Posted on 09/27/2005 7:22:58 PM PDT by gobucks
"People in heterosexual society may not be aware that they ever met a gay or lesbian."
I'm fairly certain that that guy that tried to grope me in the rest stop was gay. I do know he does not know how to block a right jab.
Sorry about my typos tonight. I'm distracted watching coverage of the FEMA hearings on cable news!
BTW, those are crappy rebuttals.
Nevertheless a handful of elites in black robes will overturn the will of the people to decide what they want taught in their public schools. And the left will rejoice as evidence that democracy works.
What is funny is that there are a lot of positive arguments for ID, but the folks on the other side always respond with some trite bs about "giving up" and resorting to explaining things by God. The normal response of the Darwinist leads me to believe they have made it more personal than the ID folks have. They have reasons beyond scientific inquiry for their faith in Darwin. I'm like the previous poster who said something along the lines of "conduct and experiment and shut up about the rest."
[I actually trust high school and college students to do the reading and come to conclusions on what does and does not represent "errors in logic". You seem to have already determined that for them.]
Formal logic and related scientific methodology are not something that students can just pick up on their own, they require literally years of instruction to master.
In a way, this is similar to the amount of time and devotion that is required to master Christian philosophy. You wouldn't expect someone who had no religious background to just pick up the Bible and begin reading and within a few weeks come to the correct conclusions about what does and does not represent Christian thought. Think about all the instruction that's needed for a student to understand the nuances of each of the Ten Commandments, for example, or what lessons are to be learned from the two persons executed alongside Jesus, or the significance of Thomas the apostle's failure to believe that Jesus had returned.
[...how much reading have you personally done regarding theory?]
Three years of university level physics and engineering courses (which includes scientific methodology) and I've continued to read large amounts of material related to or based upon scientific methodology for the last 20+ years.
Interesting thought about how Darwinists react to challenges to the theory.
I had a similar thought this week. I was listening to Rush playing an interview of Dan Rather by Marvin Kalb. It was two old school guys talking to each other about the new media. It was clear they were clueless about blogging, new media, and even Free Republic - which they mention.
I was thinking that there's a parallel between the slow and clueless response of the MSM to new media and how Darwinists are responding to ID. Just a thought.
Hi Spinestein. Two thoughts.
To your point about how long it takes to master something: mastery is one thing. Basic understanding at a high school or even college level is another. I agree that you can spend years delving into the complexities of Christianity. On the other hand, the essentials of the faith are fairly easy to explain and can and have been grasped by people quite quickly on a common sense intuitive level. Same thing for the origins of life. I believe that most people have an intuitive understanding that one realistic possibility is that organic life is complex and was created by an intelligent agent with a purpose. The essentials of both sides could be grasped and argued in an entry level survey course. Interested parties could then go into it deeper.
Sorry about the typo on my question about how much study you've done. We have roughly similar backgrounds, and I respect your study.
The question I intended to ask was: how much of ID theory have you read about from the proponents of ID? I ask, because as I watch these thread arguments it doesn't seem to me that the ID opponents have read source material on the topic. One of the excellent essays that I read recently on the topic was William Dembski's essay on "What ID isn't". I'd recommend it as starting point reading on actual ID theory.
No, the addition of a "gay agenda" is not in the article merely an additon by the poster.
spinestein,
You're welcome. I'm enjoying the conversation, as opposed to an argument.
Interesting thought on "paying your dues". I guess my question would be at what point on the road of paying your dues do you get introduced to challenges to Darwinism. Reasonable challenges to theories are, to me, in the scope of scientific learning and investigation. Is that what "falsifiable" hinges on? Challenges. Granted, I think most Darwinists believe they have successfully ruled ID out as a failed challenge. I think not. I think as it develops and gets more robust it will be a serious challenge.
I'm interested in your allowance the evolution is "not intuitive". There could be a whole discussion there.
As I've said, I re-immersing myself in the debate and doing a lot of reading on my own time as well. I'll be working out my thoughts on my blog, mixed in with my posts on my political thoughts and ramblings. Here's a link to a sample post. You have to geek-slog your way through it:
http://partisannewsjunkie.blogspot.com/2005/09/evolution-vs-intelligent-design-false.html
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.