Posted on 09/13/2005 4:15:07 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
What I suspect is new, to most of the people on this thread, is how old ID really is.
Nice ammunition for any of us to use when the Creationists start talking about their "fresh new idea" that science is somehow conspiring to suppress.
ID is not a new idea. It's an old, tired one that has long outlived its usefulness.
Neither Darwin nor evolution theory make any such claim. Please see my post #48, above; much more could be said, if you are interested
Cordially
Fortunately, we've had a great deal of practice at this civilization thing. Consequently, the less desirable whims usually result in jail time.
I just love Jack Chick. That's some of the funniest stuff I've ever read.
"NO, NOT BLACK LEAF!"
Brings a smile to my face every time.
If not, then please describe the moral implications of gravity.
But Icarus grew exhilarated by the thrill of flying and began getting careless. Flying too close to the sun, the wax holding together his wings melted from the heat and he fell to his death, drowning in the sea.
If you include Universal Common Ancestry as a part of evolution, then it does.
---Faulty premises can lead to faulty conclusions.
Society offers greater protection (hence increased opportunities for survival) than living outside of a civilized society with its human construct morality. Loving one's neighbor as oneself is fundamental to that increased protection. Your premise that "survival of the fittest" is the opposite of "love your neighbor as yourself is not justified.---
Why does society offer better chances of survival?
Why don't cougars form such societies?
Behe's statement of ID is entirely inference, and he quite openly admits it in his book. Yes, he goes into the science of blood clotting and the development of the eye, and shows how incredibly complex they are, irreducibly complex by his estimation. But his argument really does come down to "some things are irreducibly complex (cannot have evolved) and are therefore (by inference) designed".
Defenders of ID want no discussion of the designer, as if it doesn't really matter who or what the designer is or was. I have yet to hear any defender of ID suggest that the designer is of the material world, or even not of the material world. Seems it should be one or the other.
If not of the material world, doesn't ID end up in the same pickle as evolution - more properly abiogenesis - (how does something come from nothing), and if of the material world, why are we not able to study the designer, but only the design?
Just for the heck of it, why don't you go ahead and tell us all what the "six types of evolution" are. : )
Either morality comes from God, or it is a human construct.
If it is God-given, we have no authority to change it.
If it is human-given, it is subject to change without notice.
Ask Adolph Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, or Pol Pot.
Bingo! ID doesn't go anywhere as 'science.' It is just trying to sneak religion past the Constitution and into the classroom
Did you get your understanding of evolution from a comic book?
If true, why don't we stone adulterers and disobedient children anymore? Why don't we condone or permit slavery anymore? Etc., etc.
Sorry, common ancestry means just what it says. That all lifeforms on earth had a common ancestor. How this ancestor came into existance in the first place does not matter a lick to the theory of evolution.
Question: what is the purpose of life under the theory of universal gravitation. Answer: to fall
Dumb argument, ain't it?
I love that list, BTW. The "evolutionist" professor writes a list that distinguishes evolution "between kinds" from evolution "within kind."
"Kind?" Creationists can't talk the talk, much less walk the walk.
Or--as my post #48 outlined--it could have evolved, just as life evolved, is indeed inherent in life.
If it [morality] is God-given, we have no authority to change it.
With respect, much of our human history is the history of wars about who possesses the authority of God. Or who has the 'correct' understanding of God's will. No matter what you believe, you are a heretic to someone else's religion. Every religious follower believes his God, his morality, is the right one--but they are mutually exclusive and incompatible, and that has given humanity no end of suffering
bump
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.