Posted on 08/21/2005 7:56:53 AM PDT by CO Gal
Learning how this world was constructed....
Hey, you are almost there! Give some deep thought to how intricate our world is and you will no doubt humble yourself and realize that only a "designer" could put this all together.
Macro versus micro. You take the reality that organisms have a wide latitude of adaptability and wrongly extend that to the belief that animals can turn into different kinds of animals. The second part of this is completely unprovable, illogical, untestable and untested...except in the minds of those who share this common belief.
Like?
Good question.
I have been asking, on every one of these threads, for two weeks, exactly what it is that ID advocates believe.
I know, at a minimum, they question whether natural selection is sufficient to produce the diversity of life from a common ancestor -- but what alternative do they propose?
Do ID advocates accept the geologically accepted age of the earth? Do they accept descent with modification -- even assuming a different mechanism for the modifications? If they propose a different mechanism, what is it? How would we test for it? What kind of evidence would they expect to find that is different from what an evolutionist would expect? What kind of research would the propose to distinguish between the predictions of evolution and ID?
In short, given free reign, what would ID teach?
The ever elusive missing link!
I believe TIME magazine or NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC attempted to prop up some recent fossil discovery as the "proof" that we all needed only to be embarassed later that it was a fraud.
Agreed.
"Religious zealots and Hollyweird types against Christianity, battling each other, have helped to destroy the American educational system,"
Partially correct, but I would urge that we stay away from the "Moral Equivalence" type of argument bandied about by the media so much when describing many issues. As the Madelyn Murray types got more and more control over the school system either through court rulings or post-hippies taking the helm of school districts, things that were never a problem before all of the sudden have lawyers all over them (mentioning the word "Christmas" is one example).
The "religious zealots" as they are called today, were hardly defined as such in the 50's and early 60's. They were average working Americans. Today, anyone who gives a damn about our culture and who has a religious belief that isn't borne of trendy Kabbalah mixtures, paganism, or Islam is a "religious zealot".
Them: "That's like saying, 'I believe in feet but not miles"
I gotta keep this one.
Don't mix religion with science.
Dinosaurs transmutating into birds. Extinct apes transmutating into humans.
It's more like saying I believe in science, not magic.
Where is the fraud you mentioned?
Extinct apes transmutating into humans.
Where is evolutionary theory is this mentioned?
Time and National Geographic -- famous peer-reviewed science journals.
Yes, NG got burned because they wanted to scoop the world with a new find. They neglected to have a qualified paleontologist look at it first.
But here's a question for you. By what criteria would a creationist judge it to be a fake?
They are, but ID is a strategy to combine the more undeniable elements of evolution with mainstream religion (that which we practice, as opposed to actual doctrine - you wouldn't believe how many Catholics don't even know the Eucharist is Christ's body, and not just a symbol of it...)
The ID camp seems to be made of those uncomfortable with 1) duality 2) ambiguity 3) the potential to be wrong.
I have no problem with any of those - and though I've carefully avoided the word "relativism" in my argument - most purists (my own code for "fundamentalists") of both evolution and creation can't seem to cope, for some reason. I don't know what their problem is, honestly, except they are worried what kids are taught. But I guess that's a valid motive.
I'd like to hear this! What exactly is the ID "science" curriculum? I suspect it has something to with the "self-evident scientific fact" that without intelligent manipulations, there is only snowy randomness.
Ping
Spoke of the two side on the issue.
How some scientist claimed it all happen with a big bang.
His response, what caused the bang to occur? If they say it was always there,then they are identifing God.
That's exactly what it means.
Charles Darwin stated in his Origin of Species that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
Irreducible Complexity is still being investigated.
Pardon me for pointing this out - but this is an open query in the field of biology today, openly discussed in many scientific journals regarding the basic structure of biological organisms and their adaptation, or inability to adapt, in a changing environment.
It is appropriate to have open discussions in a classrom where one SHOULD question scientific dogma.
People used to think the world was flat.
Except the main "scientific" proof for ID is that life is Behe's irreducible complexity which disallows the possiblity of evolution.
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.