Intelligent design goes Ivy League: Cornell offers course despite president denouncing theory

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | 04/11/2006

[jec41]

No it doesn't. It sends the message that free people get to decide what they teach their children.

As Behe testified in order for ID to be accepted as science the method of science would have to change. The is already a method to teach your children anything you want. Its called philosophy.

[JamesP81]

Are you aware that belief that God created the universe does not necessarily imply a disagreement with the theory of evolution?

I've probably been over it a thousand times. Fine, here's a thousand and one:

The hebrew language used to write the creation account in Genesis is written in hebrew narrative format, which is easily distinguishable from poetic or allegorical hebrew by the sentence structure. Genesis is written in the same format that the levitical law is written. Law codes generally aren't written in allegorical or poetic format.

Differences between narrative and poetic hebrew.

Genesis was written in such a way that it couldn't reasonably be interpreted to be anything other than a factual account. And if you just want my personal opinion, I think that was the intent. It forces people to either recognize the total authority of the Bible or not.

So, in short, the authoritative scriptures of Christianity do preclude belief in evolution, if you study them a bit.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

If it could, wouldn't the evolutionists have presented a different one once their primordial soup theory was discarded as being impossible?

Maybe they just didn't add enough water.

[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.

Why can't science explain the origin of life.?

[Reily]

That middle Miocene really suffered from the industrial excesses of the earlier Miocene.
It must of have been caused by a mammoth amount of industrial activity.

You can look at the written record in Europe and see temperature trends change. The late classic period through the Early to Mid-Middle Ages talks about several changes in temperature.
My guess is we are leaving a cooling trend and entering a warming trend. The activity of man scurrying and scratching around has very little to do with it.

[orionblamblam]

> Nope. Tentative.(

Nope, *wrong.*

I'm sorry that you're stuck in the liberal "there's no such things as wrong" mindset, but that really is *your* issue.

[orionblamblam]

> This strawman thing seems to be quite convenient to throw out there when there is something you prefer not to answer.

Yes, because you're debating dishonestly. I have little interest in actually debatign those who use such blatant falsehoods.

>>(Please debate honestly, please)

>It would not occur to me to do otherwise.

Obviously, it has, since you've gone to the bother of inventing positions for your "opponant," positions he doesn't hold.

[js1138]

So, in short, the authoritative scriptures of Christianity do preclude belief in evolution, if you study them a bit.

And Martin Luther concluded that scripture precluded accepting the Copernican model of the solar system. Once you have determined that scripture is wrong about a physical fact, what do you do?

[Fester Chugabrew]

Energy ,biochem, medicine, aerospace, computers, telecommunications, defense. What do they have in common?

Organized matter that performs specific functions, which in turn might best be understood as products of intelligent design, which understanding is hardly a threat to our way of life in America.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Please provide a historical reference showing that the theory of evolution once addressed the origin of life.

My daughter's high school biology textbook presents the origin of life as possibly a series of chemical transactions unguided by any intelligent agent. The book asserts such a beginning for life in uncertain terms, which is good. This area of science should be tentative because there is no empirical way to test for the beginning of life as we know it. There is also no empirical way to test the assertion that all life is derived from a common ancestor. The greater part of evolutionist teaching is based upon reasonable conjecture, which in turn is made from the direct observation of change within limits.

[js1138]

This area of science should be tentative because there is no empirical way to test for the beginning of life as we know it.

Actually there is, and that involve producing the necessary stages in the laboratory. It would not be the first time a scientific understanding has required centuries of work.

The alternative to research is to give up on understanding.

[ahayes]

Don't forget the phlogiston theory of combustion, that's my favorite.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Producing "the necessary stages in the laboratory" always involves intelligent design, and always entails uncertainty as to whether laboratory conditions accurately replicate the processes that took place when mankind was not present to observe them.

[JamesP81]

Once you have determined that scripture is wrong about a physical fact, what do you do?

This has yet to be demonstrated where TOE is concerned.

Luther also thought that when Christians took communion that the bread literally became Christ's flesh and the wine literally became Christ's blood. A smart man Luther was, but he didn't know everything.

BTW, I'd like to see a link on that claim.

[js1138]

We don't have to find the specific and correct historical process that led to life. All we have to do is demonstrate that natural processes are sufficient.

Just as we have demonstrated on earth the natural processes necessary to keep the sun supplying energy, even though we have never been to the sun.

Fusion on earth is "intelligently designed," but that does not prevent us from asserting it occurs without intervention on the sun.

You would look more intelligent and more honest if you spent a few minutes thinking things through before posting.

[Fester Chugabrew]

We don't have to find the specific and correct historical process that led to life. All we have to do is demonstrate that natural processes are sufficient.

From this it is apparent your interest is not in scientific accuracy, but in supporting a naturalistic philosophy. Your advice about "thinking fist" would be better spent on yourself.

[js1138]

Here is a balanced version of the Martin Luther story. It is actually favorable to Luther. I do not quote Luther because I think him stupid or ignorant. Rather the reverse. I quote him because he was brilliant, and he was wrong about this particular thing.

http://www.leaderu.com/science/kobe.html#copernicus

[Fester Chugabrew]

fist = first

[Boiler Plate]

Who exactly is this "Scientific Community" of which you speak?

[gondramB]

"Who exactly is this "Scientific Community" of which you speak?"

That's one of those things you really know the answer to before you try to change the scientific community - much as you should study the government or the church before you try to run them.