If that means liberals, atheists, Darwinists, RINOS, etc, withhold their donations from FR, well, I guess we'll get along without them.
Jim, no one is suggesting that God be banished from the schoolroom. To do so flies in the face of the intent of the framers and their immortal words which I need not repeat but must do so to complete my argument:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
The framers are clear -- freedom is granted to all humans from God Himself (as opposed to suffered from governments created from man).
That is not the issue at hand. This particular thread O.P. basically states that "if we can find anything that TToE cannot address (mind you without any counter arguments to provide refutation) then TToE must fall and thus an Intelligent Designer must be the cause." Note no mention of God as that designer.
I know you do not feel that humans resulted from TToE. But yours is a philosophical/theological argument. That is fine, but the applicability to theology to science is attempting to "speak" (in Biblical terms) to a discipline which God himself created.
This line of attack is particularly ugly, since it attempts to use a combination of fallacies ("if any aspect of TToE fails, the entirety must fail") and the converse ("if any aspect of TToE is wrong, the only substitute is an "intelligent designer").
These fallacious conclusions may be satisfying but they meet neither logical analysis nor, more importantly, scientific muster.
Did God make Man in His Image? The Bible is clear (and Christians understand): YES. Did God use evolution to create what we know as Homo Sapiens? The scientific evidence of billions of artifacts and millions of scientists say (again, to Christians and Jews and deists) also YES.
They are not incompatible, Jim. They are looking at the problem in different ways.
But further, I ask you to look at what has been suggested in the OP.
God should be in the classroom -- but not as a magical agent in the scientific process.
[[This line of attack is particularly ugly, since it attempts to use a combination of fallacies (”if any aspect of TToE fails, the entirety must fail”) and the converse (”if any aspect of TToE is wrong, the only substitute is an “intelligent designer”).]]
Maybe you’ve been absent from FR for a good long time? Because there are a great many areas where TOE fails- not just single insignificant areas- you’re falslely portraying the ID position- we NEVER said the hwoel would fall if ANY single area is proved wrong- Never- but htere ARE enough areas where it fails miserably to point to a very strong ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ case against Nature being hte creator- being capable of complexity, being capableof violating scientific precepts etc- there are myriad threads here on FR talkign about all manner of areas in TOE that fail
[[These fallacious conclusions may be satisfying but they meet neither logical analysis nor, more importantly, scientific muster.]]
Does falsley portrayin the position of ID and creationism ‘meet scientific muster’? Talk about fallacious!
[[Did God make Man in His Image? The Bible is clear (and Christians understand): YES. Did God use evolution to create what we know as Homo Sapiens? The scientific evidence of billions of artifacts and millions of scientists say (again, to Christians and Jews and deists) also YES.]]
Um- you might want to look more closely- there is MUCH debate about our suppsoed ‘species line’- and even folks in your own camp dissagree with your emphatic claim
[[God should be in the classroom — but not as a magical agent in the scientific process.]]
Nope- apparently, only hte magical process of science violating Natural causes shoudl be allowed in the classroom evidently?