Posted on 08/25/2005 3:17:05 PM PDT by curiosity
We've seen the little symbols on the backs of cars: The "Jesus fish" and the "Darwin fish." The Jesus fish eating the Darwin fish. The Darwin fish eating the Jesus fish. It makes for entertainment while commuting, but this front of the culture wars won't be won or lost on the freeway.
The creationists realized that they were not getting enough traction in their bumper- sticker campaign against the theory of evolution. So biblical literalists have come up with a new strategy: leave the word "God" out of the public argument, and come up with one that sounds more scientific. It's called "intelligent design." President Bush has endorsed it as one of the theories of life's origins that should be taught in public schools.
But it isn't a theory at all. "Intelligent design" posits that the structure of life is so complex and delicate that it is unimaginable that it could have come into existence without having been designed by some intelligent force. Therefore such an intelligence must be responsible for it. But this is a conclusion that can be reached only by assuming that it is true in the first place -- a classic tautology, or example of circular reasoning, which has no place in science.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
The Dawrwin fish is an antiChristian symbol. The Jesus fish does not represent creationism. It was historically used to identify Christians. To mock it is to mock all Christians.
But Christianity (the reverend Mr. Burklo is a Presbyterian minister) does teach that God exists apart from the universe. He is not our "experience of holy wonder." Complete atheists can marvel and wonder.
Nor does ID state that because life is so intricate and delicate that we can not imagine how it came to be without intelligence, it must have an intelligence behind it. Rather, it states that certain aspects of life, (i.e. irreducible complexity of molecular systems) could not have come into existance by random processes. Sure there are arguments against ID and irreducible complexity, but you have to argue against what ID actually says.
And no, believers should not put all their hope and faith in ID.
Warning rough language ahead...
And no, believers should not put all their hope and faith in ID.
I believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I was highlighting his assertion that ID is nothing more than Biblical literalism disguised as science, which it is not. Many writers on the evolution side of the argument make this assertion, either because they are ignorant of ID or because they are being tendentious. This really annoys me. But please make note that I refrained from indicating whether I believe in ID; it was not my intent to offer an opinion on ID or evolution. The fact is, I happen to be a scientist who believes in evolution; like the well-known biologist and Roman Catholic Kenneth Miller (Finding Darwin's God), I see no contradiction between evolution and my Christian faith.
I agree it's in poor taste.
I was thinking at one point of putting both on my car, with the Jesus fish above the Darwin fish, thereby symbolizing the fact that I accept both Christianity and science and indicating my priorities. However, after thinking about it, I came to the conclusion that the Darwin fish borders on blasphemy. So I decided against it.
I believe I'll have another drink.
You also may have saved your car from vandalism.
True, but once you realize that the person with the anti-Christian symbol usually has an intellectual level far below a brussels sprout, it is hard to get angry with him/her.
Who's responsible for designing the "intelligent source"?
I believe I'll have another drink.
That is often one of the paths to enlightenment. Especially if it's Chianti.
Typical faggy liberal "christian" idea of God. God certainly does exist outside of our realm of understanding.
faggy liberal "christian"...ROFLMAO
On the "survival of the fittest":
Who survives? The fit. Who are the fit? Those who survive.
Hmmm.
The author of this article reasoned in circular logic (what the accuses the id'ers of doing by stating that they come at the scientific evidence with bias, and then inject religion (what the evolutionists are inferring is myth by either intentionally or on purpose by saying it this way..), when in reality he never attacks id on its merits or scientific grounds, he simply say "id=religion" so don't believe it! Really many id'ers do believe in id based on scientific evidence/observation. It's really a CHEAP shot, and shows a lack of faith in their own stance. IF you want to debate evolution v creation v id then fine do it based on facts and the search to find the truth, but most evolutionists I have found won't do this (especially in the media). Evolutionists in meadia find it easy to discredit an opponent by CHEAP tactics using political arguments ala the talk shows, but on issues based so much upon facts and not so much politics it just makes then sound silly (OF COURSE ACTUALLY ARGUING POINTS WOULD BE PLAYING FAIR IN THE ORIGINS DEBATE, something LIBERALS rarely do, and I doubt they will anytime soon on this debate)!! :)I my self am a CREATIONIST because I believe that the world wide flood existed and covered all mountains even (there is evidence that the Bible is based on fact, and scientists have found seashells on top of very high mountains :)!).
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.