Posted on 10/07/2005 4:03:19 AM PDT by gobucks
Really? And point #4 simply has zero merit?
Actually that's Allah.
You posted:
"I haven't heard any Christians say to not teach the theory of evolution..."
Well, I have. Tt's what the Wedge Document is all about.
"There was this guy a long time ago that took some really terrible punishment on my behalf. He did it despite knowing that I would hate him for years. I'll stick with Him, thanks."
And what punishment was that? A few hours on a cross is nothing if you know you're going to heaven and don't even have to make a leap of faith.
You certainly make a convincing argument. Did you learn your method of reasoning in science class?
Isn't freedom of religion great? You don't have to believe anything at all and no one cares.
"It is the conceit of the Darwinians to deny the legitimacy of every question that falls outside their myopic position."
Have we not been told many times that origins fall outside the realm of science because there's no way to test for them, therefore science cannot address the issue? How can the evolutionists then so authoritatively state that there is no creation or ID and pontificate on a subject on which they admit self-imposed ignorance? If origins are outside their field of expertise, then they need to stop mocking and ridiculing those who disagree with them as deluded, believing in fairytales, when they don't know what they are talking about by their own admission. It is simply beyond the comprehension of many evolutionists that someone could look at the fossil record and come to a different conclusion than they did. They think that the evidence is SOOO overwhelmingly compelling that anyone with half a brain would be forced to come to the same conclusions that they so. This behavior, esp. the mocking, ridicule and name calling are unworthy of supposedly dignified, enlightened, open-minded scientists.
"Why not include as part of teaching a science class a list of all unverifiable theories, which according to current view are considered to be science, and a list of unverifiable theories in ID and compare. This would generate very interesting discussion."
I agree. Here's a non-falsifiable and thus non-scientific statement that seems to be commonly held: all non-scientific statements are false. It gives rise to an interesting contradiction.
Teaching kids that the Sun orbits the Earth will not hurt American productivity a bit either, and believing that the Sun orbits the Earth does not make one less capable at astrophysics. But such a stupid belief in the face of scientific evidence would lead me to doubt the critical thinking skills of that individual and their ultimate capability at science.
I question the post-modernist liberal teaching strategy which the IDists have adopted. They want to ignore expert consensus when it comes to science education and instead teach all ideas as equal and "let the kids decide". This is the kind of teaching from which those exams you can't fail come from. The kind of exams where you can't put a wrong answer because "all answers are right". Imagine a world where little johnny gets an A for his term paper on how the Earth is flat just because "he has the right to decide for himself".
It figures that this guy is a lawyer, because he certainly has NO understanding whatsoever of science.
"3) ID will win because it can be reconciled with any advance that takes place in biology, whereas Darwinism cannot yield even an inch of ground to ID."
"So you've discovered the missing link? Proven that viruses distribute super-complex DNA proteins? Shown that fractals can produce evolution-friendly three-dimensional shapes? It doesn't matter. To the ID mind, you're just pushing the question further down the road. How was the missing link designed? What is the origin of the viruses? Who designed the fractals? ID has already made its peace with natural selection and the irrefutable aspects of Darwinism. By contrast, Darwinism cannot accept even the slightest possibility that it has failed to explain any significant dimension of evolution. It must dogmatically insist that it will resolve all of its ambiguities and shortcomings -- even the ones that have lingered since the beginning of Darwinism. The entire edifice of Darwinian theory comes crashing down with even a single credible demonstration of design in any living thing. Can science really plug a finger into every hole in the Darwinian dyke for the next fifty years?"
And this is exactly why "intelligent design" FAILS as a scientific theory. In the end, it explains nothing, as every facet of science has the same "explanation" in "intelligent design"----"da Designer dood it".
ANY scientific theory MUST explain all the facts and contradict none, or some better theory will supplant it. Thus far, evolution has been "da winnah" because it has succeeded better AS SCIENCE (and NOT politics, as the author is postulating that "intelligent design" will succeed), because it has explained the facts of science better than anything yet put forth.
"They're just buck-toothed Bible-pushing nincompoops with community-college degrees who're trying to sell a gussied-up creationism to a cretinous public!"
I resent this characterization.
I have really nice teeth.
"Are you saying people who believe in God as the creator are ignorant? That's what most evos say. What are you all so afraid of? Why not let students make up their own minds? Afraid they will reject evolution like so many already have?"
No of course not, worshipping an insecure psychotic imaginary superman that lives in outerspace is an incredibly enlightened thing to do.
Maybe we should all just worship you since you obviously know way more than God.
Bookmarked.
"Sorry - don't have time today. If you want to argue something concrete, let me know."
I am not asking for a "correct" answer, I am just asking for a reasonable and scientific answer. Defining intelligence in terms of other abstract notions such as "thought" or "consciousness", etc. will not produce a definition that will give rise to a valid scientific theory.
My ancestor Susannah (North) Martin found out found out what happens when supernaturists have complete control.
What I did was point out the question the IDists won't answer: how should we decide which ideas get taught in science classes?
Evolution can't be proved yet people like you want it taught as fact to the exclusion of every other perspective
No theory in science can be proved. The theory of relativity cannot be proved. Plate theory cannot be proved. Quantum theory cannot be proved. Anyway, even when something cannot be fully explained, you don't teach non-scientific ideas instead. If science couldn't explain the workings of tornados you don't go and teach a theory that tornados are operated by an unknown intelligence. Sure it might be true, but it isn't science.
I think all the problems with evolution should be taught.
I agree.
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.