2. I am reading everywhere now that Darwin's concepts are an adequate explanation for the origin of life, NOT just its evolved present state. That's new isn't it? Patrick Henry, we've talked about this before and you said, if I remember correctly, that Darwin explains the descent of the species not the origin of life.
For example, from this article: "But Gunn noted that the vast majority of scientists believed in evolution as a proven explanation for the origins of life."
So which is it?
3. What I object to in the persuit of science is the notion that we can explain it all without the need for a Creator. How do we keep science from encroaching into an area that it has no business? You can say that science evolution doesn't speak to the non-existence of a Creator, but very often that is what is being implied and conveyed via the theories(and rabidly atheist teachers). Often evolution is taught with a vengeance toward God, is my point. Are there any curbs in place for that excess?
Some morning thoughts. Unfortunately I cannot sit at my keyboard all day and jabber back and forth. I have to check in as able. So bear with me.
SETI proponents aren't waging an assault against a scientific principle that is supported by mountains of evidence. They are doing things right; i.e. making observations, collecting data, and developing falsifiable tests to analyze their research. If and when they bring their work to the science community, I suspect it will be after collecting enough verifiable, reproducible information to merit scientific consideration. ID wants to be granted scientific status without doing the legwork first, mainly because there isn't any way to do it without changing the rules of science.
2. I am reading everywhere now that Darwin's concepts are an adequate explanation for the origin of life, NOT just its evolved present state. That's new isn't it? Patrick Henry, we've talked about this before and you said, if I remember correctly, that Darwin explains the descent of the species not the origin of life. For example, from this article: "But Gunn noted that the vast majority of scientists believed in evolution as a proven explanation for the origins of life." So which is it?
Gunn is not a scientist; he is an ACLU hack. And there is also always the possibility that a reporter might wrongly state this either from ignorance or laziness. Other than that, the only other such claims I have ever heard come from the ID/creationist supporters trying to distort perceptions of what the ToE says.
3. What I object to in the persuit of science is the notion that we can explain it all without the need for a Creator. How do we keep science from encroaching into an area that it has no business? You can say that science evolution doesn't speak to the non-existence of a Creator, but very often that is what is being implied and conveyed via the theories(and rabidly atheist teachers). Often evolution is taught with a vengeance toward God, is my point. Are there any curbs in place for that excess?
Science goes where the evidence takes it. Just because some people are uncomfortable with how this might conflict with their religious beliefs is no reason to stifle or deny this evidence. Plugging your ears and pretending the evidence doesn't exist not only hobbles the usefulness of scientific discovery, but doesn't make the evidence cease to exist. However, I will concede that scientists are human, and therefore can succumb to their own personal bias just like everyone else. If that results in using science as a weapon to further their own opinions on religion then they are in the wrong as well and should be opposed.
2. I am reading everywhere now that Darwin's concepts are an adequate explanation for the origin of life, NOT just its evolved present state. That's new isn't it? Patrick Henry, we've talked about this before and you said, if I remember correctly, that Darwin explains the descent of the species not the origin of life. For example, from this article: "But Gunn noted that the vast majority of scientists believed in evolution as a proven explanation for the origins of life." So which is it?
3. What I object to in the persuit of science is the notion that we can explain it all without the need for a Creator. How do we keep science from encroaching into an area that it has no business? You can say that science evolution doesn't speak to the non-existence of a Creator, but very often that is what is being implied and conveyed via the theories(and rabidly atheist teachers). Often evolution is taught with a vengeance toward God, is my point. Are there any curbs in place for that excess?
I didn't see that you got an answer and these threads have a tendency to take off, so I thought I'd give you my 2 cents.
1. The SETI search is based on the idea that physics and chemistry work the same in other parts of the universe as it does here. If it's the same, then it seems like similar processes that created us should be working. Since we appeared "only" 4.55 billion years after the earth's formation in a universe around 13.5 billion years old, it seems like some other planet could have intelligent life something like us by now.
Behe's concept is actually not Behe's, it's Darwin's. And he re-worked Dembski's ideas to get there. But ID is really an idea looking for data, methods and definitions. Complexity still apparently has no meaning, and there is apparently no objective method for determining it.
2. Darwin, or evolutionary biologists, don't claim to explain the origins of life and don't claim to have any well-defined process for how it occurred. These claims originate with creationists and ID'ers who don't know a lot of science or biology. Behe and Dembski, for example, don't believe biologists claim this.
Evolution claims to explain that species evolve over time from existing species. The evidence for evolution is in the fossil record. No ID'er has ever addressed this massive amount of data in any logical form as of this date. That's why they choose to argue in the arena of molecular chemistry and genomics. There are more unknowns to work with.
3. There are some scienists who believe that man, or our more evolved descendants, will eventually be able to explain nearly everything in the universe. And there are atheists and agnostics who will tell you so. But most scientists are Christians in this country.
The problem with public school in general is that God has been shown the door. But rather than fix this by pretending that the Bible is a science text book, Christians should rally to the cause of Christian classes in schools. Things like ID could be aired there without diminishing the quality of science education, which is already pathetic. The proof of how bad science education is in this country is that we even have to have crevo debates.
ID has no methods, definitions, results or even a journal for publishing research. That's because it's not science. It's just an attempt to sell books, lectures and the like to people who want to hear a faith-based message.
Wrong question. Not all things that pretend to be science can support that claim. If you have reached your conclusion prior to gathering the evidence, and that conclusion causes the rejection of the bulk of the evidence because it fails to support your pre-conclusion, then you are not a scientist.
This test eliminates more than 99% of those posting here in the name of teaching evolution.