Posted on 01/30/2006 10:27:35 PM PST by 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.
The bow ties are the tip-off.
They find fossils all the time, but not ones connecting apes to humans. The missing link is still missing.
Science requires a certain amount of reason and logic. In fact it requires a lot of these attributes. I'm not schooled in science, but I'm bright enough to know that if humans were once apes, then there should be all sorts of living transitional forms out there; some closer to apes than to humans and vice versa. At the very least there should be boundless historical or fossil PROOF that these ape-like humans, or human-like apes existed, and existed for a VERY LONG TIME before becoming fully human.
Since evolution is supposed to be a slow, gradual process that took, (allegedly), millions of years, the neccessary evidential fossils and links should be literally overflowing out there. With all the Darwinists, anthropoligists and archeologists in the world constantly digging for evidence, the earth should be coughing up indisputable proof of 'evolution' on a daily basis, but it does not so much as give us one single piece of PROOF. All we get after every "new find" is windy, indirect, inconclusive gibberish from the Darwinists.
Other questions left unanswered are why didn't the present day apes "evolve" into humans? Why are there no written historical documents recorded by humans detailing their (allegedly) intelligent, but sub-human beings that contested them for land, food, etc? There are just so many holes in 'evolution' that the more I study it the more I am sincerely shocked that it's taught as 'science', (unless of course there's an agenda behind it all).
It is mostly liberals who support Darwin's 'evolution', but it's interesting to note that as they still seek to unearth Darwin's dream 150 years later, after only three years of searching for Saddam's WMD they have declared they never existed. They possess all the patience in the world when it comes to supporting their own agenda. Evolution is the science of atheists, socialists and fools.
bump
I've been reading your posts here, and your tendency to mix scientific findings with personal insults dilutes whatever effectivness you think your lengthy posts have. Try being less rude, and try not to take this whole debate personally.
Boy oh boy, you've set yourself up beautifully. I'll let Coyoteman handle this.
Bull. Evolution by mutation and natural selection is an algorithm, and is thus as much as mathematical model as f = ma, albeit more complicated.
That is why I said you are free to proceed with such a definition. At the same time, it is only appropriate that such a definition be acknowledged for what it is (a subjective choice on the part of the observer) and that any further explananations and interpretations of data be understood with this choice in mind.
Why is it necessary to assume that an intelligent designer is beyond the pale of science? Is such a thing purely inconceivable? What if George Burns really did design the universe, and still maintains it? If it is an objective fact, then it is within the realm of science to seek it out, regardless of whatever religious implications might result.
A magnificent example of how religious fundamentalists are not really conservatives, and if fact will turn on distindguished conservatives of long standing if they fail to knuckle under to the fundamentalist party line.
They usually fall back on single-cells. You're lucky they're not doing the virus thing.
By this logic, since German Americans living here in the midwest are descended from Germans, there should be a population of half-Germans out there on the East Coast, speaking with heavy accents and occasional words of German, in the manner of Colonel Klink.
But you are right about one thing.
Right, that is one effect of removing blood supply from the body surface. Another would be a heightening of sensory response.
Perhaps these may be explained in terms of algorithms (as may anything that is intelligible and intelligently designed), but in essence they are physical processes interpreted post facto as causative of all speciation.
It is a description of physical processes in terms of fundamental logical/mathematical rules. Thence, algorithm.
Exactly. It is not the physical process itself.
LOL... I'm sure that scientists the world over now rest assured knowing that they have your leave to define science in the traditional manner...
At the same time, it is only appropriate that such a definition be acknowledged for what it is (a subjective choice on the part of the observer) and that any further explananations and interpretations of data be understood with this choice in mind.
Anyone who looks at scientific data, and makes nonscientific conclusions therefrom (such as looking at a the fossil record and saying, "there is a God," or pointing to science and saying "this proves there is no God") is not doing science. And, yes, I agree, it should be understood that they are not doing anything that can be properly be described as science.
Why is it necessary to assume that an intelligent designer is beyond the pale of science? Is such a thing purely inconceivable? What if George Burns really did design the universe, and still maintains it? If it is an objective fact, then it is within the realm of science to seek it out, regardless of whatever religious implications might result.
Because science isn't the search for "objective fact" in the sense you mean. It is the search for natural explanations for the facts and phenomena of the natural world. And the reason for that limitation is that it works and it is effective; it has led to remarkable results and a wealth of knowledge and undeniable advancements.
And it isn't because of "religious implications" that this definitional limitation is defended. I mean, (if I may anthropomorphize for a second,) "science" is not attempting to monopolize the search for truth or insight or understanding, it's just defending it's good name. It is jealously defending itself from others who would call themselves science, without actually being science. If some knowledge or idea is going to be described as being "scientific," then it must meet the standards that the scientific method requires.
Death wish?
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.