Posted on 12/09/2004 9:21:27 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
Is Darwin winning the battle, but losing the war?
As soon as one challenge to the teaching of evolution is beaten in the courts, another emerges to take its place.
The current contender is “intelligent design,” a theory that according to advocates at the Discovery Institute “makes no religious claims, but says that the best natural evidence for life’s origins points to design rather than a process of random mutation and natural selection.”
(Excerpt) Read more at firstamendmentcenter.org ...
That was not my response. Neither was that the point of Fatalis. I don't know how to make it any clearer to you. I suggest going back and re-reading the original charge and the responses to it.
Convenient? You don't know much about hermeneutics, do you? All you have to do to prove him wrong is find an exception to his rule. Go ahead-- find one.
Dan
(c;
Of course not! (Further evidence that the evos aren't interested in the truth.)
Really, narby, if you can't read, you shouldn't be here.
I remarked on this phenomenon in connection with preaching on Isaiah 7:10-14, this "I have serious, profound questions that I really don't want answered" phenomenon.
But asking isn't always a Golden Key. Try talking with a Roman Catholic about what the Bible says about... well, about anything. I was going to say "about Mary." They'll cut and paste from their stock web sites (sound familiar, in the crevo connection?) until Jesus comes back. Anything except candidly admit, "Yeah, well, the Bible does say / the evidence does show ______ — but I have a prior philosophical commitment to which I have greater allegiance."
Dan
And its opposite, "I ask questions they won't answer" phenomenon.
Only in simplified versions of evolution does anyone think that natural selection is the sole mechanism of evolution. I agree that this simplified version may be what is taught in schools, though.
For reasons too numerous and complex to go into here, I think that the Theory of Evolution, as we understand it, is starting to show definite signs of collapse.
As we accumulate more knowledge, it is starting to look like evolution is an overly simplistic view of a very complex process - sort of like the theory that humans are the sole cause of global warming.
I'm sure that evolutionary principles (based mostly on external environmental pressures) play a part in some aspects of species change, but I think the main "drivers" have yet to be discovered or understood. If some choose to believe that these "drivers" are inspired by God, it's as good a rationale as any other out there right now.
Feel free to follow my example.
That's because you said No one claims that yom must always be translated as a literal 24 hour period.
You're right. I don't think it could have been any clearer.
Imagine a colony of bacteria. There are one million bacteria in the colony and 10000 of them (1%) are antibiotic resistant. Now you treat the colony with an antibiotic. Let's say 90% of the non-resistant bacteria die and 10% of the resistant ones do. Now you have 99000 non resistant bacteria left and 9000 resistant ones. The frequency of the allele for antibiotic resistance has gone from 1% to 8.3%. That is a change of allele frequencies in the gene pool of a population. Evolution has occurred. No organism in the population has changed, but the population as a whole has.
I had an experience with something similar, before you joined up. We had a creationist who claimed that not only complicated stuff like DNA, but literally everything is the result of a miracle. He couldn't even accept that molecules of water could form unless the divine hand was continuously holding the atoms together. I think he's still around. (Maybe even on this thread.)
So which WASP's in your population evolved into Samoans?
Read the paper. The article was sent to me by an Evolutionary Biologist as evidence that Natural Selection has been demonstrated in the laboratory, and hence Darwinian Evolution has been proven.
No, I know enough about fallacies to be aware that it's your obligation to prove him right. You're the one making the claim that the same word must be taken literally in one context and figuratively in a separate context. The burden of proof is yours.
Why do you say that? Various observers compile data from their observations of the observable universe and come up with a hypothesis based on the data.
ID is a hypothesis based on observed complexity and order of natural systems and based on no observation of the spontaneous generation of life from non-life.
The observations continue.
Your questions have always been answered - you just don't like the answers so you cover your ears and start singing "la-la-la-la".
In almost every thread you try to play the "evolution is just a theory". You are corrected time and time again that the word "theory" means something different in science - yet you just ignore those and keep saying "theory = guess".
Even the AnswersInGenesis website rejects your line of attack as silly, yet you persist. There are a lot of guys on here that would answer any evolutionary question you pose - if you would actually pose a serious one.
Yes it should, but not in a science class. In a philosophy of science class, in a metaphysics class, or in a religion class, fine. Science, however, should remain agnostic, because it's the singular purpose of science to try to describe the material universe. That also means that scientists like Gould or Weinberg ought to be roundly criticized when they bluster about their own conclusions regarding immaterial things under the auspices of science.
Question for edification: how does one determine the first cell is not resistant without killing it?
That's fine, so long as there is also no implication of purposelessness.
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.