Posted on 01/03/2006 12:12:37 PM PST by PatrickHenry
It seems that Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist used the actual Constitution, not the "living" version used by Judge Jones. I'm very hopeful that Roberts and Alito are in the Scalia mold.
He does seem to like citing dissenting legal opinions as though they carried any legal weight.
So evolution would occur exactly the same way whether or not God exists?
I'm trying to enlighten you on conservative constitutional interpretation. You may be enlightened or you can choose to stay on the bus with the liberals on the court. Nobody claimed it had the "force of law". You just made that up now, didn't ya?
"Seeding from another planet is a possibility. It is also possible that the other planet developed through purely materialistic evolution thus it would be ID without any God or creator or "space alien". There is no requirement for ID to name a creator because their may be no creator. There is proof our planet is seeded with meteors so the concept of a life form being injected into our system is a real possibility."
Do you not see that this begs the question? There cannot be ID without the I. A process of Abiogenesis and subsequent Evolution has no I. To be ID there has to be an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER. Any other naturally produced intelligent being cannot be the designer, because of the trail of "who designed that designer"? The only possibility is a supernatural all powerful being - God. None other makes any sense.
If I'm missing something, enlighten me.
This is an interesting thread but I must point out that you are on pretty thin reasoning and historical ice if you are skating with Ginsburg, Souter, and the other SCOTUS Liberals.
Dissents do carry weight. Infinitely more weight than your legal opinions. But what I'm trying to do is introduce you guys to conservative constitutional interpretation. It's a damn tough job but somebody has to give it a shot!
Well, we all know the true legal heavyweights are Blackmun, Brennan, Marshall, Ginzburg, Souter, Breyer, etc.
It's best to leave Con Law to those geniuses rather than trusting "outside the mainstream" types such as Rehnquist and Scalia.
But it certainly can be mentioned and discussed as a possibility in the scientific community and presumably in the science class without instigating the deafening cry of, "It is not science" and/or "It does not meet the criteria for a theory".
While both of these allegations may be true...Dr. Crick, a Noble Prize winner, had no problem putting the "theory" out there in spite of the lack of scientific evidence.
Was he anti-scientific in doing so?
Is Crick's Directed Panspermia harmful to scientific discovery and advancement?
LOL, same pond, H2O surface temp about 33F.
Soon ceet will be granted becuase the 6th and 11th circuits will be in tension. Alito, will by then, be on the court. You should start writing Kennedy now to keep going left and hoping that Ginsburg and JP Stevens maintain their health otherwise Dubya gets another nomination and constitutional law may once again become constitutional law.
Jeepers, b_sharp, what is your definition of “useful?” Certain natural processes, such as DNA instructing the manufacture of proteins, are obviously intelligent processes. Intelligent processes per se are inexplicable on the basis of material and efficient causes alone. It is the formal and the final causes that bespeak of intelligence. It appears Neo-Darwinism prefers not to deal with this problem.
Just to be clear about what we’re speaking of here, may I put the four causes thusly, and very crudely:
Material cause is the “stuff” that “new stuff” is made of.
Efficient cause is the energy it takes to initiate and execute the physical manifestation of “new stuff,” utilizing “stuff.”
Formal cause is the plan or blueprint for our “new stuff” project.
Final cause is the purpose or goal for which the “new stuff” project was undertaken in the first place: its “reason.”
Now perhaps you will object that formal and final causes are not of interest to science. Okay, I can live with that. But that doesn’t give you a license to say that formal and final causes are irrelevant to the truth of reality. Or even that they do not exist — which is the position of the scientific materialist, a/k/a the metaphysical naturalist.
Yet the scientist who says such a thing is sawing off the very branch on which he himself sits.
FWIW.
Happy New Year, b_sharp!
That's a nice protected position to be in. Science can neither prove nor disprove God, nor His relationship to the events we see in the universe, so we're to assume God's irrelevant and the events we observe have nothing to do with God.
Surely you can see that people of faith find that anything but neutral.
Is science so fragile that it can't function if someone even so much as suggests that one possibility is that God designed things?
What's your opinion on SETI?
Evolution teaches that man is the result of time plus chance, that man is the center of nature. That is explicitly religious in my view.
The "wall" metaphor in Everson was gleaned from a letter written by a sitting Presiedent to a Danbury Baptist Minister.
If President Bush writes a letter to a Danbury Baptist Minister telling him the "wall" has been torn down and the a majority on the court cites to that, will that IYHO's carry the weight of precedent and carry the day?
Your view is misinformed. Fortunately, it isn't held by actual biologists.
The possibilities for the designer, in the view of intelligent design, are virtually infinite because no creator is named. I am not expert, but as I understand it ID makes the assertion (correctlyin my view) that evolution does not explain how life began and does not answer all the question inherent in the fossil record, etc. While this is true, it is very, very long way from Genesis 1 and 2. Thus ID is not a Christian statement.
Evolution is not only science but also philosophy, and you cannot escape a religious viewpoint there, even if the religious viewpoint is atheism. Atheism is not neutrality. Evolutionists make a religious statement when they discard special creation.
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.