Posted on 08/31/2007 3:21:59 AM PDT by monomaniac
What do you call a scientist who forbids the challenging of a theory?
Reminds me of the Pope and Gallileo.
Scene I
Pope: Has he confessed the heresy yet?
P.F.: No, Holines. Can we torture him?
Pope: No. No torturing.
P.F.: Please, oh please? At least let us threaten him with the instruments.
Pope: You may show him the instruments.
Scene 2
Gallileo’s buddy: Why did you confess?
Gallileo: I had to. They were going to torture me.
G.B. But you know the sun doesn’t move around the earth!
Gallileo: You don’t understand. They showed me the instruments.
G.B.: But what about the Truth, Gallileo?
Gallileo: For God’s sake, man, they had oboes and bassoons and F-F-
F-French Horns, and I’ve heard terrible stories about — about—BAGPIPES!!! I’m only human. The Truth will have to wait.
ping
This looks like a film to watch and Ben Stein should make it very interesting.
The evolution crowd gets fanatical in silencing different ideas and I think it has do with their hangups over God and religion.
Their attitude is “bend over, grab your ankles and believe Darwin.”
Should I say “Hail Darwin” in case any evolutionists are reading this post.
Bingo. I hope this film has some success. The banning of intelligent discussion regarding biology--be it from an elite of churchmen or an elite of academics is reprehensible.
Then where are all these Intelligent Design and Creationist promoters coming from? I guess that elitist scientific establishment conspiracy isn't working very well?
According to evolution fanatics, its creationism in drag.
Then who is the intelligent designer?
Interesting fact:
When Communists take over a country, they “re-educate” people, not with the merits of communism, but with the “facts” of Evolution.
The purpose: to “educate” the people that there is no higher power than the government.
The “American” left has the SAME EXACT GOAL.
Your tag line is humorously ironic.
Aliens. I’m serious.
My point is, the theory does not specify. Any attempt to insert god into the theory is only unscientific speculation.
Ah, thanks for clearing that up. Let me see if I have your theory straight: 1. Life is too complex. 2. Aliens, therefore, must have designed it. 3. Class over. Is that right? It sounds like a fantastic way to educate future biologists. PHDs take, what, 30 seconds to earn?
Replace “aliens” with “unspecified intelligent designer” and you have intelligent design. You might now understand why I do not accept the theory.
Intelligent design claims that there is an intelligent designer but makes no attempt to identify it? Even evolution attempts to explain the origin of life down to the very beginning. But apparently ID isn't interested? It's kind of hard to take them seriously if they ignore the central part of their theory, isn't it?
What's particularly fascinating about the ID movement is the apparently firm belief that there are two discrete and entirely isolated audiences for the ID proposition, and that these two audiences can be freely sold a completely separate bill of goods without fear that this patently juvenile duplicity will be uncovered.
Thus, you have a "science" audience told that the Intelligent Designer is unspecified. Could be God. Could be aliens. Could be satan and satan's little helpers.
And then you have the "fundamentalist" audience, who is told right up front and without equivocation that the Intelligent Designer is not just God, but the Christian God of the New Testament.
For example, Phillip Johnson unambiguously states that the biblical basis for ID is John 1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
And Dembski, following suit, states in a 1999 article for the Christian magazine Touchstone that John 1 is undeniably the Biblical basis for ID: "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."
And in Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, Dembski's 1999 book, he explains that "divine Logos" is God’s own language, "the Word that in Christ was made flesh," and "God speaks the divine Logos to create the world."
It's such a bizarre and blatantly obvious bit of fraud that I am at a loss to explain its persistence.
bump
You either believe in ID or in magic. My daughter’s evolution professor was at least honest enough to say, “and then the magic happens.”
Ignoring the biggest part of your theory is a strange way to make it acceptable. If we were talking about 'intelligent geography' you would be blanking out inconvenient parts of your maps and saying "Here be dragons."
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.