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 ...
As long as you insist on embarrassing yourself in public, I'll be glad to help you.
You Darwinist parrots are being made fun of HERE, because you're so predictible - always resorting to the squawk, "liar, liar pants on fire" when you're cornered. LOL
You base this on what?
"What exactly is the creationist position then"
There are two more-or-less cores to the creationist position:
(1) Multiple roots to the phylogenic tree (a polyphyletic tree instead of a monophyletic tree)
(2) A massive flood wiped out most life several thousand years ago
A summary of some of the points of evidence is here.
Your knee-jerk, nonsequitur response shows that you will need to re-read my post at #356 a little more slowly and carefully.
I'll take that as a continuing effort on you're part to change the subject. That tactic only works with the unstable and easily distracted, but not with critical thinkers. Sorry.
Doesn't say that he would....
Genesis 3:6
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
If this be true, He did a mighty poor job!!!
HE came to die for our sins.
How about androgenous, then?
How about TV puppets. Why do they rate any coment from Falwell at all?
The subject was the quote you had from Darwin saying, “Origin of man now solved. He who. understands baboon would do more. for metaphysics than Locke”
You then said that evolution was a religion because metaphysics is about the supernatural. I proved this was not so; your OWN definition of metaphysical also did not speak of the supernatural. Here is the full definition from Answers.com
"met·a·phys·ics (mÄ•t'É™-fÄz'Äks) pronunciation n. 1. (used with a sing. verb) Philosophy. The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value. 2. (used with a pl. verb) The theoretical or first principles of a particular discipline: the metaphysics of law. 3. (used with a sing. verb) A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment. 4. (used with a sing. verb) Excessively subtle or recondite reasoning." http://www.answers.com/topic/metaphysics
There is NOTHING there about the supernatural. Again, you have no answer as to why Darwin would bring up Locke.
"That tactic only works with the unstable and easily distracted, but not with critical thinkers."
How does this disqualify you? :)
How does this disqualify you? :)
Matchett's thinking has been critical for years ... on life support, actually.
Yet "evolution" as it is so argued has produced an organism that seems to need moral values taught to it as it does not seem to exhibit these values from merely instinct. How could nature produce an organism that seems to behave transversely to NATURE?...Unless nature her-self meant to create an organism that is quite capaple of in fact..destroying all of nature?(Oppenheimer:"I have become Vishnu, the destroyer of worlds!")
Is this not a paradox? Indeed it is upon this issue that evolution falls flat for me and that blind adherence to evolution without a serious consideration of how man, a "so-called" evolutionary product, acts contrary to the dictates of nature(...how man in being his "natural" self actually works against nature) is actually a sign of faith...of the affected evolutionist acting as the "true believer"!
Yet "evolution" as it is so argued has produced an organism that seems to need moral values taught to it as it does not seem to exhibit these values from merely instinct. How could nature produce an organism that seems to behave transversely to NATURE?...Unless nature her-self meant to create an organism that is quite capaple of in fact..destroying all of nature?(Oppenheimer:"I have become Vishnu, the destroyer of worlds!")I think the evidence is that human nature is biased just enough toward cooperation & abstract thinking that the rise of moral systems & civilization was more likely than not. IOW, I see the generation & teaching of systems of moral values as a natural outcome of our basic human nature.Is this not a paradox?
IOW: What paradox?
(2) A massive flood wiped out most life several thousand years ago
A summary of some of the points of evidence is here.
Your link leads to this statement (among others):
The correspondence between the global catastrophe in the geological record and the Flood described in Genesis is much too obvious for me not to conclude that these events must be one and the same.How does this statement reconcile archaeological sites in the western US which have pretty much continuous occupation during the 4,000-5,000 years ago time period during which most sources claim the flood occurred?
No time for flood and recovery, with global migration of plants, animals, and people. No evidence in DNA of descent from only eight individuals.
Poor thin..g. Maybe I can be of HELP
I wouldn't touch that one with a 10 foot pole.
I didn't ask you about your orientation. I asked you why did Darwin mention Locke when he was talking about metaphysics.
"How does this statement reconcile archaeological sites in the western US which have pretty much continuous occupation during the 4,000-5,000 years ago time period during which most sources claim the flood occurred?"
(1) How were those dates determined? It is possible that the dating methods are faulty.
(2) It is possible that Creationist timelines are faulty.
Neither of these invalidates the massive evidence for catastrophe throughout the paleozoic and mesozoic.
If you look at the flatness of the layers in the grand canyon, and then think about how there is supposed to be 100 million years of erosion between many of the layers, and then you look at the top of the canyon where there are eroded channels, it makes one think that perhaps there aren't so many years between the layers. Perhaps none at all.
Another interesting site to look at is Berthault's paleohydraulogy site: http://geology.ref.ac/berthault/
He showed that laminated sediments can be re-created in their original order in flowing water, thus showing that many laminations are the result of a physical sorting of particles, not a time sequence.
There are other paleohydraulic markers you can look at, many of which are outlined in Steve Austin's book about the Grand Canyon: http://baraminology.blogspot.com/2005/10/grand-canyon-monument-to-catastrophe.html
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.