Posted on 08/18/2005 7:39:37 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
|
Another service of Darwin Central, the conspiracy that cares.
Long before the world was created there was an island, floating in the sky, upon which the Sky People lived. They lived quietly and happily. No one ever died or was born or experienced sadness. However one day one of the Sky Women realized she was going to give birth to twins. She told her husband, who flew into a rage. In the center of the island there was a tree which gave light to the entire island since the sun hadn't been created yet. He tore up this tree, creating a huge hole in the middle of the island. Curiously, the woman peered into the hole. Far below she could see the waters that covered the earth. At that moment her husband pushed her. She fell through the hole, tumbling towards the waters below.
Water animals already existed on the earth, so far below the floating island two birds saw the Sky Woman fall. Just before she reached the waters they caught her on their backs and brought her to the other animals. Determined to help the woman they dove into the water to get mud from the bottom of the seas. One after another the animals tried and failed. Finally, Little Toad tried and when he reappeared his mouth was full of mud. The animals took it and spread it on the back of Big Turtle. The mud began to grow and grow and grow until it became the size of North America.
Then the woman stepped onto the land. She sprinkled dust into the air and created stars. Then she created the moon and sun.
The Sky Woman gave birth to twin sons. She named one Sapling. He grew to be kind and gentle. She named the other Flint and his heart was as cold as his name. They grew quickly and began filling the earth with their creations.
Sapling created what is good. He made animals that are useful to humans. He made rivers that went two ways and into these he put fish without bones. He made plants that people could eat easily. If he was able to do all the work himself there would be no suffering.
Flint destroyed much of Sapling's work and created all that is bad. He made the rivers flow only in one direction. He put bones in fish and thorns on berry bushes. He created winter, but Sapling gave it life so that it could move to give way to Spring. He created monsters which his brother drove beneath the Earth.
Eventually Sapling and Flint decided to fight till one conquered the other. Neither was able to win at first, but finally Flint was beaten. Because he was a god Flint could not die, so he was forced to live on Big Turtle's back. Occasionally his anger is felt in the form of a volcano.
The Iroquois people hold a great respect for all animals. This is mirrored in their creation myth by the role the animals play. Without the animals' help the Sky Woman may have sunk to the bottom of the sea and earth may not have been created.
Thanks for the ping!
For the record, he was asked point blank if ID is an alternative to evolution, and carefully avoided saying yes.
I think this implies at least two things. He probably personally believes in ID. He thinks ID is part of the conservative movement and should be supported.
I think he's wrong on both counts, but that's just me.
I'm in the eleventh day of asking ID supporters to define themselves in positive rather than negative terms. We all know that, at a minimum, ID differes from "Darwinism" by insisting that random mutations plus selection are not adequate to produce new species.
That is a negative statement that does not suggest any researchable alternative. I want to know what ID supporters believe, not just what they don't believe. I want to know what they would teach as the content of science courses.
Do ID advocates accept the scientific determination of the age of the earth? Do they accept the geologists explanation of the geologic column? And so forth.
Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.
Seems clear enough: ID is the 'reality of God'. The rest is obfuscation.
1. If something can be explained without the necessity of a designer, why is ID a better explanation?Reason for the question -- The Discovery Institute's definition:2. If something is not yet explained by natural causes, why is ID the only possible explanation? How can an ID theorist conclusively demonstrate that something could not have arisen naturally?
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. [Emphasis added by me.]
Source: Top Questions3. If the Designer designed everything, then what are the distinguishing characteristics of design?
4. Is there any possible observation that could falsify the theory of ID?
5. If an intelligent designer is responsible for the evolution of life on earth, then why are over 90% of all species now extinct?
Did you make that one yourself. If so, Cool!
******************
Why pass up an opportunity to cast the President in the role of village idiot? Anyone who disagrees with the author is sadly unable to comprehend his brilliance. No arrogance here.
In my view, there will be three main issues in the upcoming elections: (1) the war; (2) immigration; and (3) maybe this ID/Creationism thing, but in a larger context along with stem-cell research, to fit the MSM allegation that Republicans are anti-science. The economy won't be an issue (it only is when it's bad), but maybe further tax cuts will be an issue.
I think we're doing fine on everything but immigration and the creationism issues. Immigration is by far the larger problem, but maybe the dems can't take advantage of it. So ID/creationism will be a factor. It's our bit of goofiness, like gay marriage is to the dems.
I actually agree with the president here, although I know he didn't really mean what he says. Both evolution and ID SHOULD be properly taught. We should teach students that evolution is the accepted scientific theory explaining biodiversity, that there's a mountainous volume of evidence supporting this theory, and a small portion of this evidence should be presented. We should also teach students that some people, mostly religious people, and mostly Christians, believe that evolution is not capable of explaining biodiversity, that they believe that someone must have designed all the species,that they have absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever for this assertion, and that this assertion is completely unscientific. That would be teaching both sides properly, and I have no problem with this
Or as I like to call it: Too-lazy-to-do-useful-work-while-compiling-huge-amounts-of-code time
It looks like a demand to prove a negative.
For me, the best question is number four, which any theory calling itself "scientific" must be capable of answering.
Also, there's the matter of fruitfulness: What other avenues of research does ID suggest? What can we expect to find through ID?
That's absurd. ID/Creationism is way down the list certainly below war, terrorism, energy, taxes, social security, and immigration.
Yeah.
Something occurred to me this morning. In the early to mid nineties, the Republican party made quite a lot of headway, particularly in the hard sciences, because the far-left was perceived as anti-science. Postmodernism was at its zenith in academia, and physicists and chemists read books like "Higher Superstition" and realized that a large part of the left was their enemy. And while a few were also worried by the Religious Right, we were able to argue that the RR was not a substantial threat, and while noisy did not have any real influence in the party.
Fast forward ten years, and we have books like The Republican War Against Science" getting major publicity. Conservative scientists in academia are deserting the GOP or keeping very quiet. And I'd be surprised if 20% of science Ph.Ds vote GOP in 2006/2008.
This is quite funny.
Somehow SETI wants us to believe that searching for signs of intelligence in outer space is science, but that searching for it in the building blocks of living organisms is not.
Sorry, SETI...
The belief in extraterrestrials, and the need to find their existance is no more scientific than the belief/need with regards to intelligent design.
I'm going to steal it wholesale and add it to the Darwin Central section of my website. That is, if you don't mind. Very professionally done.
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.