good for conservative politics. It's a lose, lose situation for us.
We'd better get what we want out of our current government, because our time in the sun will end.
Republicans are the stupid party.
What Bible verses pertain to "science". The scientific method is only a few centuries old.
Genesis has zero to say about science. At best it is an executive overview that says "God did it". But doesn't say anything whatever about *how* God did it, except in the wild imagination of a few Christians.
History, archeology, Scripture, fulfilled prophecy, documented historical eye-witness account and etc....all side with the claims of Christianity.
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.