[Mr. Silverback]

Heh-heh.

Now hear this, now hear this: All server elves prepare to recieve crevo thread, repeat, prepare to receive crevo thread. That is all.

[Mr. Silverback]

BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[danneskjold]

bump...

[Servant of the 9]

Schaefer quotes the brilliant scientist and agnostic Stephen Hawking

The Vatican finds him a good enough Catholic to invite him to conferences of Roman Catholic Scientists.

Does Schaefer know something the Pope doesn't, or is this the edge of one of those fundamentalist protestant 'Catholics are not really Christians' viewpoints?

So9

[narby]

Yawn.....

Those who haven't figured it out by now never will....

[whattajoke]

Ah-Ten-shun!

[whattajoke]

Recent years have seen an explosion of books, articles, and websites on the subject of intelligent design.

Apparently, "Explosion" is a relative term.

[atlaw]

From the article: "He writes, 'Over the past 150 years evolutionary theorists have made countless predictions about fossil specimens to be observed in the future. Unfortunately for these seers, many new fossils have been discovered, but the interesting ones almost always seem to be contrary to the 'best' predictions.'

I can't seem to find any webcites that provide an actual list of the "interesting" fossils that Mr. Schaefer says "almost always seem to be contrary to the 'best' predictions." Nor can I find any information about how these fossils "seem to be contrary."

Can you help out?

[Doctor Stochastic]

It's something we believe because it makes sense and describes the real world far better than the alternative theory.

Perhaps someday Mr Colson will be so kind as to post some predictions made by Intelligent Design. Perhaps someday Mr Colson will post any prediction made by Intelligent Design. Perhaps Mr colson will explain how properties of the designer are reflected in the design. Lastly perhaps Mr Colson will explain how Intelligent Design explains shared errors.

[whattajoke]

So, contrary to what many believe, the theory of intelligent design isn't just something people believe because the Bible tells them so. It's something we believe because it makes sense and describes the real world far better than the alternative theory.

I guess Colson proves the old adage, "once a liar, always a liar." ID is NOT even close to being a theory, and there are no "alternative theories." There are "alternative ideas" however; everything from hundreds of religionist creation myths to that crack addicts ideas about pink elephants creating the earth.

This article is ridiculous.

[AfghanIraqVeteran]

Even the theory of evolution is in constant evolution!

[VadeRetro]

"Over the past 150 years evolutionary theorists have made countless predictions about fossil specimens to be observed in the future. Unfortunately for these seers, many new fossils have been discovered, but the interesting ones almost always seem to be contrary to the 'best' predictions."

This is just false. Creationism continually predicts that there will be no more new transitional forms found. (At least, that's the implication of all the creationist jeering about "Where is the missing link?") Evolution predicts that intermediates outlining a phylogentic tree of life must have existed and that more and more parts from this real phylogenetic tree will be found. Evolution has been right, creation wrong, since 1859.

With this kind of misrepresentation, Henry F. Schaefer shoots himself in the foot before anyone with any scientific literacy, not that I'd expect Colson to know the difference. One gets the same old bad pennies all the time from these people. ID is not on the level and will never be good science or good education. It's a fabric of lies.

[Nebullis]

Henry F. Schaefer's book SCIENCE AND CHRISTIANITY: CONFLICT OR COHERENCE?

Beware, it's not unheard of that great thinkers make logical errors in resolving scientific doctrine in the face of religious ideology. It is reasonable for a scientist to use intelligent design ideology as a bridge between science and religious ideology in order to resolve personal conflicts between the two. But it's entirely unethical to substitute ID for science for such a resolution (which, in fact, it doesn't provide). There are many areas of life where one has to learn to live with paradox or conflict. Chipping away at one (science) to accommodate the other (ideology) is not the right solution for a scientist.

[thackney]

Bump for future reference