Don’t settle for separate but equal (Dover trial Darwinists, are 'absurd' says YDR Editor)

York Daily Record ^ | 9 Oct 05 | Dave Dentel

[gobucks]

"Honest people will also admit that Darwinism supports a definite philosophy about nature, one that is hostile to theistic faith held by many Americans."

Yes. Honest people would admit this. But democrats are in a fight for their demographic survival; public schools are just about their last hope. So, dishonesty is a fair a weapon to use as any other, as The Prince would testify.

[ECM]

Uh, I'm not theistic and I think Darwinism is a crock based on the facts alone.

[jennyp]

The truth is that anyone who’s being intellectually honest will admit that science can never be divorced from religion, that a person’s philosophical outlook will always affect how he or she interprets nature’s phenomena. Honest people will also admit that Darwinism supports a definite philosophy about nature, one that is hostile to theistic faith held by many Americans.

Ridiculous.

Well, I guess if you were willing to say that the godless, materialistic theory of astronomy - which says that angels do not push the planets around - is also "hostile to theistic faith", then adding evolution to that category is no big stretch.

So, gobucks, do you think that the mainstream (materialistic) theory of planetary orbits is hostile to your theistic faith? Why or why not?

[spunkets]

"Honest people will also admit that Darwinism supports a definite philosophy about nature, one that is hostile to theistic faith held by many Americans."

Darwinism supports no such thing.

Ponder this:

" theology professor John Haught explained why he does not consider intelligent design science.
Science, Haught said, is supposed to address the question of “how;” while religion answers “why.” They are two different schools of thought, he said.

[Liberal Classic]

Well, I guess if you were willing to say that the godless, materialistic theory of astronomy - which says that angels do not push the planets around...

Personally, I think the theory that angels push the planets around in their orbits is wrong. I've developed the theory that angels warp the fabric of spacetime around massive objects, causing them to follow non-euclidean geometric paths. Most recently, I've been working on a theory that quantizes angelic energy into discrete packets. Want to sign up?

[balrog666]

Well, I guess if you were willing to say that the godless, materialistic theory of astronomy - which says that angels do not push the planets around - is also "hostile to theistic faith", then adding evolution to that category is no big stretch.

The planets are actually tied to very long stands of spaghetti!

Ramen.

[jennyp]

Personally, I think the theory that angels push the planets around in their orbits is wrong. I've developed the theory that angels warp the fabric of spacetime around massive objects, causing them to follow non-euclidean geometric paths. Most recently, I've been working on a theory that quantizes angelic energy into discrete packets. Want to sign up?

Brilliant! Frankly, we adherents of Angelic Orbital Theory have been frustrated at constantly being stymied in our efforts to get AOT taught in high school science classes. But if we can start a website & publish a popular book or two, and get a PhD or two to sign on, then we can frame the debate in more scientific terms as "science vs. science" instead of "science vs. wackos" as most HS teachers refer to it today.

The good folks at the reDiscovery Institute definitely need to hear about this scientific work. The moral health of society depends on it!

[bkepley]

If all this sarcasm about "angels" is not hostility, I don't know what is.

[jennyp]

The planets are actually tied to very long stands of spaghetti!

I'm sure we can work our upstart Intelligent Orbital Theory into compatibility with believers in His Noodly Appendage. We should be going for a big tent here if we hope to prevail against the Vast Materialist-Wing Conspiracy.

[jennyp]

If all this sarcasm about "angels" is not hostility, I don't know what is.

Hostility towards misguided & sometimes downright dishonest creationist arguments, maybe. But hostility toward religious belief per se? No.

[gobucks]

"So, gobucks, do you think that the mainstream (materialistic) theory of planetary orbits is hostile to your theistic faith? Why or why not?" Well, it all depends on gravity, yes? The facts are pretty straight forward about gravity, unless I'm mistaken. Here, Earth's is 9.8m/s2 as I recall. We know that gravity can hurt you pretty bad if you are falling unprotected over a relatively short distance. But, jennyp, (can I call you jenny?) Gravity is not so clear after all. When scientists really roll up their sleeves to describe just what 'gravity' really is, they find, ahem, they can't really explain it. They can explain the effects of gravity pretty nifty, including the motion of planets. Nova spends a lot of money showing nifty graphics regarding how good they are at this stuff ... usually on Sunday nights I've noticed. But they are having a terrible time with describing how the force itself functions, where it comes from, and oh yes, one other small detail ... how it interacts w/ the strong and weak nuclear force and electromagnetic force. That small detail has led to sillystring theory!! What is the latest 'acceptable' version, M I think? And we need how many dimensions to make the math 'plausible' ... what, its up to ELEVEN DIMENSIONS now, yes? Now, just how many out of Eleven do we have rock hard evidence for? Anyone? Anyone? What lab recently announced proof of the 7th? Oh. I'm sorry. We've been told to 'trust' scientists to 'eventually' discover all this and unravel all this, and that we can put our faith in their motives and intelligence. You asked do I think it is hostile? Why, after the 6th dimension, I am beginning to wonder if they drink the same beer at the same pub the evos do.... They get good and drunk, peer at the beery bubbles and discuss the quantum behavior of fermentation effects which appear before their starry eyes, and the evo goes, 'eureka'!! for quantum jumps are sort of like ... puncuated jumps ... don't you agree? Maybe it was the astro folks who put the evo folks up to their shenanigans. Maybe not. Is astronomy hostile to thiests? No, I suppose not.... they had a guy on PBS who was praying while is Andes Mt. instrament was being worked on; it was measuring fine detail COBE stuff as I recall. It got working after his prayer. They didn't show the part where he thanked God for answering his prayer. But I am sure he did. They say that once people actually, sincerely, thank God for ANYTHING, that it is at that point, and no other that they become teachable. Did you know that those who never say 'thank you' to GOD for anything are also the most unteachable people on earth?

[gobucks]

"So, gobucks, do you think that the mainstream (materialistic) theory of planetary orbits is hostile to your theistic faith? Why or why not?"

Well, it all depends on gravity, yes? The facts are pretty straight forward about gravity, unless I'm mistaken. Here, Earth's is 9.8m/s2 as I recall.

We know that gravity can hurt you pretty bad if you are falling unprotected over a relatively short distance.

But, jennyp, (can I call you jenny?) Gravity is not so clear after all. When scientists really roll up their sleeves to describe just what 'gravity' really is, they find, ahem, they can't really explain it.

They can explain the effects of gravity pretty nifty, including the motion of planets. Nova spends a lot of money showing nifty graphics regarding how good they are at this stuff ... usually on Sunday nights I've noticed.

But they are having a terrible time with describing how the force itself functions, where it comes from, and oh yes, one other small detail ... how it interacts w/ the strong and weak nuclear force and electromagnetic force.

That small detail has led to sillystring theory!! What is the latest 'acceptable' version, M I think? And we need how many dimensions to make the math 'plausible' ... what, its up to ELEVEN DIMENSIONS now, yes?

Now, just how many out of Eleven do we have rock hard evidence for? Anyone? Anyone? What lab recently announced proof of the 7th? Oh. I'm sorry. We've been told to 'trust' scientists to 'eventually' discover all this and unravel all this, and that we can put our faith in their motives and intelligence.

You asked do I think it is hostile?

Why, after the 6th dimension, I am beginning to wonder if they drink the same beer at the same pub the evos do....

They get good and drunk, peer at the beery bubbles and discuss the quantum behavior of fermentation effects which appear before their starry eyes, and the evo goes, 'eureka'!! for quantum jumps are sort of like ... puncuated jumps ... don't you agree?

Maybe it was the astro folks who put the evo folks up to their shenanigans. Maybe not.

Is astronomy hostile to thiests? No, I suppose not.... they had a guy on PBS who was praying while is Andes Mt. instrament was being worked on; it was measuring fine detail COBE stuff as I recall. It got working after his prayer.

They didn't show the part where he thanked God for answering his prayer. But I am sure he did. They say that once people actually, sincerely, thank God for ANYTHING, that it is at that point, and no other that they become teachable.

Did you know that those who never say 'thank you' to GOD for anything are also the most unteachable people on earth?

[bkepley]

Hostility towards misguided & sometimes downright dishonest creationist arguments, maybe. But hostility toward religious belief per se? No.

Really? Then why the angels? Seems to me to be directed not only at religion but even at a particular religon.

[gobucks]

"If all this sarcasm about "angels" is not hostility, I don't know what is."

Good point.

[Oberon]

Physicists argue that miracles are impossible.

Well, of course they are. Otherwise, how could they be miraculous?

[spunkets]

"I don't know what is."

You got that right.

[bkepley]

"I don't know what is." You got that right.

Wow. Impressive.

[gobucks]

"Otherwise, how could they be miraculous?"

The saving grace of rationalism really helps in a pinch of course.

[microgood]

If all this sarcasm about "angels" is not hostility, I don't know what is.

It's the contradictory nature of the Darwinists. They say they are not hostile to religion as they ridicule it. Also they also defend their theory by saying it is equivalent to say physics.

And what they do not understand is that people do not take gravity personally, but when they are told they are a random happening whose life is an meaningless accident, they do. There's your sign.

That is why picking on evolution is not picking on science, it is picking on evolution. And they know that, they will just never admit it and will hide behind physics until *ell freezes over.

[gobucks]

"And they know that, they will just never admit it and will hide behind physics until *ell freezes over."

The weather channel is reporting an approaching severe cold front....it is heading toward Dover....