Posted on 12/22/2005 6:09:22 PM PST by KingofZion
Haha! Sure, it is.
Because according to them, the universe never had a beginning don't ya know!
There is a tagline lurking in this paragraph just aching to be free!
Ping.
As I understand it, ID is merely a field of inquiry. I don't understand why the Darwinists are so adamant that it not be permitted.
Not!
What's so intelligent about our design? Why do so many people have back trouble. No engineer starting with a blank sheet of paper would design the human spine the way it is designed.
Because it is not a scientific field of inquiry.
(And how about "evolutionary scientists" instead of "Darwinists?")
Yes, Warren, it is, but, be ready to be assailed even in here by the Flat Earth types who do nothing more than post an infinate amount of links fo what you and I already know and post even more to "Refute" the questions left totally unanswered by the Darwinists.
In other words, don't question their "expertise" or your just an idiot.
I've been following this debate for 25 years. No way it's dead, although this author is substantially correct in saying that the judge did turn a cannon on ID and fire several times to deal a significantly damaging blow.
As a side note: one of the sections that caught my eye when I read the whole document is a line quoted in this article, about an observation by the judge:
"He said that one of the professors, an ID proponent, who testified for the school board 'remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God.' "
My take is that the judge, though he took 21 days of testimony, has not been following the debate long enough to judge this one in context.
Behe was not caught here in a gotcha Freudian slip, as the judge clearly thinks he was.
He was reiterating a classic ID argument that says that scientists cannot adequately evaluate the existence of the supernatural because they have ruled it out, a priori, in their definition of science as only allowing study of the natural. You can't evaluate the existence of God (supernatural) if you don't allow for the existence of the supernatural. That's all he was saying.
You can agree or disagree, but it's not "remarkable" that Behe made the assertion.
The antagonists are not as pro-darwin as they are against God. Darwinism has become their god in defiance of God.
Science is a wonderful tool. An instrument to observe, study and cope with life.
There is nothing wrong with being in awe of God's creation and using science to study it.
"Intelligent Design Science" is none of the three.
It is not very intelligent
It certainly seeks to promote a design along the lines of long established religious tenants.
And it certainly is not science.
3 strikes. You're out.
Another activist judge legislating from the bench mega technicolor barf alert. Probably a Clinton appointee.
Pretty soon we shall be hearing theories as how Pentium V microprocessors, oh lets throw in a Signetics Pace or Zilog Z80 have been found to be self created, from silicon to final tested packaged chip, yea with all the firmware also included.
The laws of nature exisited before the alledged big bang.
Without the laws of nature i.e. gravity, thermodynamics and
so forth the universe would not display the degree of orderliness it presently does. Are we to "believe" that
an explosion initiated an orderly universe?
They're upset because they can't account for how life began. And? They can't do it using any materialist model known to science.
So, as is usually the case with people who have no answers, they use the good ol' government to make sure such "dangerous" ideas aren't put in anyone's head.
Your question begs another, are there engineers who can design kindness? love? generosity? these are most likely forigen concepts to you but give a shot at the answer.
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.