Posted on 08/05/2009 11:15:25 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Today’s top-selling biology textbooks present evolution as the only scientific view of the history of life. Often these textbooks use faulty or deceptive evidences to support evolutionary ideas. Fortunately, students can easily equip themselves with free materials that dissect textbooks and reveal the truth...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
So then, in your view, Ernst Mayr doesn't know what he's talking about. But you do, of course.
It's interesting how evolutionists make numerous philosophical assertions, and when you address these with a philosophy article or argument, they dismiss it as 'just philosophy'. Darwinism is science, you see. No philosophy comes out of the mouth of a Darwinian, even when he's talking philosophy.
Quite so. But Darwinism is all the beans and sauce with a bit science pork tossed in to justify the the name on the label.
And it is the philosophy of Darwinism that many creationists find objectionable more than the science, however faulty that is. Overturn the science and the philosophy would remain.
“So then, in your view, Ernst Mayr doesn’t know what he’s talking about. But you do, of course.”
—You should read the post you’re responding to more closely. Mayr does know what he’s talking about, and (as long as he used “intelligent design” in the way I’m pretty sure he did) I’m in complete agreement with him. It’s you that apparently doesn’t think that the leading Darwinist scientist today Francis Collins, and the co-founder of Darwinism A. R. Wallace, and the first and leading Darwinist of 19th century America Asa Gray (who Darwin called his “best advocate”) and the many tens of thousands of Darwinists who believe in intelligent design today, don’t know what they’re talking about. But of course, you do.
So now you are saying that Darwinism is incompatible with intelligent design. Previously you said "Darwinism doesn’t... exclude intelligent design". Maybe you don't know what you're talking about.
A typical liberal rule that you observe things in others while ignoring the same things in yourself. Bizarre because you suffer 10 if not 100 fold from the same issues you think you see in others...be it indoctrination, moving goal posts, etc.
Are you that self-absorbed that you really don't know, or are you back to boring people to death with irrelevant and stupid questions?
Like your poo-slinging?
ID is compatible with Darwinism. In fact ID’er Behe called Darwin’s theory “elegant” and insisted that it should be taught in schools. All the ID groups believe that man and ape had common ancesters and evolved over billions of years from simple compounds.
“So now you are saying that Darwinism is incompatible with intelligent design. Previously you said “Darwinism doesn’t... exclude intelligent design”. Maybe you don’t know what you’re talking about.”
—I guess I need to back up a bit. In the 90’s, some people – predominately a group called the Discovery Institute - began calling an idea that said that nature was intelligently designed but not in such a way that allowed for common descent via Darwinian evolution with the unfortunate name “Intelligent Design” or “ID” (sometimes capitalized and sometimes not. It really should be since it’s only an idea that “involves” intelligent design. Thus today we have the situation where someone like Francis Collins arguably now happens to be simultaneously the leading Darwinist scientist – the leading advocate of intelligent design – and the leading opponent of Intelligent Design. Better yet a different term should be used altogether.)
Thus when I used the phrase “intelligent design” I was merely referring to the idea that the universe and its laws have an intelligent Creator and purpose. Mayr, OTOH, was pretty obviously using the phrase as those in the “ID Movement” use it (I also completely missed before that he put “so-called” before “intelligent design” in the article last time I read it, which makes it even clearer that he was using it as a recently invented term, and not just as a generic phrase.)
ID always allowed for common descent. If they didn't, it would be creationism.
“ID always allowed for common descent. If they didn’t, it would be creationism.”
—Some in the ID movement do believe in common descent (e.g. Behe), that’s why I added “via Darwinian evolution”.
Here’s the link:
http://www.aps-pub.com/proceedings/1454/409.pdf
Near the end of page 490:
He presented some fifty or sixty biological phenomena easily explained by natural selection, but quite impervious to any explanation under special creation, and equally inexplicable to so-called intelligent design.
It does seem rather clear what Mayr thought of the idea of intelligent design: rejection. which would certainly fit his other comments.
...and only in the liberal world is pointing out poo flinging...poo slinging.
You have stated several times that we can't handle your poo-slinging. Only in the TP world can one brag about being the better poo-slinger and then three posts later claim he is not a poo-slinger.
Only in TP land is calling someone a monkey-boy not considered poo-slinging.
Only in TP land is calling someone a monkey-boy not considered poo-slinging.
I've already explained to you that pointing out the poo flinging isn't poo flinging...
and Bucky is obviously behaving like a juvenile...i.e. a boy and he's a self-professed great ape, so should I have called him poo-flinging ape-boy? orangutan-boy? chimp-boy?
It's so hard to keep up with you evo-libs like Chrissy Fit Matthews and how you demand everyone be defined: "humans are nothing more than great apes"...it's like nailing jello to a wall.
I find it interesting that you liberals demand evolution be rammed down throats...well everyone's but your own, I see. And when you're held to your very own beliefs...being nothing more than a fancy great ape...you whine and cry...you know....like a little ape-boy, when you get called exactly what you damn-well DEMAND to be understood to be!
So buck-up already! If you don't want to be called a great ape, then quit demanding to be called one already! In other words, being a Darwinist has consequences Sherlock!
Now that you've had this explained to you more than once, it would not therefore be poo flinging to rightly point out that you're a dullard and slow learner, as this is now (and has been) simply point in fact.
And if you persist, I think the majority of folks will rightly realize you're a whiney, poo-flinging, monkey/ape/chimp/orangutan/take your pick of any great apes-boy, mo-ron.
Wow. And I just congratulated you on allowing as Catholics were Christians. But you last post makes me wonder if you are a Christian!
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.