Skip to comments.
Intelligent design goes Ivy League: Cornell offers course despite president denouncing theory
WorldNetDaily.com ^
| 04/11/2006
Posted on 04/11/2006 10:34:58 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 341-342 next last
To: AndrewC
You just gave two examples of the phenomenon you said didn't exist.
But there are statements in science that have a degree of certainty sufficient for most people to risk their lives by trusting. Every day of our lives we put many scientific findings to the test.
All of engineering depends on trust in the findings of science. And in the courtroom we depend on theory to determine the lineage of children. Tentative, perhaps, but sufficiently trustworthy to make or break people's lives.
141
posted on
04/11/2006 8:30:47 PM PDT
by
js1138
(~()):~)>)
To: AndrewC
"About a 1000 centuries ago they must have had some real gas guzzlers."
You posted that to me like you think I said human emmisions were causing global warming. My position is that global warming is real whether its human caused or not.
I oppose the Kyoto treaty because its enormously expensive for something that has not been proved.
On the other hand if the temperature were to continue to increase at the current rate or greater for the next 30 years it will break the record for the last 5,000 years.
142
posted on
04/11/2006 8:32:02 PM PDT
by
gondramB
(Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.)
To: AndrewC
Me:"It sends the message to new generations of students that science is decided by school boards, societal pressure and faith."
AndrewC:"No it doesn't. It sends the message that free people get to decide what they teach their children."
Thats not a contradiction - it can send both messages. In the end, society at large decides the pace of scientific advancement, not a small minority of scientists from the previous generation.
143
posted on
04/11/2006 8:33:42 PM PDT
by
gondramB
(Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.)
To: Sola Veritas
If you mean they will have more engineers, chemists, physists, then I might agree it is cause for concern. However, the possibility that the Chinese will have more biologists trained in TOE is not a cause for concern. Holding to the TOE is not going to give the Chinese, or us, military supremacy or technological supremacy - it just isn't that important. The only advantage the Chinese have over us are sheer numbers, and more individual drive because they are a "hungry" people. Whereas Americans have become lazy. This has nothing to due with one's views on TOE.
Teaching that "evolution is just a theory" is a technique for destroying all science just to throw out evolution. It teaches that "theory" is just guesswork, and "what do those scientists know, anyway?" And it is wrong!
You can't have it both ways. The methodology is the same in evolution and in geology and in a host of other fields. The fact that some, for religious reasons, attack evolution as broadly as they do is a detriment to all of science.
You can't have it both ways.
144
posted on
04/11/2006 8:34:19 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(Interim tagline: The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT!)
To: orionblamblam
I have had it brought up in posts to me on at least 4 occasions as a legitimate concern. I certainly don't recommend that we stop research. That's quite preposterous! While I will not say that nobody suggests that. There does seem to be a lack of understanding of people of faith, and our view of science, at least by some.
(I am asking you to defend your philosophical belief that life could not have been designed
Another strawman. Please debate honestly, please)
This strawman thing seems to be quite convenient to throw out there when there is something you prefer not to answer. Please, if I have misconstrued your statements regarding your opinion of religious belief, and the intellect of those have have such, then correct me. If I have wrongly deduced from your statements that your belief is, life could not have been designed, then say so that I may stand corrected.
(Please debate honestly, please)
It would not occur to me to do otherwise. Quite interesting that you should think this. It is dishonest to proclaim ID as a science when it does not meet the criteria. It is also dishonest to hide behind science like it's a security blanket and ridicule a belief that is different than your own. If a person disputes science, argue it scientifically. If someone disputes the belief that life is a product of design, which at it's origin is as likely as it is not likely, then argue it philosophically. But, once again, if this is not your belief, then I recant.
145
posted on
04/11/2006 8:39:20 PM PDT
by
Conservative Texan Mom
(Some people say I'm stubborn, when it's usually just that I'm right.)
To: Conservative Texan Mom
It is also dishonest to hide behind science like it's a security blanket and ridicule a belief that is different than your own. If a person disputes science, argue it scientifically. If someone disputes the belief that life is a product of design, which at it's origin is as likely as it is not likely, then argue it philosophically. If a person disputes science, he/she should bring scientific evidence, not philosphical/religious belief to the discussion.
What are the facts? Again and again and again - what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what 'the stars foretell,' avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable 'verdict of history' - what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your only clue. Get the facts! Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
146
posted on
04/11/2006 8:46:50 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(Interim tagline: The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT!)
To: gondramB
OK, you have now made even more unproven and unjustifiable claims. How is TOE superior science when it is not proven and contradicts other proven science?
147
posted on
04/11/2006 8:47:03 PM PDT
by
Boiler Plate
(Mom always said why be difficult, when with just a little more effort you can be impossible.)
To: Boiler Plate
"OK, you have now made even more unproven and unjustifiable claims. How is TOE superior science when it is not proven and contradicts other proven science?"
I'm not focused on TOE. Scientific theory is determined by the scientific community. It is interference in the teaching of scientific theory based on non-scientific concerns by non-scientists that is the problem.
148
posted on
04/11/2006 8:49:56 PM PDT
by
gondramB
(Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.)
To: Boiler Plate
How is TOE superior science when it is not proven and contradicts other proven science?
Nothing in science is ever "proven". What do you believe that the Theory of Evolution contradicts?
149
posted on
04/11/2006 9:05:45 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Coyoteman
(If a person disputes science, he/she should bring scientific evidence, not philosphical/religious belief to the discussion.)
Agreed. The belief that evolution could be by design is also held by some on these threads.
My dispute is with Orionblamblam's need to make statements like this.
(People can indeed choose to believe in utter superstitious rubbish. And in a way, that's for the best. We need stratification in society. While some will choose to discover facts and will go to the stars, some will choose to disbelieve facts, and will serve a useful role scrubbing toilets and sweeping the streets, and wondering why it is that their prayers aren't curing their diseases.)
150
posted on
04/11/2006 9:12:29 PM PDT
by
Conservative Texan Mom
(Some people say I'm stubborn, when it's usually just that I'm right.)
To: Conservative Texan Mom
Another time to scrub a toilet bowel placemarker
151
posted on
04/11/2006 9:14:15 PM PDT
by
Conservative Texan Mom
(Some people say I'm stubborn, when it's usually just that I'm right.)
To: gondramB
You posted that to me like you thinkNo, quite the contrary. I believe you and I agree in this area. I was just using your post to address the subject. Just how did the folks back then cause the global warming?(being sarcastic again).
152
posted on
04/11/2006 9:18:12 PM PDT
by
AndrewC
(Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
To: gondramB
Thats not a contradiction - it can send both messages. In the end, society at large decides the pace of scientific advancement, not a small minority of scientists from the previous generation.I do not see the anti-science message. I love science, but I see its limitations. I just don't believe that Darwinian arrogance is a fruitful path.
153
posted on
04/11/2006 9:22:49 PM PDT
by
AndrewC
(Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
To: AndrewC
"No, quite the contrary. I believe you and I agree in this area. I was just using your post to address the subject. Just how did the folks back then cause the global warming?(being sarcastic again)."
My apologies for misunderstanding.
154
posted on
04/11/2006 9:35:47 PM PDT
by
gondramB
(Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.)
To: gondramB
So if scientists teach ID, the problem is solved. Now if we can just get scientists to stop teaching about God.
155
posted on
04/11/2006 9:35:51 PM PDT
by
Boiler Plate
(Mom always said why be difficult, when with just a little more effort you can be impossible.)
To: Boiler Plate
"So if scientists teach ID, the problem is solved. Now if we can just get scientists to stop teaching about God."
If the scientific community concluded that ID was demonstrated by the evidence then they would teach it. But since they don't think that it would be harmful to force them to teach it.
156
posted on
04/11/2006 9:38:43 PM PDT
by
gondramB
(Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.)
To: connectthedots
Perhaps you could explain exactly wherein it is stated that the origin of the first life forms was to be included with the theory of evolution. Demonstrating that the initial proponents of the theory -- including the theory's author -- had an interest in also explaining the origin of the first life forms does not mean that the origin of the first life forms was a part of the theory.
157
posted on
04/11/2006 9:47:24 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: jec41
Please state the theory of the oirgin of life by science. Science can't explain the origin of life. If it could, wouldn't the evolutionists have presented a different one once their primordial soup theory was discarded as being impossible?
To: connectthedots
Science can't explain the origin of life.What does science explain?
159
posted on
04/12/2006 5:21:06 AM PDT
by
jec41
(Screaming Eagle)
To: jec41
My statement was, "science can't explain the origin of life."
You are deliberately trying to change the topic. If you think science can explain the origin of life, along with some real evidence, you have nothing to offer.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 341-342 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson