Posted on 08/08/2005 8:49:04 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
THE GOD VS. Darwin debate went to the White House last week when President Bush weighed in, stating in a roundtable interview with reporters that ''intelligent design" should be taught along with evolution in public schools. It's a move that has undoubtedly pleased the president's conservative religious base. However, it has also caused much unhappiness among those conservatives who want the Republican Party to be something other than a political arm of the religious right, including such strong Bush supporters as columnist Charles Krauthammer and University of Tennessee law professor/blogger Glenn Reynolds.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
There is no such ban by any journal, AFAIK. However, any creationist who wanted to be published would have to bring scientific evidence to the table. That's something that creationists have simply not been able to do. ID-ers are in the same boat. They have something they call a "theory," but it is really nothing more than a thought experiment, supported by no scientific evidence.
Name one..........please.
And how can you say "there is no evidence that any lifeform has been created by intelligent design?".........don't you mean that you haven't been informed of such a lifeform? Not that "there is no evidence." (That's a pretty absolutist and pre-set statement coming from someone who claims to want to know the truth about things).
Well, we can start with my view of morality. My view is that the only actions that are immoral are those that cause injury to another person or their property without their consent.
This belief system is based on thousands of years of human history showing what is required for a society to survive and prosper. The existence or non-existence of supernatural deities is wholly immaterial to my view of morality.
We have only ever seen life-forms created by natural forces. There is no evidence that any lifeform has been created through intelligent design. So, it is logical to conclude that all lifeforms came about without intelligent involvement.
You are buried in your belief, and no amount of evidence or logic or reasoning will change this.
One either sees intelligent design in the world, or they don't. Who was it that said, "All I have seen has brought me to believe all I have not seen"?
It is profoundly sad when you see a person who is determined to believe they rose up out of the primordial soup, and that their lives have no transcendant meaning.
What are your answers to: Why are YOU here? Just because things bounced together? No rhyme or reason. Just pure happenstance.
It is this kind of mindset that slides sometimes slowly, but with ever increasing speed into the abyss of foolishness and depravity.
thousands of years of human history...or millions??
Based on their (your) definition of:
scientific evidence.
Those who make the rules and definitions exclude all others by intellectual cuteness.
Homo Sapiens. Or do you have any evidence to the contrary?
And how can you say "there is no evidence that any lifeform has been created by intelligent design?".........don't you mean that you haven't been informed of such a lifeform? Not that "there is no evidence
I can say it because we have not enountered any evidence of intelligent design. Might that evidence be out there? Sure. But that's pure speculation. Unless someone comes up with such evidence, it is completely accurate to say that "there is no evidence that any lifeform has been created by intelligent design"
No, I would not. I support a system funded by private tuition (for those who can afford it) and private charity, for those who cannot. I realize this is a "fringe" position, and improbable of appearance ...but it was, in fact, the system we had in the United States until the Prussian system of uniform government-controlled education was imposed in the 19th century.
Using your standard of 'morality,' any human being can come up with his or her own standard of right and wrong, as well as what 'hurts' another human being, right?
NAMBLA claims that man/boy sex doesn't hurt anyone. Who's to say that their opinion is wrong?
Fortunately, the Founding Fathers didn't take such a liberal view of morality as you do, and understood that it came from the Creator.
He means focus on the arguments indicated.
It is easy to diss something based on form, what of the points of argument within?
Yes, I was speaking of "small-l" libertarian ... however, I suppose the appearance of Miss Young's articles in "Reason" makes it more likely that she's a capital-L sort.
I can only work with the evidence before me. There is no evidence of intelligent design.
One either sees intelligent design in the world, or they don't.
That's not evidence. That is simply speculation on your part. You see intelligent design because you want to see intelligent design.
It is profoundly sad when you see a person who is determined to believe they rose up out of the primordial soup
Why?
and that their lives have no transcendant meaning.
I never said that.
What are your answers to: Why are YOU here?
I don't know.
It is this kind of mindset that slides sometimes slowly, but with ever increasing speed into the abyss of foolishness and depravity.
So, absent your religious beliefs, you would be murdering, raping and stealing?
I have no religious beliefs and I do not engage in any of these activities, nor have any desire to do so.
What, I wonder, does that say about our respective moral characters?
Closer to tens of thousands than millions. We're a pretty young species.
Yes, that's true. They also have the right to ask that every child be required to learn Chinese, or roofing, in order to graduate.
My point, such as it is, is that any system where a government entity imposes a curriculum is going to have problems with competing ideological viewpoints. Eliminate the government as "provider" of education, and you eliminate the conflict, at least at that level.
Propose an alternative definition and we can debate its merits, then.
As far as we know, it doesn't have one. Jim's been remarkably tolerant of the debate even when it's gotten heated. However, if it gets too nasty, the relevant thread usually gets relegated to the Smoky Backroom, and some have been completely deleted.
We had a spate of bannings a couple of years back, as a few posters got very weird (preaching damnation to the mods, stalking, etc.). Mostly creationists, but I think there was an evo or two banned about the same time.
(As for 'creation' of life, I see that you are including the reproduction of homo sapiens as 'creation.'.......a difference in definition of the term 'creation' from what I was defining as something coming from nothing).
Let's turn it around. If you weren't a Christian, would you molest children? Do you find you have an urge to do so, that your religion helps you resist?
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.