Posted on 11/18/2005 7:58:33 AM PST by Uncledave
Edited on 11/18/2005 6:57:43 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON -- Because every few years this country, in its infinite tolerance, insists on hearing yet another appeal of the Scopes monkey trial, I feel obliged to point out what would otherwise be superfluous -- that the two greatest scientists in the history of our species were Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, and they were both religious.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Sore loser. But it really isn't his business because he doesn't live in Kansas.
And then some of us agree with him....
I guess he has not read any books by William Dembski.
The theory of evolution is basically a denial that there is ANY intelligence in the universe. It requires that a Boeing 747 be regarded as a product of blind chance. Why? Because if all of nature operates according to blind mechanism, natural selection, and inexplicable mutations, then there is no reason or guiding intelligence ANYWHERE in the process from the pre-biotic soup all the way to the 747.
The third level of knowing God is finally understanding that you cannot possibly know God.
You're both quibbling. ID seeks to establish an "ultimate cause" behind biological processes, something that is not provable and which evolution theory has never attempted to do. It's proponents are universally antievolutionists. If ID advocates were willing to acknowledge that the "designer" could very well have used evolution to bring about biological diversity, then they would be intellectually honest. But that is not the case. ID proponents are making an assault on evolution theory, pure and simple. So if not exactly "creationism", it is disguised assault on science by many who are creationists, and it is a nationwide assault. Kansas is just one battleground.
More than some. I would say most of us here agree with him.
ID in science classes is the logical and incorrect solution to the real problem, the teaching of history in science classes.
The science of mutations, and of selection of preferable over inferior structures, has been co-opted by those who disdain God as an alternative explanation of the history of the world.
So, far from "protecting" science from religion, in many cases science textbooks are full of "best-guess" historical speculation as to what happened before there were people to observe and record it.
And this is no more evident than each time a textbook has to be revised, NOT because a NEW THEORY better explains a previous theory based on scientific experimentation and discovery, but simply because someone digging a hole somewhere finds some new "fact" which unfortunately proves the existing speculation of history to be false.
In other words, our science classes have been taken over by those who dispise the notion of having to credit God with our existance. They have done so by pretending to be representing "science" when in fact they are merely revisionist historians, making up fanciful theories of our existance and pre-existance which, while "compatable" with known scientific theory, is not a necessary consequence of it.
In other words, the scientific notion of mutation, selection, and speciation is consistent with, but does not dictate, a particular historical myth.
If tomorrow we discovered that, in fact, God did create the world 8000 years ago, the theory of evolution would stand intact, a known fact based on years of careful scientific scrutiny.
But the historical fiction woven around the theory which is now taught as science in our science classrooms would, of course, be rendered moot. Just like so many "charts" of the history of man have been found to be false as we do more "historical" evaluation and find more forensic (not scientific) evidence.
But the scientific community fails to make this distinction, or meet the religious community halfway based on this truth, and instead insists on forcing a historical myth which opposes many people's religious beliefs down their throats as "proven scientific fact", when it is no such thing. And the religious people, content to allow science to have its theories, balks at having it's religions stolen or denigrated with speculation.
So it fights back with Intelligent Design, which is not only truly science (but is as scientific as those charts showing the piltdown man) but may not in fact correspond to the truth of our existance.
If God exists, and has the power and the inclination to interfere in the normal functioning of our planet, that presense would, by definition, be outside the realm of true scientific theory (since by its nature it presumes God making things happen that would NOT happen by the normal means that our science describes).
But, presuming the above, Science -- which could not show the interference -- would also not disprove it, or be able to correctly predict all future events, or correctly describe the past. Because Science could not predict or explain any interaction God may choose to carry out in the future, or show where such interaction happened in the past.
To boil it down to a cartoon version of the argument: If God decided to create the world 8000 years ago, but wanted to disguise his act so that people had to BELIEVE in him, rather than having his existance proven to them such that they had no choice, he could well have created the universe such that all observation would lead to what we see today.
A scientist would rightly point out that this is no scientific argument, because how can I scientifically argue for the deception of science. But, that scientist can also not, through science, disprove my theory. And since they can't, science should not preach as fact an alternative to my theory, and say that it is in fact the SCIENTIFICALLY correct story.
Being the cartoon-version, the last paragraph is easily parodied and belittled, but it is presented only to illuminate, not for its detractors to pretend as they often do that it is the sum total of the argument.
ID is not an assault on science. It is an attempt to expose the unexamined philosophical and metaphysical presuppositions (and pretensions) of science. It is more of an assault on the philosophy of materialistic naturalism, not science per se.
> "and the fool said in his heart: There is no god"
"and the fool said on Free Republic: There is no evolution."
Thank god that a writer I respect has finally stood up and actually come out in favor of science over magical thinking.
As a Christian, I believe every bit of the Bible. But I still don't want it taught as science. If an experiment could be designed that disproved the hand of a "designer" in the origin of life, does that mean all the ID people would stop believing God created Man? And if such an experiment cannot be designed, then ID is not in the realm of science.
I understand that to get back some semblance of power as a party, we had no choice but to bring the evangelicals onboard. But I'm not ready to hand the entire agenda over to them, the way the Dems have allowed the far left to take the wheel.
And "William Demski?" Please. He is to science what Barbara Streisand is to serious political journalism.
Pat Robertson, for one, does not pay the slightest attention when various ID promoters insist despite all evidence that it is a secular movement within science.
Evolution theory is no such thing. It may be true that many evolutionists go all they way and assert that there is no God, but that is their religious belief, not science. Scientific evolutionary theory merely tries to establish the physical processes that have resulted in the bioligical diversity that we observe today. Even Darwin acknowledged that God might be behind it all, but that is the province of religion.
That is really the problem with ID advocates. ID seeks to establish that there is an ultimate cause, which is not a scientific proposition because it can't be proven or disproved. It is a religious proposition. It may very well be true, and you and I may think so, but let's keep it out of science. Let's be realistic. ID proponents are really antievolutionists. ID is an attack on science, period.
I.D. is a position, just as Darwinian evolution is a position. The Pa. issue is/was the exclusivity of evolutionism. In the Scopes trial, the issue was the exclusivity of creationism. To maintain modern elitist dogma, evolutionists want to censor (keep from students) data that may suggest the i.d. position so now the roles are reversed. Now who wants to deny science?
Fine. Stick it in a philosophy or theology class where it belongs.
I.D. is a position, just as Darwinian evolution is a position. The Pa. issue is/was the exclusivity of evolutionism. In the Scopes trial, the issue was the exclusivity of creationism. To maintain modern elitist dogma, evolutionists want to censor (keep from students) data that may suggest the i.d. position so now the roles are reversed. Now who wants to deny science?
There's certainly none in your post...
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.