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 ...
Who survives? The fit. Who are the fit? Those who survive.
Who wins baseball games? Those who beat the other teams. Who beats the other teams? Those who win baseball games.
Don't you mean, "Evolution is Bad Theory?"
YEC INTREP - Location, Location, Location - consider the source!
You might have to worry about a "salt storm"!
:-)
LLS
AMEN!
LLS
"Can be reached..."
Clearly this is wrong. Evidence can be brought forth to eitehr confirm or deny the original proposition.
In the case of ID, mathematical modeling and information theory have been used to buttress the claim of this major criticism of the evolutionary model.
Beyond this, we should look at Rev. Buurko, the author of this piece. He is a presbyterian pastor in California whose church also offers some informative insights: Burklo Link Clearly, Burklo is a liberal theologian whose rejection of the bible also has him deviating from historic Christianity is very, soul-damning ways worse than his deviation on this thread.
By calling ourselves progressive, we mean that we are Christians who:proclaim Jesus Christ as our Gate to the realm of God
recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the gateway to God's realm;
understand our sharing of bread and wine in Jesus's name to be a representation of God's feast for all peoples
invite all sorts and conditions of people to join in our worship and in our common life as full partners, including (but not limited to):
believers and agnostics
conventional Christians and questioning skeptics
homosexuals and heterosexuals
females and males
the despairing and the hopeful
those of all races and cultures
those of all classes and abilities,without imposing on them the necessity of becoming like us
think that the way we treat one another and other people is more important than the way we express our beliefs;
find more grace in the search for meaning than in absolute certainty, in the questions than in the answers;
see ourselves as a spiritual community in which we discover the resources required for our work in the world: striving for justice and peace among all people, and bringing hope to those Jesus called the least of his sisters and brothers;
recognize that our faith entails costly discipleship, renunciation of privilege, and conscientious resistance to evil -- as has always been the tradition of the church.
I was not surprised that rejection in one place indicated rejection in many others.
But Christianity (the reverend Mr. Burklo is a Presbyterian minister) does teach that God exists apart from the universe.
Take it up with Mr. Burklo. I believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists apart from the universe.
I don't understand why so many "scientists" are so afraid of the idea of "intelligent design"? The paranoia doesn't make any sense at all. There are very real questions concerning exactly how life began on earth and very real questions to how macro-evolution occurred and why life is able to diversify so quickly in huge bursts and I think that the putting forth of make believe stories in science books whether they be pro-evolution or anti-evolution seems to be counterproductive. I don't know how many times I've read evo-speak stories that are not in the least backed up by the evidence at hand.
I read a story the other day about a study where men were asked to watch other men having sex and found that the sperm of the men who were watching became more active. The conclusion was that that response had "evolved" so that the men who were watching might have a better chance of impregnating a women who had just been copulated with by another man. This may be so but the conclusion was in no way arrived at by the facts established by the study nor was that the only possible interpretation of the data.
I don't think the existence of God necessarily requires "intelligent design" because a creator could certainly design a world that was built to unfold however "he" wished.
I do think that the increasing level of complexity that is being discovered as we dig deeper into the nature of biological systems suggests that natural selection as proposed by Darwin is just not enough and that we have by far oversimplified the creative capability of complex systems in the universe.
What we have with even the simplest cells is more complex than any bit of nanotechnology that we have yet created, they are not simple blobs with rudimentary respiration systems. Evolution as it stands has some critical problems, one is the ancestor problem, just because one group differentiates into a separate species does not necessarily mean that the source species is doomed to extinction. One could go on and on, what we need are more questions being asked rather than the crude attempt to shoehorn all thinking into a box called "natural selection" by people who are barely removed from the religiousness of those creationists they scorn.
Good search. Gack.
You can put a sign "Peach Tree" on a thorn bush, but there will be no sweet fruit on it, only thorns.
See #46
I would say he is radical
I do not agree. God is everywhere and the universe exists because He wills it to be. He created it and He sustains it in orderly way which can be described by us as the law of nature.
Miracles happen when He makes the exception to His rules. We can say that laws of nature are God's habits.
Now, if He wanted to create man through evolution, who are we to second guess Him.? After all it is written in the Holy Scripture that He made man out of clay.
Huh?
I do not agree. God is everywhere and the universe exists because He wills it to be.
I think what the Rev is saying is that pantheism, or any religious belief that teaches the universe is God and God is the universe is a pagan belief.
It is not what the Bible says about God.
They're not afraid of it. They just oppose teaching it as science because it's not science.
I don't think the existence of God necessarily requires "intelligent design" because a creator could certainly design a world that was built to unfold however "he" wished.
Good. My goal is to try to get more people convinced of this simple truth.
I do think that the increasing level of complexity that is being discovered as we dig deeper into the nature of biological systems suggests that natural selection as proposed by Darwin is just not enough and that we have by far oversimplified the creative capability of complex systems in the universe.
You're right. Darwin's theory was oversimplified. It's been expanded a lot in the last 100 years. For instance, we now know the mechanism for variation in inhertiable traits. We understand the deatils of how speciation occurs.
But you are wrong that the complexity of life is too great for evolution. There are mountains of evidence supporting mainstream evolution.
Evolution as it stands has some critical problems, one is the ancestor problem, just because one group differentiates into a separate species does not necessarily mean that the source species is doomed to extinction.
Why is this a problem exactly? There's nothing in the modern theory of evolution that says the ancestor species has to go extinct. In fact, quite often, the ancestor and descendant species coexist.
One could go on and on, what we need are more questions being asked rather than the crude attempt to shoehorn all thinking into a box called "natural selection" by people who are barely removed from the religiousness of those creationists they scorn.
The situation you describe is simply not accurate. Mainstream biology accepts that there are mechanisms other than natural selection that play a role in evolution. For instance, sexual selection, genetic drift, the founder effect, etc.
So long as your theory is scientific, it will get a hearing. The problem with ID is that it is not scientific.
I've been trying to make the same point for a long time, but I must say, that you have put it extremely well, better than I ever have. Mind if I use that expression?
Yes, by all mean use it.
Exactly. And you ask them how they get from A to B and they give you a blank stare. You might just as well say "There is order in the universe so there must NOT be an Intelligent Designer", or any other nonsequitur of your choosing.
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.