Posted on 10/24/2005 1:46:30 PM PDT by Invincibly Ignorant
That WAS my point. That they can observe them. I thought it was a good thing!
He is the chief scientist and the chief witness for ID. What he says under oath will have the weight. If they teach ID they will have to say that God may be dead since there is no evidence for God's intervention in evolution of man from simple organisms.
Item |
Evolution |
ID |
Earth is billions of years old |
Yes |
Yes |
Man evolved from simple organisms |
Yes |
Yes |
God had no influence in evolution |
Unknown |
Yes |
Teach children God may be dead |
No |
Yes |
No one is going to say God is dead. You're just wishing, aren't you?
If you really think that ID and evolution differ only in whether or not God is dead, you're wrong. Do you really, really believe those who are trying to get ID into science class will stand by and let children be told God is dead? Come on.
I didn't say anyone was saying that. I said that ID says we should teach the children that God may be dead. Please don't bear false witness.
Here is what Behe said UNDER OATH!
-----------------------------------
Rothschild asked if it was true that the intelligent designer might not actually exist any longer.
Behe agreed that was true.
Rothschild paused.
"Is that what you want to teach school students, Mr. Behe?" he asked.
As part of a curriculum making students aware of intelligent design, Behe said, "Yes, I think that's a terrific thing to point out."
Do you always distort the subject or do you have problems with comprehension. I said that ID wants to teach children that God may be dead.
Do you really, really believe those who are trying to get ID into science class will stand by and let children be told God is dead? Come on.
Creationists put Mr. Behe on the stand to explain what should be taught to the children. I reckon so. The devil is in the details. Unfortunately for the creos.
No one is saying your boss is dead. You're just wishing aren't you?
I have a hard time understanding people who deny the existence of God but have no problem believing everything on this planet came from one "ancestor". I confess I just don't have that much faith.
That sounds like evolution more than ID.
Item |
Evolution |
ID |
Earth is billions of years old |
Yes |
Yes |
Man evolved from simple organisms |
Yes |
Yes |
God had no influence in evolution |
Unknown |
Yes |
Teach children God may be dead |
No |
Yes |
"what's the evolutionary explanation of homosexuality?"
An Italian study discovered the same genes responsible for homosexuality by men lead to a higher fertility rate by women.
Evolution scientists remind me of Ronnie Earle. Earle first invents a "crime" and then tries to back it up with "evidence."
Darwin has a crazy dream, and then he and other scientists try to back it up with "evidence."
Believing in evolution is not against my religion. God could have used evolution.
However, so far evolution is a silly theory that has not been proved.
The Evolution THEORY is only supported by more THEORIES.
Go figure.
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.
It’s hard to grasp how long these odds are—one 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 isn’t 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
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.