Posted on 11/01/2005 8:17:35 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
The legal world adapts itself to the needs of the population all the time, frequently bypassing reality completely. Placing your faith in legal definitions instead of the definitions that actually apply is very 'Johnsonian' of you.
I am not to blame for how the SC has ruled. Funny choice of words - "placing your faith in". LOL
Claiming that few atheists here are worthy of respect is not the same as saying you do not respect many atheists here. I hope you realize this.
I don't realize it.
In case you haven't noticed, ID accepts evolution as a fact.
"Many of my children's teachers discussed their faith in class."
Why on earth would they do that? How is their faith relevant to the subjects taught in the classroom?
I accept evolution as in adaptation. Most people do.
Evolution is a fact and the Theory of Evolution is a theory. This is how they are taught (here at least). The problem is that many creationists do not differentiate between how the theory is represented and how the observations the theory is attempting to explain is represented.
ID, as presented by DI, is not testable yet, so is not a theory but a hypothesis, hardly something that warrants mention in a science class.
Because of lot of students need prayer I suppose.
But it is often mentioned in science class already, at least it was with my kids. Not a big deal really. Evolution should be able to stand on its own.
Purposeful choice of words.
And a very good choice. We all have faith in something.
If you are going to support ID, you should at least know what it teaches. Adaptation, a 4.5 billion year old earth, and common descent. If you support ID, this is what you get.
Michael Denton, author of "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis, has written a new book, "Nature's Destiny," on intelligent Design. In it he says this:
"it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes.This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law.
Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies."
Behe, the chief defence witness at Dover, has this to say about evolution:
I didn't intend to "dismiss" the fossil record--how could I "dismiss" it? In fact I mention it mostly to say that it can't tell us whether or not biochemical systems evolved by a Darwinian mechanism. My book concentrates entirely on Darwin's mechanism, and simply takes for granted common descent.
So is the Dover school board. And that's why the Discovery Institute cooked up the Wedge Strategy -- not because they believe in ID, but because they thought it would get creationism into science classrooms.
The problem is, there are a few people actually promoting ID as a serious idea, and they know they cannot deny established facts of science, even if they wish to speculate about first causes.
The first statement explicitly says you feel most atheists here are below your respect.
The second statement implies that atheists are equal to you but you haven't been convinced to give them respect.
Which one you choose says a lot about you.
I am really not all that important that you should worry about what I think. Everyone has opinions about people. I just never have found any reason to respect atheists. But it's not like I lay awake at night thinking about them. I just don't see that have much to offer the world. Maybe you could enlighten me.
Am I the only one left arguing this now? And always with the same people. Maybe we have too much time on our hands.
If people can view the evidence and the theory dispassionately it does stand on its own. However, in the case of Dover and other US schools, emotion is being used, quite effectively I must say, to overcome rational discourse. Emotion, however lacking in logic and rationality, will always beat reality in an argument (at least in the eyes of the emotional). This is why the creationists are looking so bad in the court case.
This is also why Phillip Johnson's books are packed full of appeals to emotion and completely bereft of any backing evidence. Even if you have no idea who Johnson is, the arguments you and many other creationists here spout are directly from his book of plays. Johnson is the granddaddy of the DI movement and a contributer to the resurrection of the creation science movement. Since his stroke, he has gone back to his creationist roots. Science is not his strong point, in his books facts are irrelevant and evidence is something to minimize. This perverse legacy is being passed on to creationists of every sect, including you.
The choice was applied to you. I'm a skeptic.
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.