Posted on 12/22/2005 6:09:22 PM PST by KingofZion
With all due respect to my many Christian friends, and to sites such as Joseph Farah's usually excellent WorldNetDaily.com, the judge was both conservative and definitive in his ruling.
Leaving no wiggle room with phrases like ""The breathtaking inanity of the board's decision is evident -", he clearly defined the difference between science and activist theology.
Conservatives might be better served by remembering where activist theology got the Catholics, particularly during the heyday of Church "activist theologians" making nice with Commies in South America.
Science explains what the world is. Religion discusses 'why', not 'how'. Religion and science are not competing, they are different.
Please demonstrate that they *could* have varied. For all you know, they have the only values they *could* have had via natural origins.
This is one of the most powerful arguments in favor of God.
If so, then the rest of the arguments in favor of God must be very weak indeed.
It is statistically impossible (almost infinite improbability) for those physical constants to come into existence at random with the values necessary for life to exist.
Please provide evidence for your presumption that a natural origin for the Universe would produce values for physical constants "at random". We'll wait.
That is why scientists had to create the wild-eyed notion that an infinite number of parallel universes must exist (the "multiverse" theory), for an infinite period of time, and our universe is just one of those random universes that just happened to have the right set of values.
You have *really* garbled the anthropic principle. Try again.
God is much more likely.
So... Rather than a workable Universe existing without "help", it's "much more likely" for an infinitely perfect supreme bring to exist without "help". Haven't you just traded a thorny problem for an infinitely thornier one?
Particularly since God has already told us He exists and intervenes in our lives everyday.
That's what the Norse said about Odin, too.
ID never had a chance. It was stillborn.
Absolutely correct.
If you think so, then you're as confused as he is.
Did Judge Jones ban the multiverse as well? He certainly would have banned Lemaitre's Big Bang Theory.
No, he wouldn't have.
I can see it now. Albert Einstein testifies before Judge Jones and says, 'The universe is static, we all know this'. Lemaitre testifies: 'But your honor, even Professor Einsteins own field equations testify to the fact that the universe is expanding and he threw in a cosmological constant to maintain the universe as static.' Judge Jones: 'Science doesn't allow for creationists like Lemaitre poisioning the minds of our youth with creationism, Professor Einstein obviously has the better argument here and is eminently qualified. Big Bang Theory is banned. Next case!'
Nice straw man. Too bad it bears no resemblance to the actual arguments used in the Dover case.
I swear, this goofy misconception comes up so often that I'm going to have to make this into a hotkey:
This is horse manure, son. The *majority* of American "Darwinists" are Christians. The primary "pro-Darwin/anti-ID" expert witness in the Dover trial is a Christian (biologist Kenneth R. Miller), who has written a book about reconciling evolution and God. What does that do to your silly conspiracy theory?
So do most "evolutionists".
But is your social circle qualified to accurately teach evolutionary biology, or have they fallen for the anti-evolution "creation science" disinformation and propaganda?
May I quote you?
"What does that do to your silly conspiracy theory?"
First, you are a very uncivil and hostile debater. How about calming down a bit? That valium in your medicine cabinet may help.
Second, I never proposed that there is any conpiracy. That is in your paranoid mind. Although Darwinism can mean simply evolution, I have always considered it in this debate to also mean first causes..too. So when I say Darwinism I include spontaneous formation of life from the infamous building blocks through chance.
I, like Kenneth Miller believe that evolution can be reconciled with God, but creation of life by chance cannot. I am not an opponent of evolutionary theory, though I do ask that its flaws be at least mentioned in school.
And with respect to first causes, I also ask the ID also be mentioned in school when speculating on this matter.
Please don't confuse the issue with facts.
I'm not sure about the school board in Lemaitre.
But I am sure that the multiverse is analagous to Einsteins adding in the CC.
Merry Christmas to you and yours Ichy.
ping everyone Friday AM.... well written article, indeed!
No, I'm not, as should have been made clear by the sentence which preceded that one.
By extension, those who believe in the creation account are not qualified, even though they have attained high levels of competence in the field of Science.
You have a great ability to read things into my post which are not actually there.
This points back to my post in #43.
...only in the sense that it raises the question of whether you misread those other "examples" as badly as you misread mine, perhaps due to some kind of big chip on your shoulder.
Lame, pointless response?? Really now!
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.