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 ...
"But if H. erectus was a transitional species between apes & humans, then you should expect to see disagreement between scholars as to what it was. And lo & behold, you do!"
You would also expect to see disagreement just because people are human and don't get everything right, especially when all you have to go by is bones. This is especially interesting in the light of the fact that secular scientists are now doubting the usefulness of morphology for determining phylogenic lineages because the molecular data directly contradicts the morphologic data. Personally, I think it is because they are trying to fit a series of design patterns into a singly nested tree, when in actuality life is multiply nested.
Your cartoon in post 203 just reveals the artists lack of understanding. It's not a valid point at all. It takes what we agree on and pretends that we don't. I guess that's because he couldn't come up with anything better. But ridicule based on ignorance just make the author look stupid.
Stick your lying bunch of bull crap you call science where the sun don't shine, anyone stupid enough to believe evolution is to stupid for me to take to.
You're an idiot! Now leave me alone!
Well, that leaves the creationist position with absolutely no arguments, then. What exactly is the creationist position then, and exactly what arguments does it use to try to debunk one of the most fundamental and solid theories in the biological sciences?
BWHAHHAA! Oh thats a good one.
You owe me a new keyboard and a cup of coffee.
I thought the sections on radiometric dating and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics were especially amusing. Does this list serve any other purpose than to try to confuse people, or is it some sort of strange comedy database for scientists?
So you think the " Teletubbies" are gay too?
Falwell may have a big heart, but he could use a smaller mouth and an increased intellect.
Also, If the people in the middle ages had followed God's dietary and sanitary laws, the plague would have never spread causing the black death...
Wow, I certainly hope the M.D. isn't for Doctor of Medicine.
Back off, jack! No more than yours does on Creationism. The founding of this country was based upon reason. Reason that the Founding Fathers gleaned from the known science of the time, philosophy AND the Bible. However, I don't see that they confounded reason, science and religion in creating the Constitution for the expressed purpose of spreading of religious dogma by the state.
I serve God first.
Well "Bully" for you!
I agree that Adam did not start "aging" (physical deterioration towards death) until after the fall...But how do you know that Genesis only accounts for Adam's post-fall days and his mentioned age of 930 years is not inclusive of his pre-fall days as well?
Prior to the fall, in Genesis 1:14, the stars, sun, moon and etc. ("lights") were given for the marking of seasons, days and years.
Given this passage, it is obvious that time was being tracked prior to the fall. This would indicate, to me, that Adam's 930 years are inclusive of the pre-fall days...It is his accurate age from the sixth day until his death.
It is a subject of interpretation. If you want to argue on it, I will concede since to me it is of no importance.
That depends upon which "scientist" you talk to, now doesn't it. LOL
Methodological Naturalism? ~ Alvin Plantinga
The above link is posted on my FR profile page, QUOTE: "...science is said to be religiously neutral, if only because science and religion are, by their very natures, epistemically distinct. However, the actual practice and content of science challenge this claim. In many areas, science is anything but religiously neutral; moreover, the standard arguments for methodological naturalism suffer from various grave shortcomings. .." Methodological Naturalism ~ Alvin Plantinga
*
MORE: ".. Since science is not a system of thought deduced from first principles (as are traditional metaphysical systems), and that it deals precisely with objective experience, science is not, nor is any theory of science, a true metaphysical system. ...
However, the claim is sometimes, and more plausibly, made that evolutionary theory, along with some other scientific theories, functions as a kind of attitudinal metaphysical system [Ruse 1989] Ruse, M: 1989. The Darwinian Paradigm: Essays on its History, Philosophy and Religious Implications, Routledge.
Ruse also describes what he calls "metaphysical Darwinism" [ Ruse 1992 ] Ruse, M: 1992. Darwinism. In E F Keller and E A Lloyd eds Keywords in Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University Press. (as opposed to "scientific Darwinism") which is indeed a metaphysical system akin to a worldview, and which has expressed itself in numerous extra-scientific philosophies, including Spencer's, Teilhard's, and Haeckel's, or even the quasi-mystical views of Julian Huxley. .. ~ John S. Wilkins (talkorigins)
I see you're claiming to speak for all "scientists". Stop embarrassing yourself.
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.