Darwinist Ideologues Are on the Run

Human Events Online ^ | Jan 31, 2006 | Allan H. Ryskind

[Sweetjustusnow]

The two scariest words in the English language? Intelligent Design! That phrase tends to produce a nasty rash and night sweats among our elitist class.

Should some impressionable teenager ever hear those words from a public school teacher, we are led to believe, that student may embrace a secular heresy: that some intelligent force or energy, maybe even a god, rather than Darwinian blind chance, has been responsible for the gazillions of magnificently designed life forms that populate our privileged planet.

[editor-surveyor]

Opinion is not evidence.

[RobRoy]

You're spamming.

[editor-surveyor]

Everything Ichy posts is propaganda and opinion, no evidence.

[Dimensio]

Opinion is not evidence.

Ichneumon's post was a collection of observations and conclusions derived from those observations. The conclusions are not "opinion". If you believe that the conclusions are in error, you are free to point out where the error(s) in reasoning leading to the conclusion are. However, dismissing the presentation of facts as "opinion" only makes you look like a liar: either you have not read the piece at all, meaning that you are lying when you claim to know anything about it or you have read the piece and you are lying about what you read in it.

[ShadowAce]

Either the theory is refined and readjusted, or -- if the refuting evidence is too severe and contradicts the theory in a fundamental way -- the theory is discarded entirely.

Thank you. Please explain how an asexually-reproducing creature will eventually create a sexually-reproducing creature. Then explain how two asexually-reproducing creatures can produce two complementary-but-different sexually-reproducing creatures--within the same lifetime and in the same geographical area so that they may meet and reproduce.

Once that has been explained satisfactorily, I'll listen to more evidence that the TOE may be true.

No, it does not.

Yes it does, as it attempts to use nothing but chance and slective breeding to explain us. There is no reference to a God (or His absence) anywhere within the TOE, thus it assumes He is persona non grata.

[whattajoke]

A real science education would equip students to challenge or defend any theory.

And surely you know by now there is only one theory that explains common descent. Of course, if your layman definition of what a theory is somehow encompasses creationism/ID, fine. Just be prepared for the 500 or so equally as valid creation myths to get their due as well.

[Right Wing Professor]

Here is where I believe that the TOE fails. It makes at least one major assumption that cannot be proven by science. It assumes that there is no God.

Utter nonsense. TOE makes no such assumption, and I defy you to find any scientific textbook that says it does.

[101st-Eagle]

YOU PEOPLE WORSHIP A SPACE ALIEN!

And you want to impress the rest of us with your intellectual maturity and scientific reasoning?

HHHHHHAAAAAAAAAA, HHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAA, HHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAA....

That's rather shortsighted and sterotypical. You don't know what each person's conception might be. And futhermore, a lot of scientists are seen like this to many because of their dispositions:

I AM GOD!

[Right Wing Professor]

Please explain how an asexually-reproducing creature will eventually create a sexually-reproducing creature. Then explain how two asexually-reproducing creatures can produce two complementary-but-different sexually-reproducing creatures--within the same lifetime and in the same geographical area so that they may meet and reproduce.

Do you consider bacteria sexual or asexual?

[blowfish]

Yeah, those damn references to research. Nothing but propaganda. Thank God ...oops...The Designer that ID doesn't have these irritating research articles to clutter up the discussion!

[ShadowAce]

TOE makes no such assumption, ...

OK, then lay out the TOE, and point out the possibility that God may have created everything we see. There is no mention of God, because the TOE assumes His non-existance.

[Antoninus]

I believe that the ToE explains a lot about how life developed. However, I don't think it's the last word--it's a theory in process and thus, should be discussed and refined.

If ID can bring something useful to the table, I say let it.

[Dimensio]

Please explain how an asexually-reproducing creature will eventually create a sexually-reproducing creature.

There are creatures that can reproduce asexually or by sharing genetic material with another of the same species. Why do you think that it was a one-and-then-the-other event?

Then explain how two asexually-reproducing creatures can produce two complementary-but-different sexually-reproducing creatures--within the same lifetime and in the same geographical area so that they may meet and reproduce.

I don't understand what you mean by that.

Yes it does

No, it doesn't.

as it attempts to use nothing but chance and slective breeding to explain us.

It uses random mutation and nonrandom natural selection to explain species diversity starting from common ancestry. Nothing from that statement states or implies that there are no deities. I cannot imagine what twisted crime of logic someone must commit to come to such a conclusion.

There is no reference to a God (or His absence) anywhere within the TOE, thus it assumes He is persona non grata.

Are you serious? Absolutely no scientific theory at all mentions any deities. Relativity theory says nothing whatsoever about any gods. Does that mean that relativity denies the existence of God?

Scientific theories cannot make mention of any gods, much less the God that you might worship, whether to affirm or deny existence. Deities are completely outside of the scope of scientific inquiry, and as such science can never say anything one way or another about them or any involvement they might have with the natural universe.

[mlc9852]

I think we all feel sorry for you. You sound extremely bitter which is understandable. I pray you find peace.

[blowfish]

There is no reference to a God (or His absence) anywhere within the TOE, thus it assumes He is persona non grata.

This must pass for logic in your universe, but not mine.

[wallcrawlr]

Yeah, I can see youre passionate. Just make sure nothing "pops".

[Dimensio]

OK, then lay out the TOE, and point out the possibility that God may have created everything we see.

To which "God", out of the thousands of deities worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history, do you refer and why should that particular deity be "pointed out" as something that "may" have been involved to the exclusion of all other possible deities?

Also, why make mention of a supernatural entity in a context that cannot, in any way, address the supernatural?

There is no mention of God, because the TOE assumes His non-existance.

Absolute poppycock. Not mentioning an entity is not the same as assuming or stating that said entity is non-existent.

[furball4paws]

"Thank you. Please explain how an asexually-reproducing creature will eventually create a sexually-reproducing creature. Then explain how two asexually-reproducing creatures can produce two complementary-but-different sexually-reproducing creatures--within the same lifetime and in the same geographical area so that they may meet and reproduce."

All your answers are in Escherichia coli and Salmonella Cellular and Molecular Biology, Frederick C. Neidhardt, Editor in Chief. After you've read it, if you have any questions, I'll be glad to help.

[blowfish]

Sorry, not enough coffee on my part: the defective log belongs to shadowace.