Posted on 12/06/2005 11:55:32 AM PST by MRMEAN
Some scientists prefer to hide out with their books and research. We get to ignore much of the world. Not sure why I hang out on these threads--kind of addicting really.
This makes sense to me.
Many don't understand that once you make relativism acceptable, if not the norm, many will see science as something to be manipulated for their chosen end, which will then make many others cynical about science.
Don't be ______. You conspiracy theorists make me laugh. Do you seriously think those PhDs that currently support evolution are too stupid to make money using a different theory?
On the contrary, for ID to be considered science, the definition must be re-written so far as to be meaningless.
Perhaps you're unaware that the foremost proponent of ID admitted on the stand that his definition of "science" also encompasses Astrology?
I've learned a lot of biology on these threads over the past 5 years or so.
And I've met lots of wonderful people (cyber-met?).
;)
Evem though the author comes from those dirty atheist libertarians at the Cato Institute? :)
I agree with Cato on most things. Not all libertarians are atheists. Or even dirty. :-)
I like this idea.
Also we have a terribly designed lower back. What engineer starting with a clean sheet would have designed the human back so that we would be susceptible to herniated discs and other problems?
Could be that the so called creator was a democrat.
I guess our noses could have been designed upturned so we could catch bird droppings with them. Is that what you would prefer?
One of the primary theorems is that living things started out as mere self replicating amino acids and through an extremely long process of total random accidents that cannot be explained, became single celled organisms, then multi-celled organism, then eventually human beings.
Also, we are supposed to believe that evolution went from self replicating amino acids to trillions and trillions of extremely specialized cells working together in the mere blink of 4.5 billion years. How many changes must one undertake to complete the transformation from amoeba-like blob to human being? A million? Probably more like a billion or even much more.
So, which is it? Did it happen slowly and gradually or suddenly in bursts as must happen?
No matter what you say, evolution is a belief system whose theories CANNOT be tested.
Could be that the so called creator was a democrat.
Probably stopped for a union break at a critical time (seniority, you know).
I suspect that statement would be rather contentious over there on the anti-E side of the aisle, which makes it quite refreshing to hear. Not to put too fine of a point on it, but if you listened to some folks, you'd swear that Cato was chaired by Anton LaVey :)
Re faith v. reason, I just finished `Aristotle's Children', by Richard Rubenstein, Harcourt 2003. Good read.
An interesting point, people eventually got so tired of being asking to accept things on faith--"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." Twain--that they decided to take the Bible literally. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Aristotle thought the sun revolved around the earth.
Other than that, as the sub-title says: Christians, Muslims and Jews rediscovered ancient wisdom and illuminated the dark ages.
Faith and reason can be reconciled, I think.
That is so we can talk. It is a compromise: talk or choke.
Most pHD's are working in colleges and universities and make relatively low wages. And most pHD's in colleges and universities are extremely liberal.
Is it worse that parading bananas and condoms and teaching "safe sex and pretending that it is helping curb problems of teen sex and pregnancy?
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.