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 previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-139 next last
To: Tailgunner Joe
If selective pressure didn't result in a change in the phenotype. It does. Read something tailgummer.
I DO NOT TALK TO YOU. Are you starved for attention or something?
81
posted on
09/30/2005 8:19:22 PM PDT
by
Mylo
( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
To: Tailgunner Joe
Creationism and evolutionism are not opposite. God is fully able to create via evolution. The dispute is artificial.
82
posted on
09/30/2005 8:19:50 PM PDT
by
Tax Government
(Put down the judicial insurrection. Contribute to FR.)
To: Mylo
Showing that phenotypes change is not the same as proving that all species share a common ancestor.
83
posted on
09/30/2005 8:20:55 PM PDT
by
Tailgunner Joe
(Millions for defense but not one penny for tribute!)
To: GSlob
ID is not a theory. It is a major criticism of darwinism, and it does not require a God for there to be intelligent design. It only requires an organizing principle.
One already proposed organizing principle is natural selection. It does not answer the mail. The complexity to too great to accept natural selection as the organizing principle.
There needs to be another principle proposed that is more intentional.
84
posted on
09/30/2005 8:22:06 PM PDT
by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
To: Mylo
The hypothesis never postulated a mechanism, and nothing we know about DNA and genetic inheritance Neither did Darwin. Scientific theory does not have to be all-encompassing in order to be scientific. It does not have to be right either to be scientific.
There are no Lamarkian concepts that "might" be returning.
Do you know the future? Do you think that science will be frozen at the DNA Jurassic Park paradigm from the 1970s (do not grasp at straws, I know that the movie is later)? Inheritance of acquired traits is quite likely to be vindicated in my opinion. (BTW, evolution theory was part of my major)
85
posted on
09/30/2005 8:27:00 PM PDT
by
A. Pole
(" There is no other god but Free Market, and Adam Smith is his prophet ! Bazaar Akbar! ")
To: Tax Government
Creationism and evolutionism are not opposite. God is fully able to create via evolution. Amen!
86
posted on
09/30/2005 8:28:14 PM PDT
by
A. Pole
(" There is no other god but Free Market, and Adam Smith is his prophet ! Bazaar Akbar! ")
To: Mylo
I'm happy to hear that the scientists you know are God fearing, and, yes, God DOES work in mysterious ways.
However, there are some parents who don't want their children to learn the evolution theory, because it is against their religion.
If schools teach evolution, why can't they also teach I.D., and let students decide for themselves?
Just because I provided a link with 400 scientists does not mean that there are more scientists who believe in Intelligent Design, and there will be more in the future.
I have read and read about evolution, and see no proof to support it.
Here's another excellent excerpt:
Those eager to expunge Gods fingerprints from nature werent concerned by this shortcoming in Darwins material explanation for life, because Darwin and his contemporaries thought a single cell was a simple blob of protoplasm. How hard could it be for nature to randomly produce something so simple?
In those days the cell was a black box, a mystery. But in the 20th century, scientists were able to open that black box and peek inside. There they found not a simple blob but a world of complex circuits, miniaturized motors, and digital code. We now know that even the simplest functional cell is almost unfathomably complex, containing at least 250 genes and their corresponding proteins.
Explains New Zealand geneticist Michael Denton, each cell is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms.
The odds of a primordial soup randomly burping up even one protein strand of moderate length are dramatically less than 1 chance in 10150.
Its hard to grasp how long these odds areone followed by 150 zeros. We know that a lot of strange things can happen in a place as big and old as our universe, but as mathematician and philosopher William Dembski explains in the Cambridge University Press book The Design Inference, the universe isnt remotely big enough, old enough, or fast enough to generate that much complexity.
Nor have attempts to explain this complexity as the natural outworking of the laws of nature proven successful. The best explanation? INTELLIGENT DESIGN. (emphasis mine)
excerpt from http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...nd=view&id=2350
Focus on last sentence, last paragraph: "The best explanation? INTELLIGENT DESIGN."
87
posted on
09/30/2005 8:28:17 PM PDT
by
Sun
(NOW is the time to contact President Bush; tell him to pick a strict Constructionalist, 202-456-1111)
To: A. Pole
"And it is curious that you put so much stress on ruthless struggle for survival, it reminds me some scientistic ideology from the first half of XX century"
Reminiscences are OK - it is the survivors who normally engage in reminiscing, usually after dessert over some brandy and cigars. Others do not survive to reminisce.
88
posted on
09/30/2005 8:31:18 PM PDT
by
GSlob
To: Coyoteman
>>>But in 150 years evolution has not been disproved.<<<
In the history of the universe God has not been disproved. What is your point?
89
posted on
09/30/2005 8:31:34 PM PDT
by
PhilipFreneau
("Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." -- James 4:7)
To: A. Pole
Obviously the bad part.
Darwin didn't postulate a mechanism for diversity, but he did for natural selection. He assumed genetic inheritance but didn't know about Mendel proving it.
If you say something "might" happen, I assume there is some evidence for it. You have no evidence for lamarkian concepts returning. Does the brain change the DNA code? Are we Telemutagenic? Wow, I didn't know I had super powers.
There were numerous tests done on acquired traits. If you have half of a group of men lift weights with their right arm, and the other half lift weights with their left arm and test the arm strength of the children they have after this experiment; what do you think they would find based upon the experiments that disproved Lamarkian inheritance of acquired traits?
90
posted on
09/30/2005 8:33:38 PM PDT
by
Mylo
( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
To: Tailgunner Joe
You call others Nazi? Least you forget you are the one who thinks, in some cases, those who do things you do not like should be killed.
You show more nazi like behavior than anyone else I know own this site.
To: SolarisRocks
Are you Pro-life?
I believe in the death penalty, but not for innocent babies.
92
posted on
09/30/2005 8:36:03 PM PDT
by
Tailgunner Joe
(Millions for defense but not one penny for tribute!)
To: Tailgunner Joe
To: GSlob
>>>The best proof of evolution are the creationists, for they have not evolved.<<<
There was no need for creationists to evolve since they were created as men from the beginning. Evolutionists, on the other hand, evolved from pond slime; but still retain the creativity of pond slime.
94
posted on
09/30/2005 8:42:51 PM PDT
by
PhilipFreneau
("Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." -- James 4:7)
To: SolarisRocks
95
posted on
09/30/2005 8:42:53 PM PDT
by
Tailgunner Joe
(Millions for defense but not one penny for tribute!)
To: All
We let the crevo threads be a little more rough and tumble than we would generally prefer for the forum, but there are limits.
Don't make us start taking names and sending people on a forced vacation or worse.
To: Mylo
>>>There is no "ultimate authority" with the force of law in Science.<<<
Of course there is. It is called peer pressure. Peer pressure in science is as coercive as the peer pressure that make school age boys wear pants that are so big and baggy that a reasonable person would think they were found in a dumpster.
97
posted on
09/30/2005 8:53:26 PM PDT
by
PhilipFreneau
("Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." -- James 4:7)
To: Friend of thunder
>>>How is denying the supernatural, out of hand, any more an act of faith than accepting it (the supernatural) out of hand?<<<
I will renounce my belief in God when so-called "scientists" can explain how the universe was created, and the name of the man who created it.
98
posted on
09/30/2005 8:56:27 PM PDT
by
PhilipFreneau
("Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." -- James 4:7)
To: A. Pole
Extremely well stated. So much effort is put into attacking the ID position at all costs that the proponents of an evolutionarily pure education fail to reckognize they are chipping away at their own freedoms. It's a "forest and trees" scenario.
I've not heard the phrase "scientistic bureaucracy" used before, but it is an apt description. In the big picture, it is better to allow communities choosing to go a different way the ability to do so. Better that than to sacrifice their ability to make the choice (perhaps wrongly at times) for themselves, or to discharge parents from their responsibility to provide the education they feel is in their child's best interest.
In a "scientistic bureaucracy" home-schooling could become an illegal practice simply because the home-schoolers refused to teach evolutionary theory, or -- in a twist of fate -- because the home-schoolers refused to teach ID theory. Short-sighted people forget the pendulum swings both ways.
99
posted on
09/30/2005 9:11:03 PM PDT
by
so_real
("The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
To: Mylo
Nobody's forcing you to accept evolutionary theory.
Technically, the student taking a test on evolutionary theory is forced to accept it -- or is at least forced to fake acceptance of it -- for sake of his grades. A student who does not believe a chicken evolved from a tyrannosaurus would not receive a passing grade by checking that question 'false' on a quiz. Those who fear a theocracy should also fear a
scientocracy.
100
posted on
09/30/2005 9:25:34 PM PDT
by
so_real
("The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson