Posted on 12/22/2005 8:44:09 AM PST by Sweetjustusnow
When there is serious debate, children should know about it. Science does change and develop, and this year's hot new discovery becomes last year's aether or phlogiston.
My own opinion is that Darwin will be out the door in about ten or fifteen years, everywhere except maybe in our public schools, where liberal judges will remain adamant.
Seemingly Darwin has had nine lives, and when each brand of neo-Darwinism is disproved, another springs up to take its place. But Marx is dead, Freud is dead, and in due course Darwin, the third great purveyor of the hermeneutics of suspicion, will be dead.
In the meantime, students should know that the issue is debated.
"Seeing all this, one can reasonably ask the question: When exactly will the demise of evolution be apparent to the rest of us?"
Evolution will likely stay in some form, but the theory that mind formed from mindless matter is headed for the trashbin...and good riddance.
That is hardly the position of any major ID proponent I have read. Just as Darwinism attracts its share of kooks, so no doubt does ID. If fruitcakes identifying themselves as ID exponents testified, probably they were called by the Darwinists to mock ID theory, or possibly they requested a chance to testify as friends of the court.
Or perhaps you simply misrepresent what they actually said.
Good luck. Tell me when you have evidence of a non-random process. Behe couldn't think of any while he was under oath.
Your aversion to the word random is silly. The random movement of molecules gives rise to the very orderly phenomenon of temperature. This is a rule in nature rather than an exception.
What's your notion regarding the theory of mind?
No.
Pavlov's dog, I tell you. Salivate, Galileo, salivate, church, ring the bell pull the string hear the canned robotic response.
Science is great isn't it? You can postulate, test, prove, disprove.
Religion: believe what I say or burn in hell.
What verse are you referring to, Ol' Dan?
Science really came through in so many ways. Knowledge acheived and the application of the knowledge is tremendous and been a huge benefit for all of mankind.
Perhaps you simply didn't read the decision? All the major proponents of ID believe this.
Here's the short version:
Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District:
Page 30-33:
Further support for the proposition that ID requires supernatural creation is found in the book Pandas, to which students in Dover’s ninth grade biology class are directed. Pandas indicates that there are two kinds of causes, natural and intelligent, which demonstrate that intelligent causes are beyond nature. (P-11 at 6). Professor Haught, who as noted was the only theologian to testify in this case, explained that in Western intellectual tradition, non-natural causes occupy a space reserved for ultimate religious explanations. (9:13-14 (Haught)). Robert Pennock, Plaintiffs’ expert in the philosophy of science, concurred with Professor Haught and concluded that because its basic proposition is that the features of the natural world are produced by a transcendent, immaterial, non-natural being, ID is a religious proposition regardless of whether that religious proposition is given a recognized religious label. (5:55-56 (Pennock)). It is notable that not one defense expert was able to explain how the supernatural action suggested by ID could be anything other than an inherently religious proposition. Accordingly, we find that ID’s religious nature would be further evident to our objective observer because it directly involves a supernatural designer.
A “hypothetical reasonable observer,” adult or child, who is “aware of the history and context of the community and forum” is also presumed to know that ID is a form of creationism. Child Evangelism, 386 F.3d at 531 (citations omitted); Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 624-25. The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. What is likely the strongest evidence supporting the finding of ID’s creationist nature is the history and historical pedigree of the book to which students in Dover’s ninth grade biology class are referred, Pandas. Pandas is published by an organization called FTE, as noted, whose articles of incorporation and filings with the Internal Revenue Service describe it as a religious, Christian organization. (P-461; P-28; P-566; P-633; Buell Dep. 1:13, July 8, 2005). Pandas was written by Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis, both acknowledged creationists, and Nancy Pearcey, a Young Earth Creationist, contributed to the work. (10:102-08 (Forrest)).
As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science.
By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge:
(1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID
(2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and
(3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards.
This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE’s argument that by merely disregarding the words “creation” and “creationism,” FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas. In early pre- Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term “creation” was defined as “various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc,” the very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published versions. (P- 560 at 210; P-1 at 2-13; P-562 at 2-14, P-652 at 2-15; P-6 at 99-100; P-11 at 99- 100; P-856.2.). This definition was described by many witnesses for both parties, notably including defense experts Minnich and Fuller, as “special creation” of kinds of animals, an inherently religious and creationist concept. (28:85-86 (Fuller); Minnich Dep. at 34, May 26, 2005; Trial Tr. vol. 1, Miller Test., 141-42, Sept. 26, 2005; 9:10 (Haught); Trial Tr. vol. 33, Bonsell Test., 54-56, Oct. 31, 2005). Professor Behe’s assertion that this passage was merely a description of appearances in the fossil record is illogical and defies the weight of the evidence that the passage is a conclusion about how life began based upon an interpretation of the fossil record, which is reinforced by the content of drafts of Pandas.
The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from “creation” to “intelligent design” occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court’s important Edwards decision. This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiffs’ assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled. Importantly, the objective observer, whether adult or child, would conclude from the fact that Pandas posits a master intellect that the intelligent designer is God.
Genesis: 001:020 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
001:021 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
I like conservative govt (limited). I like conservative values (honor, integrity, individualism, freedom, free markets, responsibilty). Hijacking the conservative cause to include ID has little to do with conservatism and makes conservatives looking like ignorant yahoos.
Evolution theory in no way says there is no god. It is a plausible explanation with a decent set of incomplete facts to back it up, that explains within the current laws of physics how things came to be.
Where in that verse does it say or even imply what you stated? To quote: "all animals were created out of nothingness with all their unique features intact".
You're right. It doesn't say exactly those words.
I was quoting the words given in testimony by the leading proponents/defense witnesses of ID who were paraphrasing the creation of the animals of the earth as described in Genesis.
Sorry for the confusion.
Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.
What a conundrum...A Darwinist inferring that cancer is a bad thing. One would think that cancer fits nicely into evolution. To a Darwinist, that would be a good thing, no?
Accountability is, in the end, what the whole debate boils down to. The thought of being held accountable for your actions does not fit well with the naturalist's mindset.
This is also a conundrum for one that wishes to be affiliated with conservatism...being accountable for your actions is one of its chief precepts.
I suggest you pick a side, and stop straddling the fence. Unless, of course, you are not 100% sure of your convictions. If that is the case, at least state your position as such. Committed naturalists can't have it both ways (unless the courts should happen to intervene on your behalf and declare, by judicial fiat, that I can no longer question your posts.)
Good day.
"What's your notion regarding the theory of mind?"
You and I having this exchange.
One of the pet habits of evo-freaks (and their cagey leftist overlords) here on FR is to run around demanding denunciations of other posters. The better to sow dissention.
I'll have to find that list of Alinsky's--
This sounds good, but I don't know what it means. Would you mind explaining?
There is only a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.
I demand intellectual honesty. If I make a mistake I admit it. If I see an "evo" making a statement that I think is mistaken or poorly worded, I post a comment.
If I make a poorly worded statement, I try to explain my intention.
I see the evolution side continually updating and expanding its argument. There are always better ways of saying things.
I might also say that I see some ID advocates and even creationists being more careful in what they say. Unfortunately, the Dover trial has brought a bunch of newbies on board who are rehashing expired ideas like thermodynamics and Mt. St. Helens flood geology.
Wonderful! Unfortunately, evolution will not fit into the test phase. Shall we be done with it then?
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.