Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The ‘Darwinist Inquisition’ Starts Another Round
http://www.pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=BreakPoint1&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=169

Posted on 09/30/2005 2:09:51 PM PDT by truthfinder9

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 581-600 next last
To: Borges

Well, what kind of other research does the government fund? Are you opposed to any of it?


161 posted on 09/30/2005 3:59:59 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent
God is incapable of setting up initial conditions such that they evolve without further interference? Isn't He supposed to be omnipotent?

I am trying to wrap my brain around your double negative. In any case, God is by nature coherent. It is also clear to me that God is actively involved in His creation.Omnipotent, yes. A watch maker, no.

162 posted on 09/30/2005 4:00:46 PM PDT by Louis Foxwell (THIS IS WAR AND I MEAN TO WIN IT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster

Why do you think all life forms are transitional? And "because they are" is not an acceptable answer.


163 posted on 09/30/2005 4:00:56 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: vpintheak
WHAT!!! Are you afraid of?

Pseudo science being taught in a science class.
164 posted on 09/30/2005 4:02:22 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Stop worrying so much about the religious implications of ID and open your eyes to the astonishing refutation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics that might have occured so many millennia ago What? Back up the turnip truck and explain that one. I missed something.

Gotcha!

165 posted on 09/30/2005 4:02:39 PM PDT by Louis Foxwell (THIS IS WAR AND I MEAN TO WIN IT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

Why do you think they're not?


166 posted on 09/30/2005 4:03:08 PM PDT by shuckmaster (Bring back SeaLion and ModernMan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: jennyp; Amos the Prophet
Amos the Prophet: And it makes claims about those processes that preclude the possibility of a designer. Random selection is an atheist doctrine.

jennyp (in response to Amos...) Exactly in the same way that modern physics - by precluding the explanation that angels push the planets around - is an atheist doctrine.

Modern physics makes no such claim.  It may indeed be true that angels push the planets around.  Science can only describe the rules they follow as they push the planets around.

Amos,  "Random selection" is not strictly an atheistic doctrine.  The atheistic doctrine is to interpret "random" as meaning that God is not involved.  In fact, the scientific meaning of "random" is that it is beyond the ability to measure or predict.  The word random could be changed to "chosen by God" with no change to the scientific meaning as long as you keep in mind that the science itself says  nothing about God.

167 posted on 09/30/2005 4:03:10 PM PDT by etlib (No creature without tentacles has ever developed true intelligence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
In fact Gonzalez's only defense seems to be that his opponents are atheists. Of course, many of them are not, and so this is just an attempted slur.

I don't know what his problem is. He got tenure at ISU; he's released a movie and book on cosmology with a co-author who has made an idiot of himself publicly with his complete misunderstanding of the Special Theory of Relativity; and having injected himself into the public realm, he's now objecting there are people who have strong opinions contrary to his and are expressing them openly, just as he does. Has he been shouted down, or suppressed, told not to publish? Nope. In fact, Sigma Xi at Northern Iowa just invited him up last week to present his views. Granted, there were hordes of evolutionists there ready to ask him questions (several of which he flubbed), but what does he want? Unquestioning acceptance?

As someone who's been politically and outspokenly active in an unpopular area on campus for 20 years, I have advice for Gonzalez: stop whining.

168 posted on 09/30/2005 4:04:18 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Then I presume it's settled that we're the result of evolution,

By Gosh, I think he's got it!

But is it God's evolution or Chaos's?

169 posted on 09/30/2005 4:05:14 PM PDT by Louis Foxwell (THIS IS WAR AND I MEAN TO WIN IT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
I don't make the decisions what sorts of research government funds. But if you ask for such funds you generally has to present a plan. Biologists have those. Microscopes, fossils and the like.
170 posted on 09/30/2005 4:05:22 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster

True! LOL!


171 posted on 09/30/2005 4:05:34 PM PDT by porkchops 4 mahound (I don't give a d@mn about any sacred cows; science, and freedom, depend on honest open discourse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
"In relation to the second law of thermodynamics, might it be about the same as the buildup of complex elements during the life cycle of stars? Lots of things get organized in a complex fashion. Certainly this does not violate the second law."

Umm no. The life cycle of stars is clearly explainable by natural processes. Assembling something infinitely more complex then the computer you are pecking away at is something entirely different. I think the SETI analogy is relevant to this discussion. If randomness can account for extreme complexity, then why hasn't SETI found even the simplest pattern yet?
172 posted on 09/30/2005 4:05:54 PM PDT by RightInEastLansing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Amos the Prophet
But is it God's evolution or Chaos's?

It's not the place of science to try to answer this question.
173 posted on 09/30/2005 4:06:25 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Amos the Prophet
(1) Use the spell checker.

(2) 'Random selection' appears to be a creation of yours. It has nothing to do with evolution. If it is an atheist doctrine, and it's your doctrine, then presumably you are an atheist?

174 posted on 09/30/2005 4:06:43 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Amos the Prophet
Stop worrying so much about the religious implications of ID and open your eyes to the astonishing refutation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics that might have occured so many millennia ago

====

What? Back up the turnip truck and explain that one. I missed something.

====

Gotcha!

====

What are you talking about?

175 posted on 09/30/2005 4:06:58 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

Is this a real question?


176 posted on 09/30/2005 4:07:30 PM PDT by porkchops 4 mahound (I don't give a d@mn about any sacred cows; science, and freedom, depend on honest open discourse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: RightInEastLansing
"By the way aren't all cosmology books essentially "lay-mans" books? I have read a few, and am always left with an empty feeling."

No, there are many scholarly works that without a very good understanding of some very complex math are incomprehensible to most. Math is the language physicists use to describe the universe because english is just not adequate to describe the concepts. A have taken graduate level differential geometry and am unable to follow much of what leading researchers in that field are studying.
177 posted on 09/30/2005 4:08:26 PM PDT by Ignatius J Reilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: drhogan
the relationship between God and the laws of evolution is analogous to that between an author and a book

Except that the book has not been finished. God is still writing it.

The notion that God can not be considered in scientific circles because he started all this and left town is not what any Theist would agree to.

The universe is not a watch, wound up and running down. There is a profound and continuing creativity going on that can not be reduced to either pure chance or pure mechanics.

178 posted on 09/30/2005 4:09:34 PM PDT by Louis Foxwell (THIS IS WAR AND I MEAN TO WIN IT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: RightInEastLansing
Umm no. The life cycle of stars is clearly explainable by natural processes. Assembling something infinitely more complex then the computer you are pecking away at is something entirely different. I

So a star is not as complex as a hydrogen atom?
179 posted on 09/30/2005 4:09:43 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: etlib; PatrickHenry
It may indeed be true that angels push the planets around.

Y'know, when we say they're trying to send science back to the Dark Ages, they accuse us of exaggerating.

I nominate the post I'm replying to for 'This is your Brain on Creationism'.

180 posted on 09/30/2005 4:09:54 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 581-600 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson