Posted on 11/28/2005 3:40:35 AM PST by PatrickHenry
The fuel driving this science education debate is easy to understand. Scientists are suspicious that Christians are trying to insert religious beliefs into science.
They recognize that science must be free, not subject to religious veto. On the other hand, many Christians fear that science is bent on removing God from the picture altogether, beginning in the science classroom--a direction unacceptable to them.
They recognize that when scientists make definitive pronouncements regarding ultimate causes, the legitimate boundaries of science have been exceeded. For these Christians, intelligent design seems to provide protection against a perceived assault from science.
But does it really lend protection? Or does it supply yet another reason to question Christian credibility?
The science education debate need not be so contentious. If the intelligent design movement was truly about keeping the legitimate plausibility of a creator in the scientific picture, the case would seem quite strong.
Unfortunately, despite claims to the contrary, the Dover version of intelligent design has a different objective: opposition to evolution. And that opposition is becoming an increasing liability for Christians.
The reason for this liability is simple: While a growing array of fossils shows evolution occurring over several billion years, information arising from a variety of other scientific fields is confirming and extending the evolutionary record in thoroughly compelling ways.
The conclusions are crystal clear: Earth is very old. All life is connected. Evolution is a physical and biological reality.
In spite of this information, many Christians remain skeptical, seemingly mired in a naive religious bog that sees evolution as merely a personal opinion, massive scientific ruse or atheistic philosophy.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Evolution anit science it is hog wash. It is a crock of bull so idiots can do what ever they want with no fear of God, or so they think. Science, no. Crap, yes.
In creation biology, Baraminology is the effort to classify created kinds. The term was devised in 1990 by Kurt P. Wise, based on Marsh's 1941 coinage of the term "baramin" from the Hebrew words bara (create) and min (kind) to represent the different kinds described in the Bible. (Source Wikipedia)
In his book Fundamental Biology (self-published, 1941) Marsh described himself as a "fundamentalist scientst". He argued that modern human races are degenerate forms of first created man and warned that the living world is the scene of a cosmic struggle between the Creator and Satan. Marsh claimed that Satan is a "master geneticist" and speculated that almagamation and hybridization are his ways of destroying the original harmony and perfection among living things. Marsh viewed the black skin of Negroes as one the "abnormalities" engineered in this diabolical way. (Lustig et al, 2004, p. 92) (Also from Wikipedia)
"These changes in humans probably followed pre-programmed trajectories through biological character space, the specific course of which may have been largely effected by founder effect and genetic drift in small populations following Babel."
That's quite a string of neologisms. I doubt you could actually recite them out loud without taking two deep breaths.
What the hell is a biological character space? Are the DIers speed reading linear algera and turning it into Theo/Biology.
Bring back Eric Von Daniken. At least he was a funny lunatic.
You've already said your Bronze Age texts trump any other lines of evidence. That doesn't leave you in any position to say what science is, OK? I won't tell you what religion is.
It is certainly not something I would support. I am following the evidence, and that currently points to evolution.
I liked your joke.
Sorry, I avoided that kind of book for 14 years of college. I choose not to start now. Maybe when I retire and slowly grow senile.
I also avoided all Sociology, Economics, and Philosophy (except for a Logic course), and numerous other touchy-feely subjects, along with Faulkner and Hemingway.
Did get a bit of grounding in the sciences though--Astronomy through Zoology, and quite a bit in between.
No one would bother smashing ID, it was formed in pieces. Pieces of scientific sounding neologisms and phony PhD's pile high. It isn't a scientific study. It is a mere hypothesis. There are no discoveries at the Discovery Institute and there are no experiments in ID. It isn't science it is a wishful thinking dressed as a hypothesis.
Keep your faith and stop trying to pass it off as a science.
Whatever you do, avoid Hegel like the plague, even WHEN you're old and senile. If you're not there yet, you will be as his writing kills your brain cells.
I did, and do.
I like Steinbeck and Heinlein best. Whole civilizations have come and gone without reaching such heights.
It saddens me that the ongoing battle between the Left and Right....is diminished in importance by rhetoric.
Try Mark Twain.
"The story of his *conversion* was a lie spun a woman named Lady Hope who claimed to have been at his deathbed. She never met him. So much for the honesty of creationists."
Then shall we base our opinion on the integrity of evolutionists on the Piltdown Man episode?
It should be added also that the Lady Hope story still gets circulated by creationists LONG after it has been exposed as nonsense.
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.