Skip to comments.
Science on TV Evolves : Intelligent Design Hits Prime Time
BreakPoint ^
| 9 June 03
| Chuck Colson
Posted on 06/09/2003 6:07:51 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 1,481-1,493 next last
To: Friend of thunder
It is indeed unscientific to deny God. It is unscientific to deny anything you cannot prove or disprove, or have no scientific experience of, directly or indirectly.
Personally, I believe in God, but cannot think of any scientific way to prove that God exists. A lot of very intelligent people have been trying for a very long time to come up with scientific proof that God exists. So far, they haven't been able to do so.
My opinion is that they shouldn't try. God exists, believe it or don't, and is unknowable except by faith.
To: VeritatisSplendor
>>for many famous examples there no remotely plausible path has been proposed<<
Oh, how sad. We can't figure it out, therefore God did it?
That's it? Just throw up your hands and give up?
Good, throw up your hands, and worship blindly. You don't belong in a lab, anyway, if that's your reaction.
Not everybody does belong in a lab. You don't have to check your faith at the door to enter a lab, and you don't have to check your brain at the door to go to church.
To: f.Christian
f.Christian, with all due respect, you do realize that you are not exactly the poster child for Reason, don't you?
To: Friend of thunder
I would tend to agree, but many who subscribe to modern Evolutionary theory, deny as a matter of faith any divine (or supernatural) influence.
That is their problem. It is not a statement made or implied in the theory of evolution (despite gore3000's lies to the contrary).
64
posted on
06/10/2003 2:14:56 AM PDT
by
Dimensio
(Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
To: Friend of thunder
How does science test for God? If you can answer that, there's probably a Nobel Prize, a Time Magazine cover, and just about any grant you can ask for in it for you.
65
posted on
06/10/2003 3:28:03 AM PDT
by
Junior
(How do stormtroopers use the restroom?)
To: VeritatisSplendor
Intelligent Design doesn't presuppose God! Actually, it does. When taken to its obvious conclusion, ID presupposes a supernatural "first cause." Think about it: If the Intelligent Designers were, oh say, little green men from Zeton, how did they come to be? Who were their designers? Who designed the designers? Ad infinitum. ID cannot escape such a supernatural conclusion, and as the supernatural is, by definition, not science (which only deals in the natural), ID cannot be scientific.
66
posted on
06/10/2003 3:32:36 AM PDT
by
Junior
(How do stormtroopers use the restroom?)
PLACEMARKER
67
posted on
06/10/2003 3:59:55 AM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
To: Mr. Silverback
How dare they challenge our precious dogma with new evidence! What do they think this is? Old fashioned science?
Don't they realize that Darwinites have all the Final Answers?! We don't need intelligent minds or whatever!
To: jlogajan
Didn't Gould say the fossil record shows stasis, not upward change? By the way, where is a complete fossil column..not just a put-together collection of rock deposition?
To: highpockets
"The simple mans idea of science. What a relief that anyone without an education can claim understanding of that which they have no idea about."
I have found any number of adherents to evolutionary theory who can't answer the simplest of questions. They just believe in it because some guys who claimed to be smart told them to.
Just goes to show there are believers on both sides of the issue that are simple and uneducated.
As to the other side of the coin, you know full well there are well educated men and women who adhere to the theory of ID. You would be disingenous to claim otherwise.
70
posted on
06/10/2003 6:35:35 AM PDT
by
MEGoody
To: jlogajan
"Creation "evidence" happens to be about as convincing as evidence for flying saucers and extra sensory perception."
To the adherent to evolutionary theory, of course.
To the adherent to ID theory, claims about evolution are about as convincing as evidence for flying. . .well, you get the picture.
In the end, it all boils down to what one chooses to believe.
71
posted on
06/10/2003 6:37:09 AM PDT
by
MEGoody
To: Hebrews 11:6
"Failing to distinguish between them is an inadequate argument."
It's all the argument they can muster.
72
posted on
06/10/2003 6:38:26 AM PDT
by
MEGoody
To: Aric2000
"because you do not know how it was done, is an excuse, NOT science."
I've also found it amusing that adherents to evolution just skip by tough questions.
73
posted on
06/10/2003 6:40:51 AM PDT
by
MEGoody
To: CobaltBlue
"If God created us all, why do so many parents behave as if they think their children are worthless?"
God allows free will, and many choose poorly.
Does evolution allow free will? If so, there goes the theory of natural selection.
74
posted on
06/10/2003 6:41:39 AM PDT
by
MEGoody
To: MEGoody
If you have blue eyes, or brown eyes, is that due to free will? Is it a moral choice?
Evolution has nothing to do with will, period. Nothing to do with free will, nothing to do with the lack of free will, otherwise known as predestination.
We don't will ourselves to evolve, it just happens. But it's not due to moral choice or the lack therof, it's physiological.
To: Aric2000
Depends on your definition of 'scientific'. The original meaning more or less meant to search for truth (a rough explanation, to be sure, but valid nonetheless). Nowadays a highly formalized series of methodologies are used to test theories empirically.
But your 'falsifiability' premise cuts both ways. There is no evolution experiment which can be separated from ID. There is no way that you can falsify the concept that evolution is non-ID in origin.
To: MEGoody
>>I've also found it amusing that adherents to evolution just skip by tough questions.<<
Irony alert!
Evolutionists, when faced by questions to which they have no answer, say "we don't know yet, but we're trying to find out."
IDers, when faced by these same questions, say "if we can't explain it, it's proof of Intelligent Design."
In terms of scientific content - ID loses.
To: PatrickHenry
Everyone be nice! I'll try to be nice, but I quit watching PBS science shows more than a decade ago when NOVA gave us (in a single season, I believe) The Pinks and the Blues, a gaping show on ESP and another gaper on UFOs. I found it odd that when they dealt with theoretical physics they always managed to present three or four contrasting opinions, but when it came to feminist doctrine and mystical BS, they gave the show over to true believers.
78
posted on
06/10/2003 7:49:21 AM PDT
by
js1138
To: VeritatisSplendor
Suppose they decode some of the "junk DNA" all human genomes carry, and find that it is a "signature" -- a set of coordinates relative to galactic clusters that identifies a solar system, say, or a chapter from Genesis. I think this is extremely unlikely, but it is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE and would constitute good enough proof that an intelligence had designed (part of) our genome.Oddly enough, something pretty much like that happens in Carl Sagan's book, Contact (but not in the movie). You may rest comfortably that such a possibility crosses the minds of lots of skeptics, including myself.
79
posted on
06/10/2003 7:57:49 AM PDT
by
js1138
To: metacognative
Didn't Gould say the fossil record shows stasis, not upward change? I've read most of Gould's books and most of the Nature articles from which they are taken. I've never seen anything like that. Do you have a source that isn't a cobbled together quote taken out of context?
80
posted on
06/10/2003 8:05:23 AM PDT
by
js1138
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 1,481-1,493 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson