Posted on 09/19/2005 3:24:26 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
Edited on 09/19/2005 3:36:21 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
Excerpt. Story follows: Los Angeles Times
Hey it is a hoot. Now you got a law, then there are consequences for obeying and disobeying a law. Even gravity punishes those who seek to defy it.So now we have established a law of evolution, there must be dominion in charge of the rewards, justice for the adherents and non-adherents regarding that law.
A law of nature can't be disobeyed. The law describes what happens and, ideally, makes predictions about what will happen (if certain conditions hold).
Evolution describes how organic beings on Earth have developed and are developing, a process likely to continue happening unless we develop the means to interfere with it in a decisive way (we've already done so to some extent, of course, through plant and animal husbandry, etc.).
I agree with most of what you said there (although I think it unlikely that the future will bring forth any evidence for intelligent design that is not somehow interpretable in other ways). And, yes, Newton was a sort of a Christian; interestingly, his manuscripts contain far about alchemy than they do about physics and mathematics. He was a strange bird, no doubt about it.
Fair comment, point taken.
My original point wasn't stated as clearly as it should have been. Where 'Creationists' claim there are 'difficulties' in the current model of evolution, they are stating no more than scientists who are addressing questions in the current model of evolution; moreover, there is an exceedingly high probability (though never absolute certainty) that the answers to those questions will be consistent with previous findings. If they are not (and you need good science to establish if they are not), then the theory will be refined or, if necessary, rejected. That is how science works. Science, which is the ongoing quest for knowledge, welcomes challenges to its theories, welcomes new and difficult questions, because it is the pursuit of answers to those new questions that yields new knowledge, and that is the goal.
Given that, then why are Creationists making such 'special pleading'? Why are they not pursuing their challenges within science? Answer: because they are not actually doing science, which is the search for new knowledge, they are instead seeking to bend science to confirm pre-existing religious belief. That's theology--which has its place, by all means. But that place is not (and we agree on this) in a science classroom
Thanks for the links to those sites!
"I've read up a lot on the creation/evolution debate over the past couple years and determined that evolution is the biggest heap of garbage ever perpetrated on us. "
Well, now. That settles it, then.....
"A law of nature can't be disobeyed. The law describes what happens and, ideally, makes predictions about what will happen (if certain conditions hold). "
Nature and evolution are not synonymous, even though that is what evolutionists claim.
"Evolution describes how organic beings on Earth have developed and are developing, a process likely to continue happening unless we develop the means to interfere with it in a decisive way (we've already done so to some extent, of course, through plant and animal husbandry, etc.)."
Well you are partially correct here that evolution is man's work. Evolution does far more than describe how organic beings on earth have developed and are developing. Evolution, man's creation, elevates some men as being more equal than the rest of man. Thus the need for things like entitlement programs, cause not all are of the fittest.
Problem is evolutionists set themselves above reproach and bring out their huge ignorant stick to any and all who disagree. Seems like I remember another system who dealt with the inferiority members of society branding those as mentally deficient.
"And, yes, Newton was a sort of a Christian; interestingly, his manuscripts contain far more about alchemy than they do about physics and mathematics."
The impression that you give hear on FR is someone who has some claim to make against everyone interested in intelligent design. I'm not educated on what all those interested in intelligent design think and do. Some of them may just believe that evolution alone is not capable of explaining things or that they see intelligence behind things and have no interest in confirming a religious belief. They may be out to prove what they believe but that's where a lot of science starts. Even Darwin was acquainted with Evolutionary concepts before he went on his voyage and he did not come up with it entirely from his research. I'm wondering if questioning the motives of all of them is fair. But, like I say I don't know all of them or any of them.
the biogeography problem redux
Best regards...
Evolution, man's creation, elevates some men as being more equal than the rest of man. Thus the need for things like entitlement programs, cause not all are of the fittest.
I prefer not to mix politics and science. There's nothing in evolutionary science that implies that some men are more equal than others (I'm not sure what that even means).
Problem is evolutionists set themselves above reproach and bring out their huge ignorant stick to any and all who disagree. Seems like I remember another system who dealt with the inferiority members of society branding those as mentally deficient.
You won't find any such attitude from me. If I thought evolution wasn't a fact, I'd say so. And I don't draw any conclusions from the fact of evolution about how the weak among us should be treated. We're products of evolution, but choosing what kind of people we want to be turns out to be one of the things that we've developed the ability to do.
Once again, I'm going to accept your point here--it can get dangerous to assume 'motivations'.
In partial mitigation, I would invite you to make an analysis of a few of these evolution/creation threads. It is rare (and I think it can be demonstrated) for someone arguing the Creationist side to engage with issues of science, but it is (sometimes tediously so) common to find someone on that same side object to evolutionary theory solely on the grounds it is contrary to some specific reading of Biblical Genesis. And I have yet to hear anyone propose, from the other side, that they hold evolution to be more probable on the grounds that it is superior on theological grounds.
Religion is religion, and science is science. Science cannot, and does not seek to, address supernatural matters; why do some religiously-minded folks ask it to validate what they hold to be spiritual truths?
Can you show me where any evolutionist on any thread ever has suggested that evolution and nature are synonyms? I've never seen it. I have seen many people suggest that evolution is one of the laws of nature, bit that is a very different point than the one you make.
No oe, ever, breaks the law of gravity.
Some people demonstrate it in uncomfortable ways, though.
Thanks for the ping!
Dunno who, if anyone, said evolution is a law. It's not a law. There is a scientific theory of evolution.
Netwon was also a unitarian. He wasn't in favor of deity as committee.
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.