Posted on 05/03/2006 8:23:06 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Are you a Christian?
Irrelevant to the discussion. If I am (or not) it is due to faith and belief, not science.
As I said, if the contention is that there are no direct eyewitnesses to the Bible being Jesus' Word, then you can't turn around and say "It is because Jesus says so."
For those who know Logical Fallacies, this is called "begging the question."
No, it is not irrelevant to the discussion.
How could one's individual belief have anything to do with a discussion about logic and science?
It has no effect on the supplied argumentation. Either arguments stand or they don't.
Thanks for mentioning the Turing Test. I wikipediaed it, and then I linked into Searle's Chinese Room. Fascinating!
metmom is asking a question, geared toward evolutionists who claim to be Christians. Only evolutioists who claim to be christians should answer.
Open forum? IDers are welcome to present their findings to scientific journals. That is the forum that scientists use.
IDers think that public school is an "open forum" where scientific ideas are hashed out. They are mistaken. They cannot skip the scientific forum that every other scientific hypothesis has had to follow.
Tell me, silverleaf, what makes ID so special that it gets to skip the usual route of scientific theory?
but referenced truth as an absolute, which, by nature, would not be subject to the poster's whims, but is an objective ideal
But on the other hand you say:
Truth is that which is in accord with objective reality.
That, the second comment, is MY theory (or, rather, the "correspondence theory" of truth). It CONTRADICTS ap2's claim that truth is absolute. The very meaning of saying that something is "absolute" is that it is NOT relative to, in the sense of being conditional or contingent upon, some other thing. Once you say that truth is determined by its "accord with objective reality," you're conceding that truth is conditioned, and therefore not "absolute".
Even with your (well earned) reputation of vagary and arm waving, you can't escape this contradiction.
Whether I personally believe one thing another is not at issue. My point is to the fact that the Evolution Club lay claim to "proven" science and froth at the mouth at even the suggestion that they could, on some or many points, be wrong.
There are scientist who do not hold to the full blank check evolution THEORIES. The evolution theories have EVOLVED into fact, in their lock step ortohdoxy thinking of the education establishment, and they arrogantly attack as fools, rubes and religious extremist, those who even have a slight doubt showing on their HUMAN face.
They label, without any qualifications, as FACT all facets of evolotion theory, defending it as SCIENCE, and suggesting that ANYTHING (not just ID) that does not rubber stamp their views is NOT science....
As for religion in the classroom, most of the Founding Fathers wanted it there...(not theory...can be proven by examination of their letters and other writtings).
Einstien, must have been an ID type guy, since he once said that God does not play dice with the universe. So, if they want ONLY science to be taught, will they not include what Einstein believed?...and would they allow the views many to today's SCIENTISTS who don't hold to a blank check for evolution theories believe to be presented....NO. They will shout down ANY desent from bowing down to their HOLY THEORY....afterall, THEORY is now SCIENCE.
My guitar did not evolve from a tree....Intelligent design created it (except for a slight buzzing at the 13th fret).
But does that mean that when we hear the word of God we really are hearing the sound of one hand clapping?
Open forum? IDers are welcome to present their findings to scientific journals. That is the forum that scientists use.
IDers think that public school is an "open forum" where scientific ideas are hashed out. They are mistaken.
Exactly. The curricula merely reports (to the degree it's untainted and honest) the OUTCOME of the competitions among scientific ideas. But antievolutionists here consistently betray a notion that the curricula is where the competitions do (or should) occur.
This is entirely nonsensical. Although I'm in the market for a better analogy, I've said in the past that the ID/creationist position is like pretending that how a football game turned out is determined by what's written on the sports page, rather than what actually happened on the field; and that their prescription for curricula is like insisting that winning scores be reported for losing teams to make things "fair".
Have to call "B.S." on that. FRevolutionists could not possibly be more consistent, indeed INsistent, in asserting that no scientific claim is ever proven, and that all scientific claims are subject to potential revision or abandonment.
It is not only predominantly, but EXCLUSIVELY, antievolutionists here who forward claims that science does (or should) "prove" things.
"You don't see a difference between not wanting to be ordered to teach something they don't believe has a scientific basis versus book burning."
Yes, I do see a frame of mind akin to book burning. There are scientist who do not hold to the blank check evolution THEORIES as unchallengeable fact. They do attempt to destroy those who vary from their narrow path.
My point is two fold:
1. Evolution is still theory, not fully established as a having proven science that can be defended without any qualification whatsoever...yet the education establishment labels it as SCIENCE theat is not to be questioned. This lock-step orthodoxy is not healthy.
2. The education establishment attempt to snuff out ANY disagreement, not just ID.
Our present system of state-run schools didn't exist back then. It pretty much started in the 1840s. But I know one Founding Father's general thinking on the subject:
... that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions ...The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom.
Thanks for your reply...well said.
However, evolution is NOT a fully proven theory...compelling yes, but not 100% established...Yet, the education establishment does not treat the subject as theory, but as fact, and they atack ANY descent...even from evolution scientist....
Please see my reply to CarolinaGuitarman.
Like that fascist "gravity" theory. You need to learn what a "theory" is in science. TToE is a scientific theory, supported by hundreds of years and thousands (if not millions) of scientists. It is examined via the scientific method and subject to its rigors. There has been no credible scientific challenge to it to date.
2. The education establishment attempt to snuff out ANY disagreement, not just ID.
a. Show where or how this is true. If herewere a valid challenge to TToE it might have credence, but there is none. They can (and shold) teach ID in mythology, theology, philosophy, etc.
b. The education establishment should be teaching established science. Even if a valid challenge to TToE were to be accepted by the scientific community (unlikely), it shouldn't be taught until it is fleshed out completely. At this point if someone says "I theorize that planets in our solar system don't revolve around the Sun" and provided some preliminary credible evidence, they wouldn't and shouldn't teach that until it was fully fleshed out to what IS happening.
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.