Posted on 01/25/2006 9:27:55 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez
Prof. Johnson is considered to be the father of the Intelligent Design movement. What follows is known as The Wedge Strategy, authored by Johnson.
In the words of the recognized father of the ID movement...ID is religion.
Finally, although Buckingham, Bonsell, and other defense witnesses denied the reports in the news media and contradicted the great weight of the evidence about what transpired at the June 2004 Board meetings, the record reflects that these witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions, and are accordingly not credible on these points.P. 105, Dover judgement
Defendants' previously referenced flagrant and insulting falsehoods to the Court provide sufficient and compelling evidence for us to deduce that any allegedly secular purposes that have been offered in support of the ID Policy are equally insincere.p 132
[emphasis added]
Are you suggesting that the existence of God will be established via the use scientific methods?
ID is religion using science to search for God in order to support religious beliefs, and what it boils down to as a "theory" is that whatever can't be explained to the full satisfaction of the religious community at this time via available technology, must point to the actions of a Greater power A.K.A. the Biblical God, and His Creation.
But raising questions does not make for proof, and that's what ID is trying to attempt to do. Market questions as conclusions.
The Church took the same position on the question of whether the Earth was flat or not, and whether it revolved around the Sun or the Sun around the Earth.
Eventually, technology caught up with the question, and the Church was forced to admit that it was wrong.
There goes the Background Radiation dating and the distance between galaxy measurements. In the hands of the Creator, light is spread across the universe as we spread butter on our bread.
Attaining knowledge via science is limited in it's truth seeking apparatus, for it chooses to disregard the supernatural. Because it cannot test supernatural events, science is forced to not consider the influence these events have on the totality of our reality. Science is entertaining, and sometimes helpful, but contains a considerable blind spot.
I truly enjoy Science, but it's not something you want to base your worldview on, for pure science is constrained to amorality. Knowledge cannot add a millimeter to a person's character; as evidenced by the overwhelming perversion that permeates modern Academia. For this reason, knowledge is not worthy of worship!
I've seen one freeper call another freeper "American Taliban" for questioning the orthodoxy of evolution. I think that about sums up this debate...with bitter irony.
Personally, I believe in evolution as a biological process, and I believe Darwin changed the world..for the better. And he did so by challanging orthodoxy. ID may be valid, it may be crap, it probably is somewhere in between. But it does do one thing, It highlights the pure fact that Marxist Materialism has become the assumption that frames all debate. Darwin would probably not have been impressed.
Hardly, the idea has kicked around for a very long time. Some people have recently tried to slap a new pseudo-scientific coat of paint on it, but the fact is that there has never been a particle of physical evidence turned up to support the idea. If there were "hosts of scientists willing to bring the supporting evidence to light", don't you think one of them would have gotten this evidence out there for someone to examine?
Oh, I forgot. They're all Waiting For Funding.
The unchanging Bible has never had these two issues wrong, unless you want to claim a scientist who says the sun rose this morning believes the sun revolves around the earth.
Isa 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Don't tell me you think it is saying the earth is a pancake. How do we get billions of light years between galaxies in a no time? We have a Creator that stretches it across the universe like a painter puts paint on a canvas.
Where have you been living? Attempts at relating the information in peer-reviewed journals has been thus far censured. However, the Dam is breaking.
You believe that science should involve itself with mysticism?
"It highlights the pure fact that Marxist Materialism has become the assumption that frames all debate."
Marx has absolutely nothing to do with this.
Science concerns itself with materialism, and religion with spiritualism.
The evolution debate belongs in the science community, and that's where it is.
A circle is not a sphere, and what you now argue was "interpreted" at the time (by the Church) not to mean a sphere.
Now, in light of the unavoidable truth that the Earth is round, and a sphere, that it rotates around the Sun, and that religion was absolutely wrong on the subject, religion wants to excuse its earlier missinterpretation of Scripture by pointing to information they ignored in their previous stance.
When evolution is proven beyond question, then religion will stand on the notion of dual Creation (Genesis I and Genesis II as accounts of two separate Creations) in order to save face.
Because some people are attempting to teach it in schools. Try to teach astrology in schools, and see what happens.
Don't tell me you think it is saying the earth is a pancake.
Why not? A squat cylinder is more consistent with the text than the actual shape of the earth is. A squat cylinder has two surface planes which are circles. An irregular oblate spheroid (the shape of the earth) has no such surfaces.
(FWIW, are you aware that the "†" character in your tagline is not a cross, but a dagger.)
Funny you should drag that insult out, since it is the creationists who elevate emotions over reason.
Why? Liberals have no problem clinging to unguided evolution. Does that make it athiest ( a religion).
Thanks for the details.
It's fairly obvious that he hasn't actually read the transcripts, in which the board members admit that they "testified inconsistently."
I suspect that he's still lurking, and just maybe he'll learn something.
Our only concern has to be that we do not contradict the scripture, for once a person knows God personally, proper humility ensues. Men are naturally clueless because we only know less than 1% of reality!
We've been properly warned.
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
That's crap.
If I were to take a survey that would separate Creationists who completely reject evolution, and evolutionists who completely reject Creationism and the existence of God into separate camps, the former would outnumber the latter one hundred fold.
I believe in Creation and evolution because I don't see a conflict between the two.
Is Evolution Real-Science or Social-Science?
As for my #32. In no way was that an insult. It makes the point that your post here is at the level of the Hillary Clinton vast right wing conspiracy.
I don't think it is possible to say anything of disagreement to you without your thinking you've been insulted.
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.