Posted on 08/20/2005 5:45:53 PM PDT by Nicholas Conradin
By SEATTLE - When President Bush plunged into the debate over the teaching of evolution this month, saying, "both sides ought to be properly taught," he seemed to be reading from the playbook of the Discovery Institute, the conservative think tank here that is at the helm of this newly volatile frontier in the nation's culture wars.
After toiling in obscurity for nearly a decade, the institute's Center for Science and Culture has emerged in recent months as the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country. Pushing a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution, the institute has in many ways transformed the debate into an issue of academic freedom rather than a confrontation between biology and religion.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
A completely useless "explanation" without any scientific merit. You might as well be talking about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
"Well the creationists are very predictable."
They're not the only ones. On every one of these threads, people who think ID is probably true get lumped in with young-earth, 7-day creationists. That's very predictable.
Gosh, I gave up my subscription to Nat'l Geographic so long ago because the ex needed more space in the laundry room.
huh? And you gave up room for the names of theories of modern science in your head because it was crowding out the snarky sarcasm center of your brain?
[You pretty much put yourself in that camp when you attack someone for having to gall to expect you to follow a link to the evidence you've demanded, and show some sign of understanding the nature of of what you wish to criticize.]
Shot and a goal!
:^)
There are many theological problems in this view. The existence of complex mathmatical models woven into physical objects may imply that the universe is animated with intelligence, but it is possible to draw different conclusions about the possible ethical consequences. One could slip into antinominianism or solipsism quite easily.
I prefer to leave metaphysics out of politics, it seems safer that way.
They lump themselves together, in that they are both collections of non-scientists, touting theories that are not amenable to scientific methods, at the present state of the data, to the degree that they feel comfortable revising the science curriculum by force of law, over the objections of the vast majority of scientists, and the institutions that speak for scientists.
Note that a tiny flea can jump three feet high; many times its body length.
A flea, scaled up to 150lbs, could jumb about 3 feet high, too. (Well, if it could breathe.)
But of course there are facts relating to the science of biology - biological facts.
On the contrary, all evidence now points to the Anthropic “argument”, or “Principal” as it is more commonly known, as being the best theory that fits the facts as we now know them (much like evolution, eh?). This became especially true when physicists recently determined that the universe will continue to expand forcer. That rules out the Eternal Return (that Nitsche so loved) that disbelieving physicists used to rely on. Now some scientists have come up with a completely new and completely un-testable theory (gotta have faith, right?) that imagines an infinite number of universes, and that we are but one of the infinitude. That is the ONLY way they have found to try to discount the Intelligently Designed universe that we live in. It seems awfully weak to me. So, it seems to me that science is now on the side of Intelligent Design for the universe, and it is up to others to try and come up with alternate theories to this one. (Again – much like evolution, yes?)
PS - I didn't mean to have "raised my voice" before with the Hoyle quote. I copied and pasted it that way. I should have retyped it. My apoligies.
According to Falwell, the survival of the University could be attributed to the work of Daniel Reber and Jimmy Thomas, as leaders of the non-profit Christian Heritage Foundation of Forest, Virginia. A secret benefactor was the South Korean Rev. Sun Myung Moon, the controversial self-proclaimed "messiah." Covertly, Moon helped bail out Liberty University through one of his front groups which funneled US$3.5 million to the Reber-Thomas Christian Heritage Foundation, the non-profit organziation that had purchased the school's debt.[emphasis added]
Fascinating.
"and justified."
Only by prejudice.
ID doesn't deny the factuality of evolution. There is no dispute at all until you get to the final question, "Did it all happen by accident, or was there an Intelligence behind it?"
Either answer rests on religious and not scientific grounds.
Ah... I've been asking similar questions of teachers and professors my entire life.
My expertise is not in the scientific field, but I can't help but observe the "fact" that the fossils of creatures which have been placed at the very beginning of the evolutionary chain can be found by the thousands, as can creatures at the end of the evolutionary chain. Yet "Evolutionists" cannot produce even one single "missing link" fossil of any species that have evolved according to the accepted theory of evolution. Tiny bits and pieces of a few apelike skulls is not sufficient evidence to secure Evolution as "fact", otherwise the word "theory" would no longer be applied by the scientific community when referring to Evolution.
I am not endorsing ID, but "common sense" tells me that some kind of fossil linking the evolution of at least one species to it's next level of development would surely have been discovered by now... "if" the theory of evolution was indeed plausible.
So creationism becomes Conservatism without Capitalism.
bump for later
Or pi =4*sum (1-1/3+1/5-1/7....)
Pi's as well defined as any other number.
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.