Posted on 09/11/2008 9:55:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Sept 10, 2008 — Astrobiologist David Deamer believes that life can spontaneously emerge without design, but he thinks lay people are too uneducated to understand how this is possible, so he gives them the watered-down version of Darwin’s natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. That’s what he seemed to be telling reporter Susan Mazur in an interview for the Scoop (New Zealand). Is the lay public really too dense for the deeper knowledge of how evolution works?...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
Doesn't sound too spontaneous to me when someone has to set up the conditions for it to *happen*.
I probably am.
I think most people are content to accept traditional explanations on just about anything whether it be culture, society or religion. People are sincerely wrong on a lot of things and I'm not excepting myself. But there are certain things that I believe can be objectively determined based upon an actual study of scripture with God's help and an understanding that he gives when asked. But I mean STUDY. Hebrew study. Greek study. History. Culture. Study of religion, etc. At some point truth emerges and then it's up to us to have embrace the truth and accept it.
They can't both be the truth. Somebody's going to get their feelings hurt, but you can't aruge with either one without them claiming you're violating their rights or being accused of being and atheist, hating God, or wanting to destroy Christianity.
I forget who said it, but nobody goes around and gets fanatical and starts yelling that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. There's no guarantee, but most people have great faith that it's going to rise. It's the same with Christian faith. Sometimes those new in the faith or those not strong in the faith or those who are not growing in faith DO get upset and angry when challenged. Sometimes what comes across is "righteous anger" which seems to be more of a defense of God than anything else. I think both sides get defensive about their positions and the more strident and defensive they are the less faith they have in their respective positions.
Another confirmation that dumb people, even well-educated ones, don't know they are dumb.
Until he or one of his dogmatic buddies creates a repeatable method of creating life artificially, he's just another speculating doofus...
Not a scientist.
I suppose that's why they won't allow stickers on books that state that the ToE should be treated as any other scientific theory. If it's treated the same, the show's over.
Are You Too Dumb to Understand Evolution?
Apparently, judging by this thread alone, absolutely. I could post a new thread about this one and title it, “Are You Too Dumb to Understand Irony?”
Sheesh people, way to drag conservatives down another notch with your ignorance and nonsense. The silly ol’ “Why are there still monkeys?” canard? Seriously? Please refer to the title of this thread again.
And I always love how creationists seem to think that the last word on evolutionary biology was written in 1859. Again, please refer to the title of this thread.
Thanks.
The ToE is the creation account of the atheist.
By that reasoning, then we shouldn't be having the ToE being taught either. Why favor one over all the rest?
Right now, the only reason that it's being taught in schools is because of the abuse of the judiciary. It's being forced on an unwilling public through litigation by those who think that they are the intellectual elite.
Just what would be the reaction of the evos if the creation account of the Bible was the only creation account allowed to be taught in schools because of the same underhanded techniques? (You really don't need to bother answering that.)
What you're proposing is that we make the theologians authoritative in the realm of science. How do you propose to do this? Make the scientists submit all their work to a group of theologians for peer review, and give them the authority to declare it valid or invalid based on it's compliance with their interpretaion of the scriptures?
If I'm reading your comment correctly, you have completed this course of study yourself, and that truth has been revealed to you and you have embraced it. You now submit that it is the responsibility of the rest of us (or at least those that would pursue any interest in science) to complete that same course of study, and arrive at and embrace those same conclusions.
It’s not that I’m not too dumb. I understand their theory well enough. As another put it, I don’t have enough of their secular form of faith to completely buy it.
And what authoritative source do you have to support your statement that they ARE?
Your suppositions are entertaining.
The definition of "dogma". If you want to argue that theological doctrines aren't dogmatic, go right ahead. I'll watch.
I submit that you only find it to be dogma because it conflicts with your religious beliefs. If it didn't you wouldn't have any problem with it.
Is that like the difference between punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism? Different interpretations of the same fossil record, aren't they?
They can't both be the truth.
Why is it OK for science to go into the realm of dogma but not religion? Why is it scorned when it's religion but passed off as inevitable when science does it?
Indeed, and there are probably arguments over it. Nobody seems to start claiming their constitutional rights are being violated because one side or the other won't give in and accept their theory.
Do you understand what "dogma" is, or the context of science "trespassing" into that realm? You're either jumping into the middle of a conversation without understanding the context or you're just being obtuse to jerk me around.
Nobody is making claims about Constitutional rights being violated by others simply not accepting their beliefs, by by having those other's beliefs being forced on them through litigation and the abuse of the judiciary.
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.