Posted on 08/16/2005 11:23:20 AM PDT by woodb01
If you bothered to read, you would have seen that the IDers could care less if their theory is taught in public school.
They want the growing evidence against Darwinism to be presented ... instead of supressed. Evidence for and against a theory should be presented ... any reasonable scientist would agree.
The major problem here is that there doesnt exist a reasonable Darwinist. They are the ones that are frothing at the mouth at the thought of their theory being criticized.
What evidence would that be?
The existence of a Creator can hardly be undermined by anything science finds. You are suggesting that some lines of curiosity are somehow off limits.
The future of medicine depends on knowing how life works at its most fundamental levels. It is curiosity, not rote lab work that results in breakthroughs.
I agree that science has made its progress for the past several hundred years by ignoring philosophy and the concerns of philosophers.
The history of creationist frauds is long (no doubt someone will be along to post another piece of disproven evidence shortly). It is only reasonable that 'evidence against Darwinism' go through peer review like all other scientific data.
Who are these 'Darwinists' you keep speaking of? You don't call physicists 'Newtonists' do you?
When you come up with a better way of figuring things out, let the rest of us know.
Exactly. What is your answer?
You can describe science and the history of science but isn't science a pointless, meaningless endeavor? If there is no God and we are merely the consequence of evolution, then existence is actually meaningless. It follows that anything we do, including science, is also meaningless.
So, again I ask (and sincerely), why bother?
The problem is that the science being used by IDers and Creationsists in order to invalidate evolution has been manipulated and abused. The problem is that this abused sciecne contradicts what is really going on. The worn arguements, like the abuses of second law of thermodynamics for example, have been completely destroyed by the ID crowd. It just confuses kids when they are taught different things about the same idea. They are taught the ID side of things early on, buty then they hit the contradictions when taught at a high school or college level. Why study science if it is so (unnecessarily) contradictory? Science itself is not anti-religious, but religiously neutral. It is not equipped to answer spiritual or moral questions. It never has been and it will never be able to. It is wrong to use it either in a pro or anti religious way.
Growing so fast that not a single new idea or argument has been put forward since Paley's "Natural Theology" in 1802. But wait, that was before Darwin.
If you disagree, show me any idea that was not in Paley's book.
Another "You're an idiot" "No, you're an idiot" thread....
"So even the "design" of evolutionary tests requires "intelligent design"..."
You need to read exactly what I wrote a little closer. Notice I mentioned that scientists creating life would disprove the idea that ONLY God could create life. I had outthought your reply before you made it.
This has been found to be a common thread among the avid evolutionists.
Rather, it is a common theme among avid creationists to make this claim about those who accept the ToE. I suppose it is easier to accuse those you disagree with of denying and rejecting God than to actually learn something about science.
It would seem to me that if scientists create life where none was before, then that is a demonstration that intelligence creates life.
So what the author is saying is that "Evolutionary Theory" can be overturned by the mere postulation of an opposing "Creationist Theory".
Apparently the author hasn't read 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' by Thomas Kuhn. If he/she/it had read it then he/she/it would know that THAT is not how Science works. A 'Theory' (or 'Paradigm' in Kuhn's esteemed work) is overturned by the accumulation of observations that cannot be accounted for by the existing Theory or Paradigm, NOT by the simple positing of another speculative Theory.
Everyone knows that Creationists don't publish experiments and data to back up their Theory, but instead spew bilge, lapped up by the ignorant, and repeated by even more ignorant people in Chat Rooms. Oh well. [/heavy sigh]
Its really too bad that this crap has to be pushed on FreeRepublic to make the members here look like idiots in attempts to destroy this site and the Conservative Movement by these Trolls. [/another heavy sigh]
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.