Posted on 09/06/2005 5:11:42 AM PDT by billorites
Well, perhaps "disastrous" is a tad hyperbolic, but the point is clear enough -- pawning off non-scientific supernaturalism as science will not be beneficial for the educational well-being of our youngsters.
In the art of argument, this is called "obvious".
I've read Behe and Dembski and both reject the idea that they have anything to say either way about creation. In fact Behe believes in the evolution of species but believes some fundamental cellular structures and processes can't be explained by evolutionary theory.
Dembski says expressly that ID is a theory about how complex information is and how it gets that way.
I'm a creationist myself but reject ID becuase it denies that God has created natural process that can aggregate information at certain levels of density-I say we don't know. Also, I don't reject common descent I just reject that anyone has found the mechanism. Therefore the case is unproven.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.html
Show me ONE, JUST ONE, single piece of evidence that anything in this physical realm has "evolved" from anything else (just so you know. I'll not accept the BS lies that adaptation "is" evolution. You and I both know that is total crap
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
And one more thing... stop pretending that Biologists buy into your ilk's junk science. REAL Biologists want nothing to do with your BS theories and "junk science."
Over 99% of biologists accept the theory of evolution.
And, based on your vitriol, I know you have never actually met, let alone talked with, a bonafide biologist.
Actually, that line is not completely 'artificial'. I coincides with what can be observed by a single observer in a single lifetime. While science can make hypotheses about things that can't be repeated, it also ought admit the levels of certainty are reduced absent observation.
First, they want to tighten the requirements of science to exclude evidence they don't like. One way to do this is by restricting science solely to those phenomena that are reproducible in the lab. We see this argument being made quite often. Sometimes they also demand eyewitness testimony for everything, as an additional way to reject conclusions about events in the distant past. Were they successful in this effort, science would no longer include fields that rely on observations of natural phenomena, such as geology, plate tectonics, volcanism, astronomy, cosmology -- and of course, evolution. They reject the discoveries of those sciences by flippantly asking: "How do you know? Were you there?" They'll eventually have to exclude a lot of lab-reproducable science too, because atomic theory (specifically fusion) supports the age of the sun, and radiometric dating supports the age of the earth.
At the same time, they want to loosen the requirements of science to include "evidence" they do like, by opening up science to unverifiable (and perhaps supernatural) influences. This is the effort being made in Kansas:
Conservatives Seek Redefinition Of Science In Kansas Schools [Evolution vs Creationism].
I guess I'm going to have to abandon my work in nuclear & particle physics to advocate my "Intelligent Binder" theory of the atomic nucleus:
The structure holding quarks together inside a proton or neutron has never been directly observed. Gluons, the supposed "gauge particles" that hold together nucleons have never been seen in particle accelerators. The theory of QCD (Quantum Chromodynamics) has failed miserably to produce closed form solutions describing the binding forces within nucleons; in fact "dirty tricks" such as renormalization, where infinite results that physicists don't like are "swept under the rug", are used to get the "correct" results that physicists want.
Such a complicated binding force that we obviously can't describe perfectly with science must be the product of an "Intelligent Binder". After all, the Bible says:
Christ, the Creator "Is before all things, and in him all things hold together". -Col 1:17, NIV
The Biblical evidence is clear. Also, traditional nuclear physics is the foundation of an immoral worldview, that has killed millions of innocent people; nuclear physics can be blamed for the destruction of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the Chernobyl Disaster, Three Mile Island and the creation of devastating super-mosters such as Godzilla and Mothra.
It's high time we teach the controversy about nuclear physics and give the Intelligent Binder theory equal time to the outdated, traditional nuclear theory.
(Special thanks to Jack Chick for inspiring the Biblical Selection)
And you in fact cited Chick as your inspiration. It's too early in the morning for me. In fact, it's morning, and that means that it's too early.
It's already happening. University of California is being sues by Christian students who were denied admission because they were taught biology from non-accredited text books. These textbooks covered creationism and were used in a Christian highschool. They are claiming they are being discriminated against based upon their religious beliefs. Here's the FR thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1474790/posts
There are already people in FR claiming universities should have their federal funding cut if they teach evolution. Why? Because the Republicans (i.e. Christians with morals) are in charge now. This is becoming a very political issue and will cost Republicans at the polls if it becomes a strong party plank. Thankfully, this is not (yet) the majority view of fellow conservatives.
I know, I read "Big Daddy" - got a kick out of it. But then again, I wouldn't really expect Jack Chick to do much research about multiple jet-events or nucleon structure functions before talking out his rear windpipe.
LOL YOU mean "fossils" like the Peking Man? Or maybe Lucy eh? Perhaps you're referring to the fossils of 'Neanderthal Man' hahaha.
Listen doc, all the "fossil records" that evolutionary kooks like to point to in an attempt to PROVE their "THEORY" are hoaxes. I realize that you're probably frothing at the mouth right now. I mean, how dare someone have an education and the ability to reason right?
You gave it a nice try doc (actually I'm being nice just saying that) but fossils are NOT laboratories much as you may wish they were. You must seriously REVAMP our entire language to come up with that crap. Next, your "theories" don't fly and all REAL scientists will tell you that.
If this crap that you're trying to peddle is what your education in the public schools has taught you then I'd say you have serious grounds for a lawsuit.
Forgive me folks but I just can't help myself IROTFLMAO... Just one more... Who can forget the HUGE discovery of the Nebraska Man. These evolutionary nutcases created an entire spiecies of pre-historic man from the tooth (one tooth folks) of a javalina. HAHA... I could go on all day and these kooks will still wonder why we don't take them seriously.
Here's the fact of the matter. Evolutionists are afraid of Creationists. The don't want Creationism taught to our children because they know that if it is their BS theories will be laughed out of existance.
Sorry guys but the idiocy of evolution just cracks me up.
True, much in the same way that the builders and scholars of the Libary of Alexandria were afraid of the barbarians who eventually burned it down.
Or perhaps he is refering to any of the hundreds of thousands of fossils found. btw all the fossils you mention above are genuine. Either you are a troll, or you are totally clueless of what you are arguing against.
A little excerpt from real scientific researchNow we come to a totally opposite position: Archaeopteryx is not an extinct bird, but rather a planned hoax. At the same time that mounting evidence was beginning to indicate it to be a carefully contrived fake; confirmed evolutionists moved toward the position that Archaeopteryx was only an ancient bird and not a half-reptile / half-bird. By calling it a `bird," they avoided the crisis that struck the scientific world—and the major museums—when Piltdown Man was exposed as a hoax in 1953.
Three initial problems. Before considering the *Hoyle / *Watkins expose, let us first look at some other facets of this overall problem.
You will observe in the following discussion that there are some observational differences between this and the preceding approach to the problem. For example, while some experts consider Archaeopteryx to have had a body like a bird, those who consider it a fake believe the fossilized body to be a reptile. Somebody took a reptile fossil—and carefully added wings to it!
"Like the later Piltdown man, Archaeopteryx seemed a perfect intermediate form . . There are, however, disturbing analogies between Piltdown man and Archaeopteryx that have come to light with careful study. Both are hodgepodges of traits found in the forms they are supposed to link—with each trait present in essentially full developed form rather than in an intermediate state! Allowing for alterations, Piltdown's jaw was that of an orangutan; Archaeopteryx's skull was a dinosaur skull. Moreover, Piltdown man's cranium was a Homo sapien's skull; Archaeopteryx's feathers were ordinary feathers, differing in no significant way from those of a strong flying bird such as a falcon . . The lack of proper sufficient bony attachments for powerful flight muscles is enough to rule out the possibility that Archaeopteryx could even fly, feathers notwithstanding."—W. Frair and P. Davis, Case for Creation (1983), pp. 58-60.
If you are going to cite fakes, at least get the ones that are fakes correct. And it was the biologists you deride that deduced the fake Piltdown man. The fossil record is a laboratory. Sadly, you seem to think science can only be done in a room with a fume hood. In regards to scientific language, you need an education in that area if you want to argue. We don't want creationism taught because there isn't a single shred of science present in an idea based entirely upon the supernatural. You haven't even offered a better explanation and you willfully ignore evidence right in front of you. A closed mind is a terrible thing to waste.
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.