Posted on 11/18/2005 7:58:33 AM PST by Uncledave
Edited on 11/18/2005 6:57:43 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON -- Because every few years this country, in its infinite tolerance, insists on hearing yet another appeal of the Scopes monkey trial, I feel obliged to point out what would otherwise be superfluous -- that the two greatest scientists in the history of our species were Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, and they were both religious.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Nothing is preventing IDers from presenting their theories in Scientific journals and subject them to Peer Review. That's what it takes to be taken seriously in the world of Science...not pressuring local school boards.
"and the fool said on Free Republic: There is no evolution."
and the fool replied on Free Republic: "There is no proof of either, so to each his own faith, or not, and no man's faith or lack thereof is superior to another's."
The point isn't whether it would be nice if God used evolution, of course He could have. But anything close to a literal reading of Genesis doesn't allow for it.
Darwin's theory is subject to scientific examination and has been extensively, the ID position is not. That is the crucial distinction. And maybe you could share with us examples of how scientific "data" has been suppressed because they tend to prove ID.
Or in Medical School.
Have you looked at the 'textbook' the IDers recommended in Dover?Of Panda's and People'claimed, for example, that the skeleton of the Tasmanian Tiger was almost identical with that of the Gray Wolf, an idiotic contention that a child could rebut. Here's a review of the 'ID' text the Dover was promoting by Kevin Padian, an expert in palaeontology.
In a nutshell: the 'data' you speak of either don't exist or are fabricated.
You're right. Peer review is going on, but is this debate reaching the classrooms? ... i'll try not to double-click this time. ; )
Exactly.
that's because ID theories don't hold up under any notion of Peer Review. They are untestable.
What if a supernatural being suspended natural laws of the universe in order to accomplish this? Would this be detectable by science?
And if not, then the scientific, naturalistic, answer is going to be wrong and will never know that it is wrong.
It's certainly OK to assume there has been no supernatural intervention and proceed to do science from that starting point. But just don't pretend you've ruled out God. Because you haven't.
"The theory of evolution is basically a denial that there is ANY intelligence in the universe."
What is the definition of intelligence?
I don't think anyone would disagree that evolution doesn't occur, just whether it is an adequate explanation for how life originated on this plant.
ID is eminently testable. Produce an example of complex, specified information that arose by chance.
Just one example completely destroys ID.
Yup.I don't know where he got his undergraduate degree, but I know he went to Harvard Medical School because while he was there I was working at one of the Harvard teaching hospitals and often saw him in the corridors and often heard him paged over the loudspeaker system.
Are you saying that i.d. theories have not been addressed in peer review journal? Let the students in on the debate!
Lemme see if I understand Charles correctly here: He is saying it is not proper to fill evolutionary gaps with God because it is only proper to fill these "gaps" with scientific faith?
I suppose Charles also confuses adaption with evolution.
actually substitue the word natural non-intelligent-directed causes for 'chance'
High school students aren't part of the debate. We just teach them accepted science.
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.