Posted on 05/03/2008 4:48:48 PM PDT by LJayne
The other two anti-ID fanatics must be at the movies tonight........usually they swoop in within the first few posts.
Wrong Dawking
Yeah. How about just being a champion of free inquiry in public, academic contexts?
At the link in Post 33, yes. About $3,000 to Ralph Nader.
Whatzzup with that??
Watch the response to the EVIDENCE presented below:
Giving examples (of intelligent design pointing to an intelligent designer/creator) feels like pointing out trees in a forest, but here's a couple that I've given before:
- DNA - a miraculous and incredible amount of intelligent information and code in an infinitesimally small building-block of life.
- Your ear - The inner ear has three multi-directional nerve/sensors elegantly designed to help you keep your balance. They're called semicircular canals - three loops of fluid-filled tubes that are attached to the cochlea in the inner ear. They help us maintain our sense of balance. Each of these loops goes in a different direction, so that all three together helps maintain one's equilibrium no matter what angle your body is in.
- Any detailed study of a leaf or your eye or anything in your body or any living thing. More evidence than the sand of the sea.
These have been previously dismissed by these liberals as "statements of belief" and "biological facts" as though beliefs backed up by facts are not admissible as evidence in the court of the liberals. The liberals "religious beliefs" in unproven, unsubstantiated, fraud-filled Darwinism, is astounding, the apparent product of indoctrination and propaganda, certainly not the result of open intellectual inquiry.
Fester! Long time no hear. How are you doing?
Free inquiry in science is fine, all you have to do is bring evidence.
(See tagline for the rest.)
So, what you are telling me is that absolutely no conservative can find the evidence supporting the theory of evolution convincing; all conservatives must adhere to your particular religious beliefs, no matter what the evidence to the contrary might be. And all who find the evidence supporting the theory of evolution convincing must, by definition, be liberals.
Does that about sum it up?
Inasmuch as the universe is not comprised chiefly of chaos it is itself firm evidence upon which to engage science from the standpoint of intelligent design. The presence of organized matter performing specific functions is ubiquitous enough. As science progresses the theory of intelligent design covers more ground, particularly in the field of microbiology. Meanwhile Darwinism is diminishing in its descriptive power (as if it had any; as if it cannot be molded into whatever form one wishes it to take).
It's not that the theory of intelligent design has no evidence. It is that self-proclaimed guardians of the truth cannot stand to have their world view challenged despite massive evidence to the contrary. And yes, I wear that shoe, too.
http://tinyurl.com/npt6tThe consequence of widespread constitutional ignorance is that the people are impotent to stop Constitution-ignoring lawmakers and judges from interfering with the way that parents raise their children.
http://tinyurl.com/hehr8
More specifically, because the people don't understand the Founder's requirement that federal government powers be enumerated in the federal Constitution, the people fail to make the connection that, because the Constitution is silent about public schools, the 10th A. automatically reserves the power to regulate public schools to the states.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.Religious expression problems in public school problems actually took a turn for the worst in the days of FDR's dirty politics. This is because FDR got the USSC to give the green light to his constitutionally unauthorized New Deal programs; the Court scandalously politically repealed 10th A. protected state powers in order to give FDR what he wanted. And by politically nuking 10th A. protected state powers, FDR foolishly created a political situation where there's now "nothing" in the Constitution that stops corrupt justices from allowing the feds to interefere with how the states run their public schools. And decades of justices ignoring 10th A. protected state powers has ultimately weakened traditional family values.
As a side note, this post (<-click), while addressing tax issues, provides more details as to how the 10th A. stood in the way of FDR establishing his New Deal programs.
And this post (<-click) gives examples of how corrupt justices then began using FDR's "license" to ignore 10th A. protected state powers to eventually stifle traditional family values. The USSC's scandalous legalization of abortion and today's suppression of ID discussion in public school classrooms are examples of this corruption.
Again, because of widespread ignorance of the Constitution and its history, it seems that the best that response that people have given the feds when the feds interfere with the way that people raise their children is to sit on their hands with their mouths wide open.
The bottom line is that, instead of blaming the stifling of free religious speech by public schools on "the government," the people need to reconnect with the Founder's intentions for the division of federal and government state powers. The people then need to get in the faces of the feds, demanding that the feds start respecting the Constitution that they have sworn to defend, particularly where wrongly ignored 10th A. protected state powers are concerned. This not only includes allowing religion-related discussions in public schools while respecting people's 14th A. protections, but also putting a stop to all constitutionally unauthorized federal spending while appropriately lowering federal taxes.
It can’t be refuted because it is religious belief, not science.”
Anthropic Principal
The term, derived from the Greek word “anthropos” for “man,”
was coined by Cambridge physicist Brandon Carter, who delivered a ground-breaking paper called :LargeNumber Coincidences and the Anthropic Principal in Cosmology” at a prestigous scientific conference in 1973.
The principal essentially saysthat “all the seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants in physics have one thing in common — these are precisely the values you need if you want to have a universe capably of producing life.
The evolution THEORY scientists are so afraid to be challenged:
“Chemistry professor Nancy Bryson lost her job at a state university after she gave a lecture on scientific criticisms of Darwin’s theory to a group of honors students.
Law professor Francis Beckwith had his tenure challenged at Baylor University because he had expressed a professional opinion that it was constitutionally acceptable to teach intelligent design in public school classrooms.
Three days before graduate student Bryan Leonard’s dissertation defense was to take place, Darwinist professors at Ohio State University accused Leonard of “unethical human-subject experimentation” because he taught students about scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory.
High school teacher Roger DeHart was driven from his public school simply because he wanted his students to learn about both sides of the scientific debate over Darwinian evolution.
Biology professor P.Z. Myers at the University of Minnesota wrote this about anyone supporting intelligent design or even just questioning modern evolutionary theory: “Our only problem is that we aren’t martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough. The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians.”
Unfortunately, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Let’s hope Stein can use Expelled like an ice cutter to break through. Scientists and educators deserve all the protection and support they can get.”
excerpt http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/08/new_ben_stein_flick_expelled_b.html
No, my point is that the opposition has yet to refute Intelligent Design by reason, logic and evidence. And they also have no evidence for species jumping, a fundamental requirement for Darwinism to hold together.
To answer your question, it's hard for me to think of an atheist as a conservative. America's values is founded on Christianity and the Bible, beginning with the early writings of our first statesmen many of whom were also pastors. The Declaration of Independence states that, "...we are endowed by our Creator certain inalienable rights..." This is not an "oh by the way" statement, but the central and definitive declaration of what America stood for and what men and women we prepared to die for. George Washington and John Adams wrote extensively on the importance of Christian values and beliefs as a cornerstone of America's strength and longevity. This I see as the bedrock of true conservatism.
jbsvd okihwergohi oihwfiuuuqefo iwri;ouwti u3riug 2 jbh iuf 28729y8 2hu t7248298 2498y hefkjbdvakugew kuherlijegui 9 y82oi3h oq o8y4t o2ht afjb iltf ;o2q35 vn3 l9y 23;oih 3;49y n98yh wr 2kugt8er 28out 46j 07r 029u 2998 2t;98 bpq93rh 24;8y bnp9238 324't n2[093u5 'p34t 23n403t The opposition has yet to refute Intelligent Design by reason, logic and evidence. And they also have no evidence for species jumping, a fundamental requirement for Darwinism to hold together.
As far as Darwinism, atheism and liberalism, it's hard for me to think of an atheist as a true conservative. America's declaration of freedom as derived from God and not man is distinct in history and profound in its implications. America's values are founded on Christianity and the Bible, beginning with the early writings of our first statesmen many of whom were also pastors. The Declaration of Independence states that, "...we are endowed by our Creator certain inalienable rights..." This is not an "oh by the way" statement, but the central and definitive declaration of what America stood for and what men and women we prepared to die for. George Washington and John Adams wrote extensively on the importance of Christian values and beliefs as a cornerstone of America's strength and longevity. This I see as the bedrock of true conservatism.
How does ID account for the numerous endogenous retroviruses in our genome? All in 6000 years?
High school teacher Roger DeHart was driven from his public school simply because he wanted his students to learn about both sides of the scientific debate over Darwinian evolution.
There are not two sides in the scientific debate over the theory of evolution.
There is religion, and a particularly narrow interpretation of religion at that, trying to overturn a scientific theory with scripture and divine revelation.
And because they don't have evidence, they have to stretch the truth or outright lie. This "two sides of the scientific debate" is a prime example.
No, my point is that the opposition has yet to refute Intelligent Design by reason, logic and evidence. And they also have no evidence for species jumping, a fundamental requirement for Darwinism to hold together.
To answer your question, it's hard for me to think of an atheist as a conservative.
So now scientists who accept the evidence for the theory of evolution have gone from liberals to atheists? Sorry, that's just a crock and you should know it.
And it is not "the opposition has yet to refute Intelligent Design by reason, logic and evidence" for two reasons.
First, intelligent design is religiously based, and no amount of evidence that science could produce would convince true believers that they are wrong. They did not come to their belief by evidence, so they will not give up their belief because of evidence.
Second, don't you think that outsiders, coming into science with a new and strange idea, should bear the burden of providing some evidence? Affirmative action does not apply to science. You either come bearing evidence or you don't. So far ID has tried every trick in the book, short of bringing evidence.
Face it, ID is religion and everybody knows it. You know it, I know it, and science knows it. Don't be surprised when ID is not welcomed with open arms as science that scientists were just too stupid to recognize.
Even Hawking acknowledges the Anthropic Principal and has come up with some wild (and totally unsupported) speculations on parallel universes to deal with it.
so the Anthropic Principal is religion?
“Nobody here has a good friend who is Democrat?”
I’m the only one in my family to vote Republican in any of the last 5 Presidential elections.
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.