Posted on 12/20/2005 7:54:38 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
"Let's go back to first year science, using Scientific Method, prove the Big Bang Theory."
OK, we can start with the Hubble Redshift and work our way through a bunch of other predicted observations to the microwave background, including how it is anisotropic in a manner consistent with the Big Bang.
So what do we do after lunch?
It's George Neumayr, in this article, who separates God from nature. He clearly AGREES with the scientific atheists he profiles that, to the extent a process can be shown to be completely naturalistic, God has been eliminated from the picture!
Unlike you however, they do not believe we all came from pond scum.
"You don't think God created pond scum? You have something against God's fine creation of fresh water life?
I think your pride in being human rather than a distant relative of pond scum is getting in the way here."
---
The Bible says that we were created in His image. I hope that you are not implying that God looks like pond scum!
TAMMY KATZMILLER V. DOVER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT
December 20, 2005
A federal judge rules that a Pennsylvania school district’s 'intelligent design' curriculum policy is unconstitutional for "promot[ing] religion in the public school classroom."
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/educate/ktzmllrdvr122005opn.pdf
The First Amendment
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment01/index.html
FindLaw's Civil Rights Center
http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/
Constitutional Lawyers
http://lawyers.findlaw.com/lawyer/practice/Constitutional%20Law
Education Law
http://public.findlaw.com/education/
Education Attorneys
http://lawyers.findlaw.com/lawyer/practice/Education%20Law
Using Lemaître as your test is guaranteed to fail. Try using current cosmological theory, please.
You must have peeked at orthogenetic theory. That's the discredited one that promoted an intrinsic drive towards perfection as the mechanism behind evolution.
Or maybe I should say, God bless you. You'll need a miracle.
If this was in reference to the fish to non-fish challenge, then behold a miracle.
Oh, and I really got a kick out of this line:
I was lowering the "theory" of evolution to the level of a religious doctrine.
Priceless.
... Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. [Italics in original opinion.] (P-718 at 705) (emphasis added). As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition’s validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe’s assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.That's stuff right out of the record of the trial. With an honest judge, ID never had a chance.Dramatic evidence of ID’s religious nature and aspirations is found in what is referred to as the “Wedge Document.” The Wedge Document, developed by the Discovery Institute’s Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (hereinafter “CRSC”), represents from an institutional standpoint, the IDM’s goals and objectives, much as writings from the Institute for Creation Research did for the earlier creation-science movement, as discussed in McLean. (11:26-28 (Forrest)); McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1255. The Wedge Document states in its “Five Year Strategic Plan Summary” that the IDM’s goal is to replace science as currentlypracticed with “theistic and Christian science.” (P-140 at 6). As posited in the Wedge Document, the IDM’s “Governing Goals” are to “defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies” and “to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” Id. at 4. The CSRC expressly announces, in the Wedge Document, a program of Christian apologetics to promote ID. A careful review of the Wedge Document’s goals and language throughout the document reveals cultural and religious goals, as opposed to scientific ones. (11:26-48 (Forrest); P-140). ID aspires to change the ground rules of science to make room for religion, specifically, beliefs consonant with a particular version of Christianity.
To assert the absence of God requires the same burden of proof. To leave the matter open for consideration is the burden of science. Judge Jones thinks that burden is too heavy, so he prefers, along with others, to be a dogmatician.
--sorry about that
I am just really looking for someon who thinks there is some way to falsify evolution.
I think today's court decision solidifies that evolution is not falsifiable. Any counter hypothesis would be deemed a Christian conspiracy and therefore an establishment of religion.
If anyone can explain how evolution is falsifiable, I would like to know.
A fish is a class, not a species. If a salmon evolved into a catfish, that would be speciation.
Cordially,
Priceless placemarker.
Great!
You might enjoy also the clever and humorous essay on "Gravity: Just a Theory" on the same re-discovery.org website:
http://www.re-discovery.org/gravity_1.html
Why, L. Ron Hubbard himself proposed it. Here's a quote from him. I'll be happy to do more research for you, if you wish:
"Teen-age girl shows up in H[ubbard] G[uidance] C[enter] who has been beaten and raped by teen-age boys at High School and withholding it since. Audit it out, get parents to OK investigation. Call in press. Release story of vice and crime at local high school with the Org doing the investigation. On subsequent days, criticize laxity of police. Criticize principal. Finally, take more teen-age sex cases. Just day by day deal off a new action to the press. String the story out. Take an action. Hold a press conference. Put students on meters. Put teachers on meters. Get parents to sue. Finally, advise school hire a permanent mental consultant and give daily mental exercises to "teen-age monsters." Then wrap it up and skip it. You've made something evil become something good attained -- Scientology in schools. "
You're using the definition of religion in figurative language in order to denigrate the Theory of Evolution.
"The proposition that the only way to knowledge is by science or that science constitutes the only valid knowledge is a belief that itself is not derived from science, it is a philosophical statement about science, so it is self-refuting."
Luckily I never said that science is the only way to knowledge or that science constitutes the only valid knowledge.
"I presume you mean testable in some scientific, or experimental sense, which excludes a lot of evidence at the outset."
What evidence?
People should be able to spend their hard earned monies on an education that meets with their personal beliefs as long as the basic math, reading and writing skills are met. I believe a charter or private school that wants to teach ID should be allowed to, and that parents should have the vouchers/freedom to spend their money in that manner if they so choose.
All three have been proved.
Sorry, a scientific theory is never proved.
The only people, it seems, who are confusing this issue are the CS/ID folks who want evolution to be taught as a theory not a fact, but then need somehow to separate other theories from evolution so I guess we'll say they are proved (or laws). This, in turn, makes use of the layman's use of "theory" to mean essentially a guess.
Sciences have developed a method, cleverly called the scientific method, to serve as a guide to reliably figuring out how things work. It has worked pretty well for a couple of hundred years.
The problem I see is that some folks hate the results of one particular branch of science (evolution), and so are seeking through any means necessary to destroy science in general and evolution in particular.
In order to disprove intelligent design, you have to prove creation by some other means. We cannot prove that the universe was created, nor can we prove that the universe started off with the big bang theory, because we were not there to observe it. So we can neither prove nor disprove evolution, the same way we can neither disprove or prove evolution, because our scientific method forbids us from assuming that the Big Bang is common fact, as much as it forbids us from claiming Creation as common fact. I actually don't care what our origins are. And despite what scientists say, evolution is not a key integral in science, physics, or astronomy. We know that things can and tend to drift because they have the space to drift, we cannot prove that galaxies are getting farther away from each other because of the big bang and a rapidly expanding universe. Galaxies would be claimed by gravity, larger galaxies being absorbed into smaller galaxies for instance, same sized galaxies orbiting each other, etc. Does anyone know the exact size of the so-called beginning particle? If so, how did it come around (it would give the big bang theory credibility, but it would open more doors to which our current science does not have the means of going through).
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.