Posted on 03/13/2004 11:53:26 AM PST by js1138
Not so, if you're a Christian, you believe that "Our GOD is one God" and ame before or after Him.
Not so, if you're a Christian, you believe that "Our GOD is one God" and none came before or after Him. (Stupid omputer...)
True...
but we BOTH know that we are NOT posting to each other, but to any lurkers that have not had the blessings of your revealed intellegence.
So. Invoking a supernatural cause without evidence is the very definition of "anti-rational."
No you couldn't . . .
Well golly gee. Where's that list of scientists who flourished and contributed to science without bringing creationism to the table yet believed deeply in a Creator? One does not have to make the assumption God is not involved in the universe to study it. C'mon. I thought you were smarter than this.
The very fact that the laws of nature are constant over time testifies quite logically to intelligence and design. The only issue science does not need to address is WHO is behind it all. That is for religion to address. But to assume that SOMEONE is beind all this intelligence and design is not at all unreasonable. No, it is far more unreasonable to assume all this intelligence and design came about of "it's own volition." Egads. That is but a frightful absurdity.
But if someone in the scientific community wishes to propose an experiment or test to show WHO is involved in creating the universe, then who the hell are you or I to tell them to shut up? You speak as if the bounds of science must be limited. I think that is an unwholesome thing to bring to the table of education.
Mathemeticians have a symbol for infinity and they use it. Circles have no beginning or end. Are these also "anti rational" entities?
Utterly false. Without Evolution there is no framework to organize anything in biology. Your'e just birdwatching.
Note the elements of both randomness and design in that cake. From a distance it looks coherent, organized, even artful, and most certainly suitable for thumping some sense into a dogmatic evolutionist. Look a little closer and it is as though there is no sense or organization to it at all, like cream flowing into, and mingling with, a hot cup of coffee.
Put it under the miscroscope. Lo and behold. There is even some design in there. In fact, the whole thing is made from elements that have retained their consistency throughout every generation. Do you suppose we could find everything in that cake in the Peroiodic Table?
Sure, but, by Charles, we don't dare attribute any intelligence or design to these things. Nosireee. That would be "anti-rational."
Disgusting article. These people need to be exposed for the charlatans they are.
This is just my opinion, but I do not think it is necessarily anti-religious to question claims of miracles. Your question is too broad, however, to answer "yes" or "no," because there may be, and certainly have been, cases where miricles were questioned out of an anti-religious bias.
Personally I do not believe every report of miracles. In fact, I would dare say that I have no need of those reports because they do not establish or confirm what I already know to be true.
Perhaps in your universe, but not in mine. Give me 100 years, a good microscope, and some ordinary facts about chemistry and I'll show you how much in the way of facts and data can be gathered without the slightest deference or reference to evolution.
Regarding the scope of science, we could say the conclusions of scientific thinking are necessarily limited even while it is deemed sufficiently expansive to accomodate all sorts of fields. This suggests two kinds of scope: (a) a sufficiently large scope of objects that merit legitimate scientific analysis; (b) the sufficiently large scope of information discovered about those objects.
Both of these require limitation by statements in the curriculum proposal (e.g. the confine of scientific knowledge). I don't know all that the ID proponents want--some of them appear to be kamikaze--but I'm all in favor of teaching the history of science, in science classes, both at the primary and at the secondary level.
Too bad Gregory Mendel and Louis Pasteur did not have you around to coach them.
Darn, I thought I had the scoop! (I really MUST get up earlier in the morning.)
That makes no sense. (to me.) What's totally intuitive is that objects with a certain velocity & energy content tend to stay at that state unless acted upon by something else. There's no reason to be surprised by the constancy of constants. IOW, if a constant changes, then the obvious question is what made it change.
The only issue science does not need to address is WHO is behind it all. That is for religion to address. But to assume that SOMEONE is beind all this intelligence and design is not at all unreasonable. No, it is far more unreasonable to assume all this intelligence and design came about of "it's own volition." Egads. That is but a frightful absurdity.
I say that the assumption that there's a someONE behind it all isn't reasonable at all. Everything we know about someONEs tells us that someONEs have histories, and are part of populations, came from parent someONEs, and hold their thoughts in material brains. So indeed if someONE is behind "it all", then either it's turtles all the way down or there exists a turtle of special pleading for some reason.
Now, if there's someTHING behind it all, the conceptual problems IMO are just as unsolvable. But the assumption that it's someTHING behind it all at least follows directly from our observations of the real world, and it doesn't smack of childish anthropomorphization.
I assigned my own 10th grader the task of winnowing down cell phone providers and family plans, which I was finding overwhelming. Last week he presented me with a choice of Verizon or Cingular, and we decided on Cingular. On the way to the store, we were discussing what we might encounter in the way of sales pitches.
He suggested that if our "BS detectors" started going off that we should make "whoop-whoop-whoop" noises to each other. I was amused by this -- 10th graders do have "BS detectors," it seems.
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.