Posted on 01/27/2007 4:40:50 PM PST by balch3
Intelligent design is a belief. It cannot be scientifically proven. Unless you happen upon God creating species.
***So im related to Hillary after all oh gross***
Not so! A turtle s..t on a rock and the sun hatched her out.
Evolution has nothing to do with proving or disproving a creator, of course. It's a scientific explanation for the origin of species in the same way plate tectonics is an explanation for the origin of mountains and oceans.
Human reasoning also tells us that two plus three equals five. Is this, then, capable of being subverted, too?
Evolution is a theory.
So, you'd rather listen to corrupt scientists more interested in getting grant money than getting at the truth??? How odd.
Evolution happens. Darwin and the others who used science to prove it should be admired.
So is General Relativity.
"...used to destroy the notion that our rights don't come from a creator..."
I'm sorry, how does evolution lead to that? What you are writing, what you apparently believe, is that those of us who believe evolution is at least a pretty good theory *don't* believe in a Creator and moral absolutes? Correct?
I fail to see how that is the case. My Creator, to the best of my current understanding, chose to use evolution as His method to get to us. It in no way shape or form diminishes His majesty. In fact, it makes him more imaginative than you give Him credit for.
Given the way the scientific method works, yes.
http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/pdf/Origin_of_Species.pdf
How many people talking about Darwins "THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES By Means of Natural Selection" have read it?
Yes, but not all theories have equal validity.
The bottom line is that evolution is a tool of the left, used to destroy the notion that our rights don't come from a creator and are inalienable, but that they stem from human reason and understanding and thus are flexible and able to be subverted.
The problem is that evolution has become the "accepted" view, and anyone who quesitons it is automatically labeled a creationist or intelligent design believer. I do not accept any of these, especially as "science," and none of them ought to be taught in any public school. (They cannot teach them how to read and write, but they're all worried about which hypothesis regarding origins they are taught. Good grief).
Here's what's wrong with evolution. (I'm not saying it can't be so, just saying it is not a science, and is a long way from being established.)
All those fossils you call "transitional" are only called that because you are looking at them with the idea that evolution has been established. In themselves, they prove nothing at all. The similarity or difference between fossils establishes nothing but the similarity and differences, but not one thing about why they are similar or different. Unless you have the preconceived view of evolution, they are evidence of nothing except their previous existence.
But, I suppose I'll be accused of being a creationist, even though I'm an atheist.
Hank
"Evolution is a theory."
No, evolution is a hypothesis. A theory is a hypothesis that has been sceintifically proven, or at least satisfies scientific criteria, which evolution (or any other enquirey about origins, like cosmology) cannot.
Hank
I have to disagree. This can't be reconciled with a couple of basic realities:
1. About a third of liberals describe themselves as creationists.
2. Feminists hate Darwin.
3. There is no shortage of conservatives who find the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory compelling.
So is God, but the god theory just doesn't explain as much as evolution. In fact it really doesn't explain anything at all.
I suppose that's the whole point. If some magical being can do anything anywhere anytime without cause, then that means no explanation is needed.
The god theory has to be the biggest mental cop-op of all times.
I have.
If a theory is something scientifically proven what is theoretical about it? You may be comfusing 'theory' with 'law.'
Talk about an unfunny joke, the idiot doesn't even know the meaning of the word "theory" but he has no hesitancy in attacking it.
A sad unfunny has-been way out of his depth.
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.