Posted on 09/28/2005 6:31:31 AM PDT by gobucks
bump
Please show me one piece of non-biblical evidence supporting ID.
Notice, I said, "supporting ID". An attack on evolution does not by default support ID. Make a note of it.
whos standard of "right thing" do you use?
Easy! Predict and observe a change.
sigh ... metaphysics. I haven't looked before at this connection. Went to the link... and sure enough, this fellow sure sounds confident:
"What does evolution tell us about human nature? It tells us human nature is a superstition".
Thanks.
Just repeating 'supernatural' over and over doesn't make it true. I have no problem crediting God as the designer, but the core I.D. folks make it clear: I.D. is a pure forensic science, and who the designer is is an open question. No where do they assert it is exclusively 'supernatural'. Some MSM articles are getting this part right, but most are force feeding the masses the line you just threw out...
"What makes you think, btw, that ALL nonreligious folks are leftists?"
Where did I state "ALL nonreligious folks" are leftists. I have stated most of the evolutionists are godless atheistic leftists. All that said, do a Freeper search on the title "Faith of the Fatherless".
"How is it a factual error? . . .you can't prove one way or the other, that's why it's faith."
Your argument rests on the premise that anything one human cannot prove to another cannot be called a fact. What you overlook is that, when God demonstrates His existence to a person, then that person knows (not believes, knows) that God's existence is a fact and not solely a matter of faith.
When God does that, and it seems it happens far more often than even most believers think, He does it in such a way as to leave mankind's free will intact -- that is, in such a way that people are able to generate objections, doubts, and outright disbelief if they are so inclined.
Still, for many people walking the earth today, and many more throughout history, God's existence has at some point become fact and not a matter of faith.
Further, those who study accounts of such cases and decide that they make a compelling case are engaging in no more flights of fancy than historians who look at accounts of ancient events and find them credible, or modern investigators who look at patterns of reports and find them credible. The only difference is that any event that has to do with God is a priori deemed implausible or impossible, which is hardly scientific.
People are frequently convicted in courts of law on the basis of eyewitness testimony, which is stronger if corroborated by more than one witness, but eyewitness testimony of God's existence is rejected out of hand because of that same a priori assumption.
When it comes to direct contact with God, many people seem to regard it as open-minded to take the position, "It hasn't happened to me, so all such reports must be false." Others, hearing that, say, "It hasn't happened to me either, so he must be right about it being false."
Pretty soon you have a whole, informal league of people who reject all accounts of such things on the grounds that, "It must be false, because it's impossible." And this they deem open-minded, rational, and scientific.
Go figure.
"Science is very open."
I like how totally sincere you sounded when you wrote this part.
I'm not anti science. I simply take a pretty dim view of Bioscientists, priests would be a better descriptor for this lot, most of whom are profoundly leftist in outlook.
Using your criteria, evolution isn't science, because it can't be tested either. None has discovered the mechanism - it is a matter of "faith"
4.4 weeks to go...
You are a golfer? Well Praise God. I have noticed a serious paucity of golfers here in Freeperland.
Now, as to the connections to evolution, I'll have to write it up ... later. Mrs GB is just ticked. I do have a little one, and I'm the night time bottle dude...
But I will write it up. A question to you: did you know Hogan was a left handed man? He learned to play golf right handed ... because he grew up poor, and the only used clubs he could find were right handed. Do you own a copy of his 'Five Fundamentals...?'
er, we were talking about science education, not babysitting.
I used to shoot golf in the 60s.
(If it got any hotter I would quit!)
Post your proof.
I.D. is not science, as it can't be tested.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then entropy can't be tested either (The Second Law of Thermodynamics).
Because Intelligent design is the CONVERSE COROLLARY of entropy.
Where entropy is an accepted LAW in science that systems tend toward disorder, intelligent design says that with specialized energy input disorder can be ordered.
A question to you: did you know Hogan was a left handed man? He learned to play golf right handed ... because he grew up poor, and the only used clubs he could find were right handed. Do you own a copy of his 'Five Fundamentals...?'
Yes and yes. Golf is almost a metaphysical experience, isn't it? I've noticed that no matter what their differences, golfers have something very basic in common, however completely meaningless, useless, and senseless it may seem to the rest of the world. It's almost like a brotherhood.
I used to shoot golf in the 60s. (If it got any hotter I would quit!)
Bob Hope, IIRC.
Doesn't matter. ID will get in the schools, at least in some areas. I just don't see it as a constitutional issue. Local school boards should be self-governing.
OK, here's the truth.
I used to shoot golf in the 60s. Had to quit because I spent the 70s in graduate school.
Better?
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.