Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
Posted on 01/19/2006 2:12:48 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator
What concerns me is the teachers who use darwin as an excuse to preach the ideals of athiesm in the classroom.I agree with you completely, especially since these days preaching the ideals of atheism means preaching socialism and RAT politics in the same breath.
That's just bunk. God had just as much a role in creating biology on earth as He did in creating hurricane Katrina. Which means you can believe that God created both, or neither, take your pick.
But if God created the biosphere and all creatures in it, then He did it with a very elegant creation we call "Evolution". The evidence, particularly in the microbiological information trail between species, says that's what occured.
You must hate Hayek & his theory of "spontaneous order". I say economics only makes sense in the light of evolution-like transformations of industries & economies.
Christensen's theories of disruptive innovation alone strike me as having an eerie similarity to Gould's punctuated equilibrium.
They are abusing science if they do. But the real problem are the handful of Christian denominations (*not* including the Catholics) who claim a literal interpretation of the Bible that excludes evolution. They have the power to disarm the athiests exactly the same way the Catholics have done. By acknowledging that Genesis is not a scientific text, and interpret it in a way that allows for the reality of an old earth and evolution.
"Darwinism" is an invention of the creationists who need a boogyman to demonize. It's no different than the Islamics who demonize the "infidels" to fire up the friday prayer meetings.
There is no scientific field of study called "Darwinism".
The moral impact: In "The Descent of Man" (1871), Darwin spells out the moral implications of his theory, notably that unguided evolution produced the moral laws as much as it did the plants and animals. Such laws could have turned out differently, as the animals could have turned out differently had chance variations led life's history down a different path.If things had been different, then things would be different. Yeah, I can see how if THAT ever got out, it would undermine society's moral fiber!
So there is nothing absolute about our ideas of right and wrong. Wrote Darwin, "We may, therefore, reject the belief, lately insisted on by some writers, that the abhorrence of incest is due to our possessing a special God-implanted conscience."
I have read several times, right here on the crevo threads, creationists defend the rampant incest in Adam & Eve's family because at that time human bodies were still nearly perfect, and so the real-world biological consequences of incest were infinitesimal. IOW, creationists here were defending incest precisely on physical, biological grounds.
If ethics has no such secure foundation, there can be nothing sacred about doing the right thing.
This is like complaining that 32 ft/sec/sec isn't so secure a foundation for physics, because it only applies on the Earth. Sheesh!
IMHO,
I think God used evolution to create biological life as we know it by the ignition of the universe singularity, thus creating earth. And then at some point, endowed a highly evolved man creature with self-awareness and intellect to understand and accept His rules. This became the God-fearing man that we are today. Problem is, when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of life (i.e. discovered human sexuality, this resulted in perpetuation of the new, human state by pregnancy, new responsibilities then occurred, and the subsequent humanly pursuits of desire and greed. Other tribes continued to evolve but they were primitive and animalistic. And then, when the new human continued to get off track, God saw that it was imperative to manifest a representation of Himself on earth in the form of Christ. Christ's mission was to show us how to live on earth while on earth, and thus move on after death into a different state (heaven) per the second law of thermodynamics.
I have no problem at all of reconciling the two. You just can't get caught up in the battle between the two views.
And perhaps comments by evolutionary scientists too? Did you forget us? (And who you callin' a misfit?)
bookmark for later reading
Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
"Darwinism" is not synonymous with the term "evolution." It is used on these threads as a pejorative almost exclusively by those opposing evolution.
Scientists don't tend to use the term, preferring things like evolutionary biologist, paleontologist, geologist, etc.
Check back to see if thread evolves.
Evidence? Really? Are you sure? Care to post any of it?
As others have said, there is no scientific discipline called "Darwinism". Scientific disciplines such as biology, geology, and physics use the theory of evolution to explain various observed phenomena.
Creationists/ID'ers are to the term "Darwinism" as Islamic extremists are to the term "Infidels".
Sorry, I paraphrased your point. That's what I get for responding before reading.....
'Darwinists'?
Ain't nobody here but us scientists.
That might detract from the image you are trying to project as humane, caring, and sexy dudes.
Don't need to project.
1. ID is not a scientific theory.
2. There is nothing particularly noble about trying to sell something as a true scientific theory when its not actually one but a list of complaints about a real scientific theory.
3. The purpose of a scientific theory is to determine the truth, not be palatable to this or that existing philosphy (as he puts it avoid "Darwin's drawbacks.") A theory's value is not a function of how well it uplifts the spirit or avoids drawbacks but how well it helps us explain observed phenomena. On this count, neo-Darwinism has endured for decades. ID is hardly its peer. I'm still waiting for these folks to propose some falsifiable hypotheses, test them, and publish the data with analyses.
4. Persons who prefer to surround themselves with uplifting thoughts and to avoid those that have "Darwin's drawbacks" have that option. They should not become life scientists. However, they should not ask that the life sciences remake themselves in their image. The cost to society would be huge.
"If you're going to post stupid, provocative material, of course people are going to respond."
Touch a nerve?
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.