Posted on 01/25/2006 9:27:55 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez
Prof. Johnson is considered to be the father of the Intelligent Design movement. What follows is known as The Wedge Strategy, authored by Johnson.
In the words of the recognized father of the ID movement...ID is religion.
"He even miss identified his finches."
So? Is that the best you can do? He wasn't a bird expert. MOST naturalists would have misidentified them too. Show him a beetle and he would have been in his element.
Then maybe you can explain the origin of life for us. Evolutionists admit they do not have an answer for this very basic question. Perhaps you are different.
If you see no conflict, then you should have no problem with a mere mention of ID in schools.
That is what I don't get. Why such rabid pushback on ID, which simply challanges unguided evolution (a theory) on a statistical basis.
PH usually says he does it for the lurkers. I don't disagree, but I don't think there are too many lurkers out there who need help.
I ignore the hard core cases and look for the "softer" ones, where an intelligent discourse may have some impact. Unfortunately the "virtual ignore" list is quite long.
It is very difficult for me to accept that people who are purposely ignorant can sleep at night, but I am apparently wrong.
God.
"Evolutionists admit they do not have an answer for this very basic question."
Nor do they attempt to answer that question...the word evolution itself means change after creation. As scientists, in order to answer that question, they would need physical proof of the existence of God. Something that, in common with Creationists, they lack.
Belief in God isn't called "faith" because there's proof of it.
My personal opinion is that a thread can have a lot of lurkers during the first 50 posts. Some may plow through the first 100, but not that many. That's why I usually don't deploy the ping list if I learn of a thread after it's past that point. After 100 posts, it's just too late to argue with a creationist, or even to post a link with the correct information. The lurkers aren't there to benefit, and for sure the creationist won't benefit. But sometimes I do it.
LOL. If I wasn't laughing so hard I'd be able to answer your post. :^)
OK. OK. I've stopped... I think.
Man! When you are correct you are really correct!
Well, you do know that I am mainly a lurker on these Evo/Creo/ID threads...and I read each and every post, no matter how long the thread goes on...I would have to imagine, that if I take the time to read everything, that other lurkers do as well...
For what it is worth, we lurkers do appreciate the posts from everyone, regardless of their position on this subject...
Agreed that Darwin's theory needs to be evaluated on its own merits (not on Darwin's personal qualities or character) and I would go along with Darwin as a mediocre student at best... But the claim that he was a "crappy naturalist" is extraordinary and unaccountable.
DARWIN WAS AN ABSOLUTELY FIRST RATE SCIENTIST, even before and apart from his work on evolution. Good Lord, his monographs on Cirripidae (sp? that is Barnacles) are still standard references to this very day. Granted that works in systematics tend to be longer lived, but this is still remarkable. Also (e.g. in light of the extensive and meticulous dissections involved) indicative of Darwin's strong work ethic and high productivity. He made numerous original discoveries and reorganized the taxonomy of the entire group (with little subsequent change to date). Even before he did much research or was recognized the quality and extent of his collections during the Beagle voyage were remarkable. And still his first original theories (on the formation of coral reefs and atolls) were published, and began to establish his reputation as a geologist, even before he returned!
Then there's the staggering number, extent and care of his experiments. Etc. One could go on and on (even without mentioning evolution).
Not really. You're registered on this website. You've taken the trouble to get on the ping list. You do post from time to time (more than most on the ping list, actually). You ain't no lurker. When I think of a lurker, I'm thinking of people we never hear from, and who may not even be registered to post. There's a lot of them.
This is a major claim, but not accurate at all.
True, but in general his labeling of specimens was quite good. And the extent of the collections he made were HUGE. Almost unbelievable for one man (albeit with servant most of the time). Just the strenous physical aspects involved -- climbing up and down sheer Andean peaks, manually pulling supply barges up South American rivers, galloping across the Pampas with half wild gauchos, carrying up to 70 lbs of water on trips to the interior of islands in the Galapagos, etc, etc, etc... It's almost unconceivable to a modern man what Darwin (happily and with little thought) endured making his collections.
Besides, Darwin proved his acumen when he got home. He know exactly who to give his finches, and other birds to work up in England, and thereby got the indenifications corrected almost immediately.
I don't think astrology is developed in any way to make that true. Astrology simply uses symbols of astronomy, constellations, as names for things completely unrelated to anything having to do with physics, astrophysics or astronomy.
Astrology would better be made analogy with psychology for what astrology tries to explain.
Creation science, young earth belief, is actually more relevant to astronomy and astrophysic in being directly opposed. Creation scientists have their own geologists and astrophysicists who ostensibly provide evidence that the universe is young etc...
I agree completely. But, the longer I'm here, the more I find that it may be futile to think that any good can come of it. They're going to remain ignorant, and take down people's opinion of conservatives and Republicans with them.
A few weeks ago, a woman I work with found out I'm a Republican and in the conversation I mentioned I was going to NYC to see the Darwin exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History (I highly recommend it, by the way), and she actually had to ask whether I was "anti-Darwin." I had to explain that, no, I am not one of those people.
Point being, that to the great moderate, undecided middle, "conservative" and "Republican" is becoming synonymous with "anti-evolution" and, therefore, "anti-science." That's bad news. I guess, if nothing else, posting here shows that not all conservatives and Republicans have this blind spot to rationalism in our thinking.
Ah, I see what you mean now..."You ain't no lurker", is a fine compliment, coming from you..I guess, what I should have said, is that I lurk much of the time, and post once in a while...
But I still think my original point is reasonable, that there may be many, many true lurkers, who nonetheless, read all the posts on these threads...given the nature of how often these threads can turn really 'ugly', I can understand, why people may be hesitant to post, but just prefer to remain lurking...and learning...
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.