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

Skip to comments.

Science and Scripture - 'Intelligent design' theory definitely belongs in biology class
LAT ^ | September 28, 2005 | Crispin Sartwell

Posted on 09/30/2005 3:33:47 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-139 next last

1 posted on 09/30/2005 3:33:48 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; RadioAstronomer; Right Wing Professor; Ichneumon; Mylo; Quark2005; VadeRetro; ...

Now this is something new...anarcho-syndicalists for creationism.


2 posted on 09/30/2005 3:53:31 PM PDT by RightWingAtheist (Bring back Modernman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
I wonder if the Church of the FSM will chime in on this?

May his noodley appendage touch you.
3 posted on 09/30/2005 4:07:33 PM PDT by ASOC (Insert clever tagline here: _______)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

It belongs not in a biology class but in a theology class, or maybe in the class dealing with the history of religion and culture, together with the flat earth resting on the backs of three gigantic elephants, the solid vault of heavens separating the waters below from waters above, or the astronomy of Dante's "Paradiso". I am not sure that such a class could be taught at lower than college level.


4 posted on 09/30/2005 4:11:12 PM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Now I have seen everything.


5 posted on 09/30/2005 4:37:11 PM PDT by Jeff Gordon (Lt. Gen. Russel Honore to MSM: "You are stuck on stupid. Over.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
"It's total nonsense, but these people are too ignorant to know any better, so let's teach it"

That about it?

6 posted on 09/30/2005 4:39:47 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWingAtheist
Hey I'm on your immediate 'creationist claptrap' ping list.

I'm honored oh great RightWingAtheist.

Thanks! I hope my knowledge of Molecular Biology and the Scientific method can be of service; my Liege.
7 posted on 09/30/2005 4:41:17 PM PDT by Mylo ( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

"Bother..." said Pooh, as he shot out his monitor upon seeing yet another bloody crevo thread.


8 posted on 09/30/2005 4:42:44 PM PDT by RichInOC ("The coffee is strong at Cafe du Monde, the doughnuts are too hot to touch..." Save the Big Greasy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

It sounds to me like he understands that maybe it shouldn't be up to him to decide who get to teach what in a free country. He understands that Christians don't want to be taxed so the money can go to the anti-Christian brainwashing proprgams of the commie ACLU and NEA.


9 posted on 09/30/2005 4:43:02 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe (Millions for defense but not one penny for tribute!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.


10 posted on 09/30/2005 4:46:14 PM PDT by wgeorge2001 (For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All
There are a lot of things that cannot be tested scientifically...like gravity and infinity. We have no idea what is at the end of the universe or why we do not fly off into space. Better get off of that high horse and realize that our finite minds simply cannot understand the infinite.
11 posted on 09/30/2005 4:55:29 PM PDT by bennowens
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bennowens

Ummmmmm.....

Gravity cannot be tested? Maybe your mind is a little TOO finite. Why don't you take two Physics textbooks and call me in the morning.


12 posted on 09/30/2005 5:03:02 PM PDT by Mylo ( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

There is absolutely NO PROOF for Evolution, so what is that doing in the schools?


13 posted on 09/30/2005 5:26:25 PM PDT by Sun (NOW is the time to contact President Bush; tell him to pick a strict Constructionalist, 202-456-1111)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All

Educators must keep up with science. And it is science that is pointing to the inevitable conclusion that an intelligent Creator was the architect for this magnificent universe.


http://www.aclj.org/news/Read.aspx?ID=1190


14 posted on 09/30/2005 5:27:15 PM PDT by Sun (NOW is the time to contact President Bush; tell him to pick a strict Constructionalist, 202-456-1111)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

"Christians don't want to be taxed so the money can go to the anti-Christian brainwashing proprgams"

Since when is science anti-christian? The early Roman Catholic church believed that but have changed thier tune. Truth in science does not make judgements about God, trying to understand the way the world works without throwing up your hands and saying ' I don't understand, therefore God did it' is not an atack on your faith. If it is may I suggest your faith is not what you think it is.


15 posted on 09/30/2005 5:32:28 PM PDT by Ignatius J Reilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Sun
No proof?

Hmmm......

Seems that Darwin postulated genetic diversity within a population. DNA testing shows that there is indeed such a thing.

Darwin postulated that some individuals that exhibited a beneficial trait (being heterozygous for sickle cell anemia infers malaria resistance)would be more likely to pass on their genetics to successive generations. DNA testing of populations where malaria is endemic show this to be true.

That is mostly all there is to evolution through natural selection. The rest is mostly details about speciation, hybridization,genetic drift, founder effect, Hardy-Weinburg equilibrium. You know, really boring stuff. But there are some good "proof"'s for that as well.
16 posted on 09/30/2005 5:35:08 PM PDT by Mylo ( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mylo

Hi Milo

Sure you can quantify gravity...but not explain how it works. I believe you are a scientist as well. Einstein was working on this before he died...the Unified Field theory...but nothing has been done on it since.


17 posted on 09/30/2005 5:35:33 PM PDT by bennowens
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Sun
There is absolutely NO PROOF for Evolution, so what is that doing in the schools?

Right, everybody knows that (except CS types). Scientific theories cannot be proved, but they can be disproved (falsified).

But in 150 years evolution has not been disproved. There is actually a huge amount of data now that Darwin didn't have available back then, and it supports the theory of evolution. Geology, paleontology, genetics, biology, archaeology, and most of the other sciences have all made great advances in the past 150 years. Some of these sciences didn't even exist as we know them 150 years ago.

Evolution is in the schools because it is science.

18 posted on 09/30/2005 5:36:15 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bennowens
Gravity is one of the three fundamental forces of the universe; along with the Strong force and Electromagnetism (they once thought there was a "weak force" of atomic decay, but it has been seen to be an aspect of Electromagnetism).

Electromagnetism is the easiest to understand in that we know the carrier; photons. It is also easy to measure and predict. It can be "tested". It is both an attractive and a repulsive force (opposites attract, like repels).

The Strong Force opposes the Electromagnetic repulsion that protons exert upon each other in the atomic nucleus. The carrier is also known. It is also easy to measure and predict. It can be "tested". It is only an attractive force.

Gravity is the universal attraction of mass. The carrier is unknown. It is also easy to measure and predict. It can be "tested" (they tested Einsteins theory that gravity would effect time). It is also only an attractive force.

On an atomic scale the Strong Force is predominant, and keeps our atoms together.

On our scale Electromagnetism is responsible for photosynthesis, oxidative phosphorylation, electricity, microwaves, light, X-rays and just about everything else.

On a celestial scale Gravity is predominant and the other forces really don't even register on the scale.

So if you mean "not explain how it works" you mean that the carrier particle is unknown you are correct. But we know how to measure and predict Gravity and can measure Relativistic effects with it, and therefore I would say that we certainly "know how it works".

And I'm still shaking my head in disbelief about you saying that Gravity cannot be tested.
19 posted on 09/30/2005 5:48:42 PM PDT by Mylo ( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: bennowens

And I'd say reconciling the Electromagnetic and the "weak force" would be a something that has been done on the Unified Field Theory. Now there are only three forces to reconcile.


20 posted on 09/30/2005 5:52:30 PM PDT by Mylo ( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-139 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