Posted on 10/19/2005 5:10:52 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
"The idea behind modern atheism is that the universe is a creation of chance."
Oops. Wrong. That's not the idea at all. It's all very orderly, and follows the natural laws. There's no chance involved in the big things, and what seems like chance in the small things isn't, really.
That cosmic ray that whacked one of the genes of some one-celled creature was just random. What happened after that followed the laws of nature. And so it goes.
We just don't understand all of it yet.
Well, if all gods are the same what is that you dislike about our culture that makes you hot to remove our's?
Imagine, though...a religion that executes non-believers. What a thought! A deity with the power to justify wiping out whole cities...except for the wimmens, of course...they might come in handy.
Imagine a religion that tells us to love our neighbor and do unto others as they would unto you.
Why would it threaten atheism? Are you assuming that the designer is God? I thought ID didn't presuppose the designer?
If aliens contributed to our DNA, so be it. That isn't why I don't like the current incarnation of ID. I don't like it because there is no way for it to reliably differentiate between designed and natural, therefore is not science, and because the proponents of ID want to screw science up so that nothing could ever be tested.
"Well, if all gods are the same what is that you dislike about our culture that makes you hot to remove our's?"
God doesn't scare atheists; they don't believe he exists. It's the people who purport to speak for the Almighty that give the average atheist the willies. God's supposed mouthpieces don't have a really good track record when it comes to tolerating other views.
So, I think you're reading too much into the fact that Georges Lemaitre, who first proposed the "expanding universe" theory, was a Catholic Priest. While there were scientists who objected to the Old Testament aspects of the theory, there were many scientific objections to big bang.
For example:
One important and little known attribute of the steady state theory is its importance to an aspect of electromagnetic and quantum theory. Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism have two solutions, one positive, one negative. Consider the equation x2 = 4. It has two solutions; x = 2 and x = -2. In Maxwell's equations the negative solution was usually discarded, as it would correspond to something travelling backwards in time.
However, in 1941 John Wheeler and Richard Feynman, proposed that by taking seriously the idea that two waves, one travelling forward in time and one travelling backwards, were produced in electromagnetic interactions, certain problems in quantum theory disappeared. Between the cause and effect in an experiment the two waves add together,but before the cause, and after the effect, the two waves cancel, so what we see is the sequence; cause, interaction, effect.
The crucial aspect for cosmology in the Wheeler - Feynman theory is that the two waves only cancel outside the event if they are both of equal size, in other words the wave from the future has to be the same size as the wave from the past, and this implies that the universe is the same in the future as it was in the past and hence in a steady state.
I would not characterize this as an argument by atheist scientists rejecting religion.
It's not. It's the reaction to it that's about religion.
"So, via the designer of natural selection, how did the bacterial flagellum come about?" . . In ways that Behe could never imagine.
So natural selection could not evolve the flagellum
You DO realize that the flagellum has been found to not be irreducibly complex don't you? That Behe has admitted as such?
No he didn't. He is saying he can't identify the mechanism the cause the flagellum Which of course, no evo can either :-)
That is theology, not science.
That's a religous belief that you are forcing on other folks. Fine by me since I agree with it but don't pretend it's not :-)
They have a much better track record than atheists, e.g. ACLU.
My wife says that to me all the time.
The trial that the article in this post covers, is about inserting ID instruction into science class. Removing the little that is taught about biology in school and replacing it with readings from the "Pandas" book.
It's a simple replacement of science with religion. Behe himself admits that the Designer is God.
My point is, instead of trying to remove science from school, add electives on Bible study and leave the science classes as they are.
Michael Behe, a Lehigh University biochemistry professor, reiterated his position that intelligent design is the “purposeful arrangement of parts.”Plaintiffs’ attorney Eric Rothschild pointed to an interview Behe gave in a Christian magazine in which he discussed intelligent design’s relationship to Christian values. But Behe said, “Just because it is compatible with Christian views does not mean it is not a scientific theory.”
Under questioning by Rothschild, Behe could not say whether the designer still exists.
“Is that what you want to teach school students, Mr. Behe?” Rothschild asked.
Behe said, as part of making students aware of intelligent design, “Yes, I think that’s a terrific thing to point out.”
Cross-examination continues this afternoon.
"That's a religous belief that you are forcing on other folks. Fine by me since I agree with it but don't pretend it's not :-)"
What part of what I said is a religious belief? My culture is the United States of America. One of its principle features is freedom of religion. Do you consider the Constitution to be a religious document? How odd. I'm forcing nothing, unless you consider supporting the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, to be a religion.
You apparently aren't familiar with what they are discussing. No one is trying to get rid of teaching the theory of evolution. Do a little more research on what they are actually advocating.
And then, he explained what he thought the quotation meant, which wasn't what it said.Very nice. Creationists mean what they say, but they don't necessarily SAY what they say. I trust this kind of discussion isn't going over people's heads even in a courtroom.This went on for a while. Every time Rothschild would ask Behe about a statement, some he wrote himself, he'd say he'd have to disagree that it said what it said.
Using taxpayers' money to sue school districts is abusive in my opinion. And I'm sure you are familiar with the history of the ACLU. And knowing your stance on this matter quite well, I am not surprised you would defend the ACLU.
Did you read what Behe was saying in context?
Just because you don't like an organization does not mean everything they do is wrong. I'm not a fan of the ACLU, but in this case, they're right. The School Board was trying to sneak religion back into the classroom, which isw flat-out illegal.
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.