Posted on 10/07/2007 7:15:09 PM PDT by monomaniac
They can't help proving "Expelled"'s case. Pass the popcorn. This is going to be fun.
It will be done fairly and the freaks will scream foul over it.
Never let the freaks determine your agenda. ;-)
Communism is "dialectical materialism."
Dialectical materialism was first elaborated by Lenin in Materialism and Empiriocriticism (1908) around three axes: the "materialist inversion" of Hegelian dialectics, the historicity of ethical principles ordered to class struggle and the convergence of "laws of evolution" in physics (Helmholtz), biology (Darwin) and in political economics (Marx).Evolutionary theory was imposed upon every child who languished in the communist schoolag archipelago.
Russian school children have since been liberated. It's time American children were liberated as well.
The black legend of Galileo (did you know that a cardinal and a bishop were funding Copernicus' research into heliocentrism contemporaneously?) is much like the black legend of the Spanish Inquisition, except that the former was more the work of Rationalists, while the latter was more the work of Protestants.
Fortunately, science is not governed by federal judges. Or at least truth isn’t.
Unfortunately, if there is a God, we are fooling ourselves if we ignore it.
You can spend a lot of time figuring out what caused the rise of a strange metallic artifact on the moon, if you refuse to believe that man flew it there and left it behind.
If the pencil is on the floor, you can postulate that it rolled off the table and gravity pulled it to the floor. But if I just placed it there, and you refuse to consider a creative act, you will never figure out that the pencil is pointing to where I hid the chocolate chip cookies.
Once you give up on the idea of God, what other choice do you have? You have to come up with SOME explanation of why we are all here, and how it all came about.
If you can’t acknowledge the obvious and correct answer, you HAVE to come up with some sort of “scientific” explanation for it.
So I wouldn’t be so hard on evolutionists. Imagine trying to explain Stonehenge if you were required to ignore evidence of life on earth in doing so.
The 10 commandments were not delivered with, or by, a burning bush. When you mock someone's religion, you should get the facts straight.
Wouldn’t one try to eliminate the other — as humans supposedly eliminated the Neanderthals? (Or others — as in NicknamedBob’s #47)
I work with a few Neanderthals. There are women ones too. Those are the ones you can snap their bra strap from behind on their birthday and carry on joking really loudly. Everybody knows each other for years and are friends.
We had a sexual harassment meeting a few weeks ago that disintegrated into a story-telling and joking fiasco:) We are all around 40 and above. I did have more important things going on than to sit around and BS like that.
That was my thought...the more noise they make, the more attention is going to be drawn to the film. Now that I read of their complaints I will probably go see the film...that and I like Ben Stein.
Actually there would be no chemistry or physics without alchemy.
There would be no astronomy without astrology.
Science would not be here if it weren’t for religion....Science had it’s foundation in the firm belief that a benevolent God made an orderly world for his creatures and the creatures could discover these laws.
Science has disowned it’s roots.
Now back to evidence...
I am not an evolution denier..I’ve stated nothing about it.
What I am is a strong supporter of science but not science as it exists today.
Science has become little more than the political action wing of a certain Marxist ideology...The Global warming branch of the ecofreaks have no difficulty fabricating evidence...Certain of them have demanded trials for dissenters.
How does science gain by corruption...how does science gain by silencing dissent?
The ID crew cannot harm real science...The PC crowd certainly can.
There is a vast difference between scientific dissent and the nonsense being passed off as science by IDers. Scientific dissent relies on scientific evidence, and the debate is conducted in technical conferences and scientific journals. ID relies on religious belief masquerading as science. It is pushed not in scientific journals but in newspaper articles, blogs, and other non-scientific venues.
But let me ask you, how much time would you like spent on ID in high school science classes? And would you like that time spent dissecting it, teaching it as legitimate science, or teaching it as TRVTH which overrides science?
The ID crew cannot harm real science...
Their goal is to destroy "materialism" which is their code word for everything that they don't agree with. It is all laid out in the Wedge Strategy. Their first targets are evolution and trust in the scientific method, and they are pursuing these targets with lawyers and PR flacks, as well as creationists who also happen to be scientists. Those individuals have already abandoned the scientific method in favor of apologetics and proselytizing.
You suggest that "the ID crew cannot harm real science" but that is exactly their goal. They had a real setback with the Dover decision, but they'll just file the serial numbers a little and try again, just as they did after the Edwards decision in the 1980s.
My mom, with a tear in her eye leaned down to us boys, trying to hold back a laugh, she said "look at Ruthie, all dressed up and no place to go". I started laughing, so I put my head in my hands and got out of there as fast as I could. Turns out they thought I was sobbing.
For the vast majority of human history humans have believed in God....
Other than a few minor examples where did belief in a God impair science at all.
The some of the secrets of the atom were unlocked...Physics research went on. Periodic table still got codified..
I’ve never advocated for ID being taught in schools...you just jumped to that conclusion...
Science has cheerfully jumped into bed with the leftist/humanist/atheist cabal which is poised to do it irreparable damage...but they target the ID’ers which can do them none.
Science needs religion...
Science needs the moral guidance of religion...
With science all things are possible without knowing when to stop..and what not to try.
With Science as the ultimate good you have the horrors of scientific experimentation of both the Nazi’s and the Japanese in WWII.
I am assuming you have strongly conservative leanings....
In 100 words or less without resorting to Morality why is murder wrong?...
Not so much different; Dawkins is being an idiot. And the IDers and their attempt to destroy science???
Other than a few minor examples where did belief in a God impair science at all.
The Middle Ages and current Muslim nations to name just two examples.
Science really took off with the enlightenment. I see ID as an attempt to return to earlier times, as stated in the Wedge Strategy:
We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions [emphasis added].
Not necessarily. One problem regarding the Neanderthals is that they supposedly occupied the same ecological niche.
Perceive the world today. We are "partnered up" with any number of species. Elephants, horses, cormorants, canines of all varieties, even hawks and selected species of rodents. Many of these are "working relationships" in which each species gains something from the relationship. Even common domestication can be viewed that way.
But this does not address sentience. It merely emphasises that dissimilar species can get along, by each working in a specific ecological niche.
Some who work closely with very intelligent animals, even including some of our pets, will aver that the animals often exhibit every characteristic of sentience. This is not my argument. But evidence can be gathered that we have it in us to cooperate with other species.
Let us consider a hypothetical. Suppose we finally crack the language barrier that separates us from "dolphins", the cetacean variety of mammal so comfortably at home in the sea.
It is clear that a form of trade could be developed, from providing safe shelter for the raising of young, to exotic forms of communication such creatures could use. We would benefit from their ability to navigate the oceans in three dimensions, perhaps herding fish for our mutual species to harvest.
It can be seen that this would be an easy and comfortable arrangement, with neither species having either the capability or the inclination to harm the other. Primarily this is a result of our ecological niches not being in direct conflict.
I really don't see a problem, and we should perhaps hope that it is so, for eventually we may encounter another species just a little too reminiscent of our own former bloodthirsty selves.
Thanks for the very thoughtful response. You make a convincing case.
It’s not creation in the sense of creating life. It is creation in the sense of design. The designers controlled the "mutation" -- that's quite different from (say) irradating cells to cause random mutations. Just about everything “new” made today is a “mutation” of a pre-existing product, or products.
Consider, for example, the iPhone. It’s essentially a recombination of design “DNA” from older cell phones, iPods (a mutation of older MP3 players), cameras, and computers — yet no one would deny the designers were intelligent. The components didn’t just scramble themselves and evolve into the iPhone.
BTW, I’m not trying to argue the case for ID. I never claimed that it was, in any way, proven with regard to all the natural species in existence — it most certainly hasn’t been proven. However, it now seems obvious to me that ID is not a complete impossibility — not when even creatures of finite intelligence can redesign a life-form.
Muddying the waters a bit.
Middle ages did just fine with science considering the knowledge base at the time..
Current Islam is a case apart...They are a death cult that has virtually nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
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.