Indeed!
Posted on 01/07/2006 7:44:07 PM PST by MRMEAN
And we know the Empire State Building was designed likewise. From the edifice itself which evidences a designer and design as well as the designer notebooks and blueprints themselves.
So too the fossil record -- it shows the evolution of a designer's design. Chance is sorely pressed beyond any reason to explain large jumps in the record. And changes both lage and small may indeed be evidence of an active designer, just as a chnage in construction techniques or materials between the tenth floor and the twelveth may indicate evolution of the designer's design as the building was built.
While feminists and race baiters pioneered hypersensitivity, Christians have been catching up wonderfully. I guess, as feminists once claimed dirty jokes were the equivalent of rape, you could argue seeing a Darwin fish is the equivalent of martyrdom.
Or, alternatively, you could get a grip.
"Get a life. Its a joke. Remember them?"
Go into a synagoge and ask the folks their if they would like a pork sandwich and then tell them you are joking.
Or, attend a NAACP meeting and use the "N" word and tell them your just joking.
Some things are "hate" disguised as humor. Just because something is funny, doesn't make it acceptable.
"Or, alternatively, you could get a grip."
Or you could be mature enough to know this sort of things just inflames and starts fights.
It is the equivalent of yelling fire in a theater. Why intentionally provoke a group of people? I think Islam is nonsense, but I would NEVER deface one of their religious symbols to make a point - it wouldn't change one Muslims mind and it could start an unnecessary altercation. Besides, the Darwin fish sends a message that Darwin is your deity. I thought that wasn't so with the "pure" scientist? Professor, you know that such things are bad form, just as a Christian getting in your face and trying to provoke is.
"WHAT IS IT ABOUT EVEN the slightest dissent from Darwin's theory of natural selection that drives liberal elites (and even some conservative elites) bonkers?" ( from the article)
To All:
What drives liberals nuts is that something other than atheistic worldview might be present to children in government schools.
Solution: Get rid of the government schools!
If universal K-12 education were privatized this entire cat fight over evolution/intelligent design would evaporate like dew on a hot summer's morning.
Remember, please, that the education of children and youth can never be neutral in content or consequences. It WILL have political, cultural, and religious consequences!
Government schools are compulsory for those with no other option. Government schools are a price-fixed monopoly that guarantees that private options will be scarce or non-existent. Government schools can and do use the threat of police force to ensure their customers ( students) will fill their schools. They use the threat of police force to ensure that they have a constant flow of money. And,,,,,,all this force is directed at young children who will be politically, culturally, and religiously influenced by their government school. How can this be constitutional on either a federal or state level? .....Got me!
The point has been made before that had the current peer review process been in place in Einstein's day, many important physics theories might never have seen the light of day.
If anything, the publication standards in Einstein's day were much stricter than they are now [I'm speaking from experience here] - so much rubbish gets published that the reliability of published scientific information is now much less than it used to be. Reviewing "peers" now are third-raters, since everyone more prominent has more important things to do. In Einstein's day the journals were staffed with very solid first- and second-rate scientists who had to decide on the publication. In my field, if you take a German language article from 1905, its experimental part is like gold standard. Ditto for the Brits - up to about 1940s-50s.
I think you have just made my point.
Scientific theories today which go against the status quo are sidelined. Then everybody points out that the theories can't be good, since they haven't been published in peer-reviewed journals. Einstein would probably have met the same fate if today's peer reviewers were reviewing his articles in his day.
Wrong. Einstein was against the status quo of his time - but he made sense on the terms of science, and thus his work was not sidelined, but accepted, even if at first grudgingly. ID does not make any sense except as theological exercise - and thus is rightly swept out with a broom from science classes. Theology is not science, unless one uses the word "science" to include "library science" and the like into it. Theology is a religious discipline, and that's where ID belongs. There ought to be a song with a refrain "don't bible at me in public school!"
Indeed!
I guess I've seen this statement here so many times, I'd just like to know what you envision as an alternative.
Because debate often employs satire and even ridicule. As a former Christian, I don't find the Darwin fish offensive, and I didn't even when I was a Catholic. It's rather gentle humor, and not at all bad form. Describing kids in public school as the descendants of rats and cockroaches, now, that's bad form.
Nor do I believe religious symbols deserve any special protection that other symbols do not deserve.
If I'd seen you object to the frequent posting here of the old lithograph with Darwin on a monkey body, I'd grant that you're at least consistently humorless.
It would cause less confusion if we simply said that common descent is a fact; natural selection is an ovserved fact and also a theory to explain common descent.
This isn't arrogance; it is just the way things are. The major advocates of ID would agree with this statement, even though they deny that the theory of natural selection is completely adequate.
I know why you think viruses are not alive. I just think it's a semantic game. The line between life and nonlife is arbitrary unless you know the history of the object in question. We do not know the history of viruses.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
For that matter, we don't know the history of humans either. I don't think a definition of "life" is useful that requires knowledge of infinite ancestry. A rock isn't alive, a person is, and I don't have to know where they came from (back to antiquity) to be able to make this determination.
As to your following post, all while admitting to my limited understanding, quantam physics seems to have turned things upside down and leaves open wonderous questions which might always be beyond our understanding.
There's this slightly cheesy but interesting movie out there at Blockbuster called What The Bleep Do We Know? that deals with those like myself asking questions of both science and theology. The trailer is on the web. I recommend it to everyone.
Your post eloquently states what I have been trying to touch upon in some of my posts. Thank you. Dawkins comes across as sounding as if his (very impressive) grasp of his field knows no bounds. He sounds like the Alec Baldwin character in that movie "I am God!" simply becuase he had great surgical skill. I wonder how the human shortcoming of hubris will evolve on a social level in the millenia to come?
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.