Posted on 09/26/2005 5:44:09 AM PDT by DARCPRYNCE
Heck, a computer? If I even found a penny on the ground, I would presume it was minted somewhere in the US. Shouldn't those billions of years been able to produce a lump of copper in the exact size and shape of a penny with a randomly etched pattern on it that just happens to resemble a specific man and building? Sounds more plausible than billions of organic molecules bumping together in some primordial soup that just happened to make the right combination to result in this whole planetful of life.
The main difference is that, a few centuries ago, the existing evidence showed that the earth-centric view was not tenable. Therefore, the theory was scrapped and another, new, heliocentric model -which fit - was adopted, tested , and found to be true. The trouble with ID is that, even though many of the theories are equally untenable, they keep trying to twist the logic to make them usable.
I think both sides are making it into an issue, especially here. I will say that I never had any problem learning evolution in school--it actually strengthened my belief in ID. Besides, my mother and father were perfectly capable of teaching me about creation without having to depend on the government to do so.
ID is still mainly faith-based (one has to have faith in the supreme power) and could not completely replace evolution in length.
There are different versions of the creation, depending on the religion too. In my Sunday school class, the 10 people had 10 different versions of the Creation. One said he thought that all the dinosaurs and such lived on another world and were brought here somehow. Whose version are we going to teach?
I think there are more simple solutions and that there doesn't have to be this long drawn-out battle. STRESS that evolution is a theory. ID is based on that some parts of evolution are true. DISCUSS OR MENTION ID as a competing theory and indicate out its main points--one of them being that the world and the universe is so complex that some believe there was a guiding force behind it all.
There are other things in life besides ID and evolution.
Did you actually read the article I posted?
The trouble with ID is that, even though many of the theories are equally untenable, they keep trying to twist the logic to make them usable.
I can see that, but I think its primary statement is tenable or usable.
Thank you... thank you very much. :o)
I fail to see the problem with wanting to teach the best theory we have about how we got here.
I think the problem is teaching it as the ONLY theory.
So how come you waited nearly four years to make your first post, my sleeper friend? Or can I jump back to look who got banned around April and answer that question for myself?
We need to think about the creation of other worlds too. And yes, I agree, God's ways are not our ways. BUT he is more real to me than being just an "intelligent person who is a non-human." That makes him sound like some kind of alien or something.
If Darwin were alive today, I wonder if he'd be a Darwinist.
Attacking a persons character is always a good way to prove your point and win an argument. People can change.
I'd say that the crazy eugenicist "scientific" ideology that became ascendant in the late 1800s is directly responsible for the holocaust. One could also name materialist evolution as the basis for much of the murderous activiy of the communists. Oh no, the hands of materialist "science" are not clean at all. Not by a long shot.
Belief in the Bible requires faith. Not everyone is going to believe that Adam and others lived to be centuries of years old for instance or in many of the miracles of the Bible. The world requires a sign or physical proof. Belief in God requires something beyond that.
I've been following evolution debates for a few decades now. Here's what I've learned about the Scientific Method:
A scientist should ignore inconvenient facts.
A good scientist shouts down those who disagree with them and questions their standing to even discuss the matter.
A scientist alters their hypothesis when new evidence shows the fallacy of the hypothesis. Keeps the premise, though.
A scientist alters their NEW hypothesis when new evidence .. blah, blah, blah. Keeps the premise, though.
If this is the Scientific Method, and if Evolution shows how the Scientific Method works, then I say we should redouble our efforts to end the teaching of evolution.
Now how many massacres were initiated by differences in Scientific ideology?
I'd say that the crazy eugenicist "scientific" ideology that became ascendant in the late 1800s is directly responsible for the holocaust. One could also name materialist evolution as the basis for much of the murderous activiy of the communists. Oh no, the hands of materialist "science" are not clean at all. Not by a long shot.
*laughing* Sarcasm is such a wonderful thing.
her to another--Attacking a persons character is always a good way to prove your point and win an argument. People can change.
HEHEHEHEHEHEHE Thanks for reminding me:).
What are you talking about? I post the articles I write at least a couple times a month here. Four years ago I didn't even know FR existed.
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.