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 ...
Which most certainly explains why liberals hijack the legal system to keep all intelligence and design out of science class! /s
It’s simple when you just divorce yourself from all logic...a) No truer words were ever spoken.
And, b): So that's how you do it!
And your support for the ToE is...??And the biblical explanation for theory of electricity is??
OBVIOUSLY you're a believer in something involving, um, what - electrons maybe?
No?
You have faith in Ready-Kilowatt, lamps, refrigerators, air conditioning, car (yes, cars) and - and - computers it seems, because, of, well, continued use (and reliance?) of/on same it would seem ... so, what is the 'theory'?
I just 'needs to know' ...
Your response has nothing to do with the comment I posted.
Is that the best you can do?
Good by.
OBVIOUSLY you guys are believers in something, if not, I would like to hear that too.
No? Nothing?
C'mon, you have faith in some sort of Ready-Kilowatt used to 'drive' lamps, refrigerators, air conditioning, and computers it seems - at least on an operational level.
Again, I just 'needs to know' ... we never studied "ID" of electricity nor do I believe we ever covered that in Bible study ...
Yes, back to post 50, where you asserted that there is no conflict between Darwinism and intelligent design.
In the 90’s, some people – predominately a group called the Discovery Institute - began calling an idea that said that nature was intelligently designed
Mayr uses the phrase "intelligent design" here...
[Darwin] 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.He's obviously not talking about the Discovery Institute. Moreover, Mayr says that Darwinism eliminates final causes and teleology from nature. In short: no purpose, planning, design, foresight, meaning, goal or intention -- none of that sort of thing. He also says that "cosmic teleology" (purpose, intent, design of the universe) does not exist.
Yes, it's an obvious question. Despite "goodusername"'s so-called previous explanation and backpedaling, Mayr says that "cosmic teleology... does not exist". However, "goodusername" feels that this is compatible with the notion that the "universe and its laws have an intelligent Creator and purpose."
It seems that it is not only some theists who go into metaphiscial contortions to accomodate evolution with the rest of their ideas, but atheists as well.
And the theists will continue to perform whatever contortions necessary to make such accommodations since Darwinism will never return the favor, It is the theists that feel the need to work Darwinism into their reality construct not vice versa.
From the polls I’ve seen, it would seem that most do. Atheistic Darwinism seems to be a minority position. Even among scientists, where it probably is a majority position, theistic Darwinism is a large minority.
It’s simple when you just divorce yourself from all logic...
a) No truer words were ever spoken.
And,
b): So that’s how you do it!
Evolution is an undirected process directed by God.
A purposeless process with purpose.
A random, accidental process unguided process, that’s really not...so...ummmm random and...not...exactly an accident and oh yeah....all guided by God.
And an undesigned process, DESIGNED by God...
but best of all an unitelligent process...well you get the picture...
it’s kind of fun imagining someone trying to explain themselves when before God and He asks, “What did you mean by UNitelligent anyway junior........”???????? LOL!!!
You summarize "theistic Darwinism" quite well.
A purposeless process with purpose.Hmmm ... sounds the same could be said of gravity: "A purposeless process with purpose".
“I questioned how many viewed intelligent design as a reasonable and logical explanation.
—If you mean it in the sense of the “ID Movement” and the DI, than very few. If you mean it in the sense that God created the universe with purpose and design, than quite a few.
“Organizations like the AAAS and NAS have come down foursquare against it while supporting evolution.”
—They have come out against Creationism and ID, and should. Many of those coming down foursquare against ID are themselves Christian. I haven’t seen anything from them to suggest that they are against the idea of an “intelligent creator” or God creating the universe however.
Here’s what I was able to to find on those organizations talking about intelligent design in any form:
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml
In this article from the AAAS, they are so cautious that they refer to what they are talking about as the “intelligent design theory”, with quotes, every time.
From the NAS, I found this letter from the president. He uses “Intelligent Design” in caps:
http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=NEWS_letter_president_03042005_BA_evolution
And this from the NAS, which argues against “intelligent design theory”, in quotes:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024
It also contains these quotes:
“Science cannot comment on the role that supernatural forces might play in human affairs. But scientific investigations have concluded that the same forces responsible for the evolution of all other life forms on Earth can account for the evolution of human beings.”
“Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science’s realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world.”
So far I haven’t found anything arguing against God or design, only specifically the “ID Movement” and Creationism.
NATURE’s poll showed only a 5.5% belief in a personal God amongst biololgical scientists so I’s m not sure how you define “quite a few”.
“NATURE’s poll showed only a 5.5% belief in a personal God amongst biololgical scientists so I’s m not sure how you define “quite a few”.”
—That was a survey of only NAS scientists. While the % of scientists that believe in God is certainly much lower than among the general public, even among scientists the NAS stands out as being rather atheistic.
Here are some other results...
Here’s a story saying that (surprisingly) MOST scientists believe in God (perhaps even among biologists):
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html
This one says a 1/3:
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090716/survey-one-third-of-scientists-believe-in-god/index.html
This one says about 40% of scientists (and 40% of biologists) believe in God:
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/sciandf/contrib/clari.txt
So it’s telling that even from among the most atheistic of science organizations (the NAS), I can’t find anything that says that Darwinism is against an intelligently designed universe or God. In fact, here’s a story about both the NAS and AAAS reaching out to the religious community to say that evolution is compatible with Christianity:
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080109/pro-evolution-book-says-science-and-god-compatible/index.html
If you found something different from the NAS or AAAS I’d like to look at it.
Hmmmm...sounds to me like seeing purposelessness where there’s purpose.
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.