:^)
Posted on 11/17/2005 9:41:29 PM PST by truthfinder9
YEC SPOTREP
Intelligent Design is not science, but a guiding philosophical framework for scientific discovery. The opposition to ID is not therefore science itself, but the philosophical framework of Materialism. To believe one over the other means you look at certain scientific discoveries as "exceptions" and others as the "rule". As far as evolution is concerned, the only reason why it is at the center instead of Materialism, is because of the religious and philosophical nature of extensions to evolution.
Each philosophical worldview must explain origins and ultimate destinations of humanity. Materialism clings on to evolution for the origin of humanity, and its close cousin abiogenesis (primordial soup) for the origin of life. Multiverse theory even attempts to go on and similarly explain the origin of the universe itself. It also at the same time dictates ultimate destinations being not an afterlife, but a nihilistic nothingness. Since this directly contradicts the majority of western beliefs (monotheistic creator, heaven and hell destination), there is a battle. However the battle is mistakenly between a philosophy, and a theory more narrow than what most people believe in the first place.
If evolution was only taught as pre-existing species changing over generations due to environmental factors, I don't think there would be much of a debate. However, it is taught as human origins, life origins (primordial soup) and intrinsicly the ultimate destination of nothing after you die. That is not evolution, it is a Materialist philosophy tagged as science. And if people were really interested in separating religion from government, then they would not approve of any discussion of such things, other than maybe in a debate class.
How about a touch of both?
Although, someone will most definitely be upset that their belief is referred to as a "creation myth", I felt it was a very diplomatic way of handling the issue and gave each idea the same level of respect by acknowledging that without further proof...it's anyone's guess. I thought it was excellent.
This is an accurate, understandable and concise description of the issue. Thank you.
I have been trying to make this point in another manner by suggesting how little evolutionary theory has to do with the real work of science. But the chicken littles keep shouting that ID will cause the sky to fall.
When I taught physical, lo these many years ago, I started by showing the class the casts of modern human, Australopithecus and chimp innominates (one half of the pelvis). I asked students to divide the three specimens into two groups and state why they made the choice they did. All grouped human and Australopithecus together, with chimp as different, and based their choices on shape (morphology). Human and Australopithecus differ mainly in size, while both differ considerably from chimp in shape.
A simple but powerful lesson in how paleontologists and physical anthropologists work.
Sorry, but trying to edit out an inconvenient set of scientific evidence because it doesn't fit in well with a particular interpretation of a particular religious document has *everything* to do with science.
That's just microevolution
No. Even your post suggests a theological/philosophical argument having nothing to do with the work of science.
Scientific evidence of what? What was? What about the real business of science, what is, what will be, and can we affect that.
:^)
Is ID a political or religious theory? The IDists have answered this: It is political: their goals are set out in their infamous "wedge strategy" that was leaked in 1999. And supported by more that $30 million dollars since then.
*Governing Goals
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
Five Year Goals
To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.
Twenty Year Goals
To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts.
To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral, and political life.
-------
Pat Robertson just this week said: "I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover. If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there."
Are you talking about how evolutionists edit out gross problems with their theory that don't fit their religion of naturalism? No clue what science is, do you?
Not worthy of a response.
What on earth are you talking about? The business of science is the study of the world around us, past and present, to try to anticipate the future.
The certainty of the "population bomb" was taught to me in high school without any establishment group objecting.
The opposition to ID is not about science but the establishment of atheism and the values of utilitarianism.
That's Darwin Central, not HQ. Here are some talking points for you: PatrickHenry's List-O-Links. If there are any embarrassments there, it is for IDers.
You want critical thinking in schools? Lets take one of the easy ones, the "global flood." Here is a very lengthy and thorough article examining the evidence: Problems with a Global Flood, Second Edition, by Mark Isaak.
It concludes there is no evidence for a global flood. Is this the kind of critical thinking you favor?
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.