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 ...
C'mon! The thread was absurd before I got here.
That's sick.
" That's sick."
Yes, your penis jokes are sick. Now answer why Darwin mentioned Locke. Show us you understand the meaning of the Darwin quote you like to parade before us.
OOo,oooo, I know, I know! Call me! Call me!
He mentioned Locke because Locke was the father of empiricism!
Small part? Without it, what case would there be? Darwin's Finches?
""I asked you about your orientation I didn't ask you why did Darwin mention Locke when he was talking about metaphysics."
Just noted your lie about my quote. I said the opposite of this. For those who want to see how she lied, this is the link to my actual quote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1529684/posts?page=379#379
Do you think that lying will get you a better seat in Heaven?
So, according to Genesis, did plants come before man (Genesis 1:11-13 then Genesis 1:26,29)?
...or did man come before plants (Genesis 2:5-9)?
If you believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, then you must believe that one of these passages are incorrect.
However, if you do not interpret Genesis literally, then you realize that these two passages were written by different authors, but they both make the SAME points: that God was the Creator and the Provider - God gave man dominion over the Earth - and that man was His greatest creation.
Matchett-PI will claim that there is nothing dishonest about her quoting of you.
"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. "
But you are speculating, not citing scientific evidence...how could evolution have created the concept of a "God", since it is argued scientifically that there is no evidence of one. Dogs don't worship at the altar of the unseen Bone....dolphins arguably as intelligent as man don't seem to worship at the altar of the Great Fish. It seems that the best evidence of man having evolved should have been his "lack" of the concept of guilt and morality!
The apostle Paul believe it or not throws evolutionists a bone when he stated "If there be no resurrection of the dead, then let us eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die!" The power of Christianity lies in the power of the resurrection, if science could prove it did not happen then let Christianity be consigned to the dustbins of history....
Yet a certain shroud seems to point towards that extraordinary event, as well as the millions of changed lives who have felt His resurrection in their hearts
>The Bible is a very scientifically accurate test.
>Making such absurd claims impugns both science and the Bible.
The Bible was written in the pre-industrial and pre-scientific age, actually even before the Dark Ages. So with all due respect, its about time some ammendments were made. Even the consitution in just 230 years of existence has been ammended so many times..
Some direct quotes from your source:
For a relatively short protein consisting of a chain of 200 amino acids, the number of random trials needed for a reasonable likelihood of hitting a useful sequence is then on the order of 20100 (100 amino acid sites with 20 possible candidates at each site), or about 10130 trials. This is a hundred billion billion times the upper bound we computed for the total number of molecules ever to exist in the history of the cosmos!! No random process could ever hope to find even one such protein structure, much less the full set of roughly 1000 needed in the simplest forms of life.
Statisticians, physicists, etc. have been pointing out and explaining constantly that you can't apply statistics retroactively like this, and biologists have been pointing out and explaining constantly that chemical processes are not equivalent to random assembly. Apparently, when a scientist tried to point out these tried and true annoying facts again (which creationists love to ignore), the response of the writer is
Why could this physicist not grasp such trivial logic? I strongly believe it was because of his tenacious commitment to atheism that he was willing to be dishonest in his science.
Better get some better sources than the Institute for Creation Research if you want to get an understanding of how science works - these people clearly have no idea what they're talking about.
Genetics.
Heck, most of the OT was written before the classical age.
But it doesn't need amendments because it's not about science or technology. It's about the unchanging and timeless truths of faith and morals.
I don't see how. Nature is not a person. She doesn't "mean" to do anything, nor does she act in her own interests. Nature is just matter and physical laws, and they produce what they produce.
400
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.