Posted on 01/30/2006 10:27:35 PM PST by Sweetjustusnow
And who says ecumenicalism is dead? (Well, at least not between Creationists and Harun Yahya.)
LOL. I suspect it is on DU that technology is thought to be evil per se.
As far as explanatory value is concerned, which label is more appropriate, "natural selection," or "God did it?" I reckon one may salve his intellect by asserting "natural selection" as more explanatory, but when it is applied post facto and does make predictions I hardly think it has much value from the standpoint of emprical science. One can use any number of labels to describe the process. The issue here is what is or is not behind the process, and thus resides outside the grasp of empiricism. It requires a set of shaping principles to be applied either inductively or deductively, which set of principles may or may not be in accord with objective reality.
No, they have something even more powerful. It's called "research".
It is able to do so because the world is intelligently designed and thus intelligible.
You forgot the "In my opinion", but I take that for granted.
Powerful? I thought it was "coherence" we were discussing, i.e. the amount of agreement evidenced by science vs. religion. "Research" is no guarantee of coherence. Science does not have one single method of research, and even with its various methods, each observer brings biases to the table. A single document used as a guide or norm, however, would lend cohesion from observer to observer.
Opinionated placemarker.
Your interpretation has no value, but your interpretation has no point of contact with anything actually done in science.
Science tends to be forgetful about the tenuous nature of its propositions, too. Do you take that for granted, too? Or do you believe everything you read that comes out of a science book proclaiming itself "unbiased" and "objective?"
Pardon -- I didn't make myself clear.
When I said "win" I meant educationally. That is to say, ID being taught as "science" and Darwin being taught as "just a theory" or a "controversial theory."
So ID doesn't have to produce any research first, as was the original plan?
When did ID switch over to plan B, abandon all pretence to science and win via politics?
Nonsense. There are plenty, doubtless thousands, of specific proposition that evolutionists all but universally agree on. For instance it has been accepted that dinosaurs (and other archosaurs or "ruling reptiles") share a more recent common ancestor with birds than with other reptiles for, well, nearly 150 years. As another example there is zero doubt that the mammalian inner ear bones evolved from the reptilian jaw joint, and that the relevant homologies apply. I could probably go on for pages and pages if I had more detailed knowledge of specific subfields.
Regardless of any points of contact I may or may not have, "natural selection" is but a post facto, ad hoc label of non-empirical significance. It carries no more empirical weight than an assertion such as "God did it."
Meanwhile I have yet to hear any empirically sound, alternative idea to explain or understand the presence of organized matter that performs specific functions. Intelligent design as both an inductive and deductive principle works, and has worked, for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. "Natural selection?" That's about as arbitrary as a label can be.
Natural selection is a process that can be observed, analyzed, understood, and utilized for the benefit of agriculture and medicine.
The fact that you don't understand it is of no signifinance or importance whatsoever.
But if you did, then the disingenuous anti-Evos would accuse you of "spamming" the thread!
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.....
No. It is other, more empirically sound methods that lead to advancements in the disciplines you've noted. If there is a lack of understanding, it attends to the value you place on such an arbitrary label as "natural selection."
Hope they don't slip on a banana peel running on the way out...
Neither do biologists. Don't misrepresent the recent court cases.
But again, the principles behind weather forecasting and economics are not what Darwinian ideologues are running away from.
We're not running away from anything. We're right here.
No doubt he could go on for pages and pages, and so could I in pointing out areas where there is general agreement in various religious disciplines. What I like about his post is that he made his point well without indulging overkill.
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.