Intelligent Design Grounded in Science

CBN ^ | November 2005 | By Gailon Totheroh

[RunningWolf]

I would suggest that is a bit of an overstatement on your part.

Wolf

[Dimensio]

I have never denied that theories and facts are the same.

Er, rather I have never claimed that theories and facts are the same. The claim that I have said that "theory" is a synonym for "fact" is your lie.

[dsc]

I don't know why you two continue to bother with this guy. He doesn't have the intellectual honesty for a productive discussion.

Not trying to tell you what to do, but I think you're wasting your time.

[Dimensio]

He doesn't have the intellectual honesty for a productive discussion.

Indeed. I actually ask for assertions to be supported with evidence, and when you make a blanket assertion about atheists I challenge it rather than accept your word as infallable. What's up with that?

[dsc]

No, when evidence is offered you find dishonest pretext to dismiss it, and when a person shares his observations and experience, you fabricate imaginary observations of your own as a pretext to dismiss them.

[Dimensio]

No, when evidence is offered you find dishonest pretext to dismiss it

You didn't provide any evidence.

and when a person shares his observations and experience,

Which does not qualify as "evidence" as there is no means by which anyone else can evaluate it...

you fabricate imaginary observations of your own as a pretext to dismiss them.

How do you know that I fabricated anything? Why are your "observations and experience" valid evidence and mine "fabrications"?

[dsc]

"You didn't provide any evidence."

(Singing to the tune of "Oh, Dem Golden Slippers) Oh, dat river in Egypt, oh, dat river in Egypt...

"Which does not qualify as "evidence" as there is no means by which anyone else can evaluate it..."

Sure there is. But that requires good faith and objectivity, so, I would agree that there is no means by which **you** can evaluate it.

"How do you know that I fabricated anything?"

Through the application of good faith and objectivity. It is more credible to claim that one has met space aliens than to claim that one has never seen an atheist advance the argument that evolution disproves the existence of God.

Especially when one is claiming never to have seen even a single instance.

I guess you might be living your life in a cave with some software filter that bars all such references from your screen, but short of that, a reasonable person has to regard your claim as a fabrication.

[Dimensio]

Sure there is. But that requires good faith and objectivity, so, I would agree that there is no means by which **you** can evaluate it.

No, it requires that you actually present something more than an unsubstantiated assertion.

It's quite clear what you've done: you made up a claim, then when asked to support it realised that you didn't have any real evidence for it, so you instead fabricated a claim about having seen many examples of it in real-life. When asked for a link to an example in even an online discussion you simply posted a link to a discussion itself without singling out any one post, because despite your lies not one of the posts actually supported your claims. You made a claim that you couldn't support and rather than admit that you made a generalization that wasn't really supportable you've spun a web of lies to try and defend it because a creationist can't stand to ever admit that they were mistaken. Of course, when I counter your claim with the same level of "evidence" you hypocrticially dismiss it, because obviously your anecdotal recounting trumps mine.

You're clearly a liar and a fraud, and nothing that you say can be trusted.

[TrailofTears]

"Science of Evolution" LOL LOL LOL

Let us define the word science: the study of observable and repeatable data. All else is faith. You have faith that evolution took place. You can study nothing about evolution but conjecture. It does not take place today and you don't have the proof that it ever took place. So forget the "science" word because your belief system does not qualify as science, only conjecture disguised as science.

You can cover what you believe with all the scientific sounding terminology you want, but it is a belief system, not a scientific reality. YOu are no better off than the creationists that you claim to be far more scientific than. You hide behind the skirts of "science" while you promote godless atheism and secularism. You are a religionists as much as any fervent evangelist, only your belief is in evolution. Where is the proof? There is none to observe.

Give it up, you cannot invent enough scientific words to make what you believe sound scientific. YOu cannot study it because you were not there, and it is not taking place in front of your eyes.

[TrailofTears]

Dsc Absolutely right when you say he lacks intelligent and honest debate. He refuses to acknowledge even the basic realities of his own contradictory statements regarding theory and fact.

I also find him and his ilk disdainful as they tramp the young minds of our nation in the name of their secular gods of atheism and humanism and their faith in the religion of evolution without even beginning to state that they have a belief system.

They demand more faith then the tent evangelist in their preaching, and deny that it is faith that they are demanding; instead stating that their theory is really fact in disguise. To them it somehow elevates them above the fray of having to prove their belief system. They slam factoids all over the place and deny that they yield ultimate control in the secular public school system.

So this i say to all the fellow creationists on the board. When was the last time you ever heard of a creationist being offered an opportunity to even add input to any discussions of origins in the public school? HA!! Just as i thought, never. They control the arena and can't stand the slightest bit of disagreement with their religion in the public. They are the secular version of the Taliban. They cut off all disagreement and cry wolf when anyone disagrees with them.

They lack the honesty to admit that what they believe is just a belief system about the beginning of the world. They basically shouldn't be even arugued with because they lack the ability to be honest in a debate.

[Dimensio]

You can study nothing about evolution but conjecture.

This statement demonstrates that you have no idea what evidence is used to support the theory of evolution. If you have no idea what the evidence is then you clearly have no idea of what evolution is. If you have no idea of what evolution is then you have no credibility in discussing the issue.

The theory of evolution is far more than "conjecture", and only the ignorant or truly dishonest claim otherwise.

[RunningWolf]

TrailofTears

Subtract everything out of the equation but evo and you have hit it right on the mark.

Here is evo in its essence, a demented sort of thing. if if and if = reality-NOT

By the evos, evolution is already decided to be fact, but how it happened is all theory, or a conglomeration of contemporary fad theories.

So according to the evos, evolution happened. But all theories are unproven. And according to them the glacier of evidence in the theories makes evolution as much a fact as the theory of gravity.

the evo Magic 8 Ball
DOH!!

This is a wonderfully elegant solution for them that always returns back an answer of evolution.

Wolf

[dsc]

"They basically shouldn't be even arugued with because they lack the ability to be honest in a debate."

Yes, it's a personality type that I'm used to seeing among leftists. I don't know what these guys are even doing on a conservative forum.

Of course, there was an instance on FR of a guy pretending to be something he wasn't to give him credibility in arguing against conservative positions. Maybe it's something like that.

[Dimensio]

Yes, it's a personality type that I'm used to seeing among leftists.

Creationist lie #132: All who accept evolution are "leftists".

[dsc]

"Creationist lie #132: All who accept evolution are "leftists".

(1) I am not a creationist.

(2) I did not assert that all who accept evolution are leftists; I accept it myself.

(3) I do assert that those who attempt to lump in all believers with creationists are as closed-minded and dishonest as any leftist.

[Sun]

"TrailofTears

Subtract everything out of the equation but evo and you have hit it right on the mark.

Here is evo in its essence, a demented sort of thing. if if and if = reality-NOT

By the evos, evolution is already decided to be fact, but how it happened is all theory, or a conglomeration of contemporary fad theories.

So according to the evos, evolution happened. But all theories are unproven. And according to them the glacier of evidence in the theories makes evolution as much a fact as the theory of gravity.

the evo Magic 8 Ball
DOH!!
This is a wonderfully elegant solution for them that always returns back an answer of evolution.

Wolf"

I wish I said that. :)

The evos obviously base their belief on blind faith.

And thank you for serving, Wolf.

[RunningWolf]

On another thread they actually think my statement validated their theory! Thats how far lost they are!'

Wolf

[Sun]

"On another thread they actually think my statement validated their theory! Thats how far lost they are!'

Wolf"

lol

[13Sisters76]

For the science room, no free speech
By Bill Murchison

Dec 28, 2005


Will the federal courts, and the people who rely on the federal courts to enforce secular ideals, ever get it? The anti-school-prayer decisions of the past 40 years -- not unlike the pro-choice-in-abortion decisions, starting with Roe vs. Wade -- haven't driven pro-school-prayer, anti-choice Americans from the marketplace of ideas and activity.

Neither will U.S. Dist. Judge John Jones' anti-intelligent-design ruling in Dover, Pa., just before Christmas choke off challenges to the public schools' Darwinian monopoly.

Jones' contempt for the "breathtaking inanity" of school-board members who wanted ninth-grade biology students to hear a brief statement regarding Darwinism's "gaps/problems" is unlikely to intimidate the millions who find evolution only partly persuasive -- at best.

Millions? Scores of millions might be more like it. A 2004 Gallup Poll found that just 13 percent of Americans believe in evolution unaided by God. A Kansas newspaper poll last summer found 55 percent support for exposing public-school students to critiques of Darwinism.

This accounts for the widespread desire that children be able to factor in some alternatives to the notion that "natural selection" has brought us, humanly speaking, where we are. Well, maybe it has. But what if it hasn't? The science classroom can't take cognizance of such a possibility? Under the Jones ruling, it can't. Jones discerns a plot to establish a religious view of the question, though the religion he worries about exists only in the possibility that God, per Genesis 1, might intrude celestially into the discussion. (Intelligent-designers, for the record, say the power of a Creator God is just one of various possible counter-explanations.)

Not that Darwinism, as Jones acknowledges, is perfect. Still, "the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent scientific propositions."

Ah. We see now: Federal judges are the final word on good science. Who gave them the power to exclude even whispers of divinity from the classroom? Supposedly, the First Amendment to the Constitution: the odd part here being the assumption that the "free speech" amendment shuts down discussion of alternatives to an establishment-approved concept of Truth.

With energy and undisguised contempt for the critics of Darwinism, Jones thrusts out the back door of his courthouse the very possibility that any sustained critique of Darwinism should be admitted to public classrooms.

However, the writ of almighty federal judges runs only so far, as witness their ongoing failure to convince Americans that the Constitution requires almost unobstructed access to abortion. Pro-life voters and activists, who number in the millions, clearly aren't buying it. We're to suppose efforts to smother intelligent design will bear larger, lusher fruit?

The meeting place of faith and reason is proverbially darkish and unstable -- a place to which the discussants bring sometimes violently different assumptions about truth and where to find it. Yet, the recent remarks of the philosopher-theologian Michael Novak make great sense: "I don't understand why in the public schools we cannot have a day or two of discussion about the relative roles of science and religion." A discussion isn't a sermon or an altar call, is it?

Equally to the point, what does secular intolerance achieve in terms of revitalizing public schools, rendering them intellectually catalytic? As many religious folk see it, witch-hunts for Christian influences are an engrained part of present public-school curricula. Is this where they want the kids? Might private schools -- not necessarily religious ones -- offer a better alternative? Might home schooling?

Alienating bright, energized, intellectually alert customers is normally accounted bad business, but that's the direction in which Darwinian dogmatists point. Thanks to them and other such foes of free speech in the science classroom -- federal judges included -- we seem likely to hear less and less about survival of the fittest and more and more about survival of the least curious, the least motivated, the most gullible.

---

Find this story at: http://townhall.com/opinion/columns/billmurchison/2005/12/28/180478.html

[Sun]

Bump to post 619!!!