Posted on 11/01/2005 7:43:16 AM PST by Diamond
BOSTON Michael Behe is a respected professor of biochemistry noted for his research into the structure of nucleic acid. He is also the author of "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," a book, published in 1996, that put him squarely on the map in favor of an anti-evolution concept known as intelligent design, causing deep tensions between Behe and his fellow faculty members at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Two months ago Lehigh's Department of Biological Sciences, where the 53-year-old Behe has taught for 20 years, publicly repudiated his views in a notice on its Web site, saying that they had "no basis in science."
(Excerpt) Read more at iht.com ...
While creationists may hold the belief in a Creator in common with moderate Muslims, evolutionists hold the suppression of truth in common with the extremist Muslims.
I for one, don't subscribe to the us-good, them-bad drill. It's based on a false premise that certain groups have a monopoly on virtue while others have the monopoly on vice.
BS
Correct, which is why the Dover case is not about settling "the ID controversy".
You don't go to court to settle a disputed opinion.
Correct, which is why no one's doing that.
Of course there are papal courts, but you're intelligent enough to see this is not one of them.
Indeed.
You go to court to establish the law.
And that's what's being done.
Why, bless you, they can be both.
Political tags -- such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth -- are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort. - Lazarus LongOr "conservatives" and "progressives"
Conservatives recognize, in the words of Edmund Burke, that no generation has a monopoly on wisdom, and any radical change you made is likely to be to the worse. And rather that working on to an idealized imagined future, you should see what worked in the past. The American Rebellion was one in a long line of English revolts aimed at maintaining traditional rights against new impositions of State power, all the way back to when the peasants were demanding restoration of the Laws of Good King Edward the Confessor.
There was no vision of an prefect utopia that could be created now, whatever the less enlightened wanted.
Revolutionaries really believe that they are more intelligent than past generations, and wiser than future ones.
Therefore they see no need to limit the change they are imposing on society now - why delay utopia?
Therefore - be they Cromwell's Major Generals, Jacobins, Bolsheviks, Socialists, Fascists, Nazis, Islamists, or Christian Reconstuctionists (your "Wild-EyedTM Fundamentalist Christian, Creationist, Bible-thumping ignoramuses") - they are progressives.
The trend is ofr an ideal of "content neutral" education, and it's a progressive hoax.
This is incorrect. Evolution has only gained *more* solid support every year for the past 100+ years, and that trend shows no signs of reversing.
As we find out more and more about the intricacies of life itself and at the molecular level the theory that we all came into being just by chance is going to get harder and harder to maintain. It is like trying to plug a leak in a crumbling seawall dam.
...and when do you imagine that this will suddenly happen, since the trend to date has been the exact opposite? That is, the more we have learenda bout "the intricacies of life iteself and at the molecular level", there's ever greater support there is for their evolutionary origins?
If evolution was correct, we should have been making life from the basic elements long ago.
Nonsense. Indeed, "if evolution was correct", the production of life would not be a process amenable to straightforward manufacturing techniques.
No life is more complex than we think and it's locks and rules are often much harder and more complex than we think to pick.
So? That's exactly the kind of intertwined complexity that evolutionary processes produce. Your observations are actually a better argument *for* evolution than against it.
bump
I can certainly see your point, USConstitutionBuff. Still, driving home from work tonight, I found myself a little disturbed by the inconsistency of Webster’s 9th Collegiate and their current on-line dictionary regarding the definition of creationism. So I am home now, and surrounded by dictionaries. Here’s the sample:
The New World Dictionary of the American Language, 1980:
creationism n. Theol. 1. the doctrine that God creates a new soul for every human being born: opposed to TRADUCIANISM 2. the doctrine that ascribes the origin of matter, species, etc. to acts of creation by GodMerriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, 2003:
creationism n (1880): a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usu. in the way described in Genesis — compare EVOLUTIONThe American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1969:
creationism n. Theology. 1. The doctrine ascribing the origin of all matter and living forms as they now exist to distinct acts of creation by God. Compare evolutionism. 2. The doctrine that each human soul is a distinct and new creation by God. Compare infusionism.The American Heritage dictionary happens to be my personal favorite. But I recognize The Oxford Dictionary of the English Language (1971) as authoritative. It tells us so much about the history of a word:
Creationism A system or theory of creation: spec. a. The theory that God immediately creates a soul for every human being born (opposed to traducianism; b. The theory which attributes the origin of matter, the different species of animals and plants, etc., to ‘special creation’ (opposed to evolutionism).Anyhoot, it seems that the Webster’s on-line dictionary’s definition of “creationism” is an astounding redaction/reduction/redirection of the meaning of the word as it has been used historically in the human culture we know as our own. Or ought to.1847 BUCH tr. Hagenbach’s Hist. Of Doctr. II. 1 The theory designated as Creationism … was now more precisely defined. 1872 LIDDON Elem. Relig. iii. 102. The other and more generally received doctrine is known as Creationism. Each soul is an immediate work of the Creator. 1880 GRAY Nat. Sc. & Rel. 89 The true issue as regards design is not between Darwinism and direct Creationism.
FWIW I put my two-cents in. Thanks so much for writing, USConstitutionBuff!
I would not, as you well know.
Moderators: I have previously asked Betty Boop to no longer ping me in any manner, due to her inability to refrain from making false and completely unfounded slanderous personal accusations, as well as insulting and pointless personal attacks. She failed to honor this request, and had have the request repeated here -- at that time I told her that if the violations continued I would have to involve the moderators.
She has violated the request yet again today, and thus I must reluctantly involve you in a matter which I have attempted to resolve myself, but have been unable to due to a willful lack of cooperation by another poster.
Nor can she claim that she didn't notice to whom she was responding, since she typed my screenname in her response.
As Jim Robinson himself posted on 8/19/2003:
"If someone asks you to stop posting to him, stop posting. This is not complicated."
If Intelligent Design is correct then we should have been designing and creating life from whatever was at hand long before that. Or aren't we intelligent?
Please explain how teaching science is "a progressive hoax".
My teachers speak of Aristotle as prescient, not pre-science.
You are one of the most decent and courteous posters around, though I swear Ichnoumenon's request has been mistaken as coming from me! (must be because I think that there's more to Being than concept ; )
Miss the old days when the adults where online:
Human Rights and Second Realities
Human Rights & Second Realities -- Thread Two
Insights into Totalizing Ideologies, from Eric Voegelin
Creationism = God created mans spirit and put it in a body and he created other things too.. probably first..
Evolution = God didnt create anything especially mans spirit,. Life is a parasite of a beautiful planet... feeding on it...
Intelligent Design(ID) = Agnostic creationism..
**NOTE;
Theres so many variations of the first two you dont know exactly what the person you're talking to means exactly (usually).. unless you're in the same choir.. Do Evos have choirs.?. Absolutely.. and denominations too.. but not as contentious as creationist ones .. Why be contentious they have no hell.. or heaven..
I'm a creationist.. in my lexicon..
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.