Posted on 09/24/2001 1:12:24 PM PDT by ThinkPlease
Tonight is the beginning of the Evolution Series on PBS. I thought I'd open up some threads of discussion here prior, during and after the telecast of the episodes.
Here's PBS's homepage for the telecast:
And Here's something from the Discovery Institute, who is evidently irritated about turning down free publicity on the telecast. (They were offered time on the final night of the telecast, and turned down PBS.)
Without these *assumptions* ____which they CANNOT VERIFY within the limits of their own methodology_____ scientific inquiry would soon collapse.
Preach it brother!
1. an assumption of impossibility is made 2. What is left *must* be the truth, however impossible.
Neither Creationism nor Evolutionism is less probable or more provable. Both are matters of faith, in the end. Because evolutionists also come down to the point where they cannot explain something crucial to the argument, just as Creationists do.
The question then becomes, why does one person make the assumption that there *is* a personal creator, and the other person does not? What is the motivation behind the decision?
once the theory of Intelligent Design is allowed into the debate, Darwin is destined to follow Freud and Marx onto the ash heap of history.
That would be funny if it weren't so sad. How many kids this very day are learning about peppered moths, finch beak variation and the infamous paintings of embryo development?
Actually we do see it happen, in organisms that have fast generational times, like bacteria. The tuberculosis bug has evolved to become resistant to most traditional antibiotics...
But to get to your original point, as a matter of fact, it is a kind of faith. To believe in science as the best means to achieving knowledge about the natural world, is indeed axiomatic. There's no way to "prove" that it's the best way, because the very concepts of logic and proof are part of it.
If one believes that knowledge comes from a divine revelation, there is no way to prove them wrong, since proofs are not the means by which they are persuaded. I freely admit to having faith in the scientific method and logic as a means to understand the universe.
-ksen
So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review: The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [7.0].
Did you read this? — Why I Am (Still) a Christian.
We could be twins!
Dan
That is because there is no room for religion in science. Science, by definition is the study of how the universe works when there is no divine intervention. If there is divine intervention, then it is theology, not science.
So9
Are you implying that, given energy, evolution or creation are free of any consequence of the second law of thermodynamics?
Ooooh! Andrew has some more lawyerly nitpicks up his sleeve! (Shudder!)
Are you implying that the standard cretinist statements concerning order never coming from disorder unless directed by an intelligence are correct?
I see you've decided to climb out of your hole and contribute in your now typical way with ad hominem. Buzz off, the question was not for you. To think I used to admire you.
Buzzing off to lunch, but I'll be checking back in on this thread.
Good read. Later...
As far as I'm concerned, you can't call yourself a Conservative if you believe in evolution. God created man whole and in His image, just as He created the universe in six days, approximately ten thousand years ago.
For proof, read the Bible.
If you need more help understanding Creationism, read Creationism.org or the Creation Explanation.
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.