Posted on 02/01/2006 6:32:25 AM PST by PatrickHenry
|
With a thesis of "We'll never understand this except by punting to God on first down," it's hard to see how anyone would ever generate any research.
That pretty much says all you need to know about the Discovery Institute.
I take this as evidence that liars usually don't prosper.
May DI RIP.
Not quite all. Someone announces the results of a study affirming some aspect of evolution. Someone at DI, maybe Jonathan Wells, fires off a same-day (often deeply flawed) rebuttal. Think Carville and Stephanopolis in the Clinton Campaign War Room.
And think of the bigger picture. Science announces, DI rebuts. This is "discovery?"
...Discovery Institute President Chapman had counseled a breakaway faction of Episcopalians opposed to the ordination of gays on how to fund their desired schism from the mainline denomination.
At least it's not about the money.
How does
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
prohibit "state-countenanced religion?"
Could you please explain to me just one theory of evolution that is not in dispute and has been totally proven?
Can you name one thought of anything by anyone that that is proved or is absolute and can not be refuted.
1) Some -- not all, but some -- Creationists are liars, claim factual matters exist that really don't.
2) Some -- not all, but some -- Creationists are lazy, claim they've read more than they actually have.
3) Some -- not all, but some -- Creationists are ignorant, claim they understand more than they actually do.
4) Some -- not all, but some -- Creationists are intolerant of other people's point of view and other people's religion.
On the other hand, many are honest, diligent, informed and decent people, and a few are delightful.
Bottom line -- personalities may make communication difficult, but the truth is the truth, no matter how you say it. But it's also true that the way that you say it can make it easier to understand and accept.
Great article. Thanks for the ping.
...aside for the errors of fact.
for=from
BTTT
1) I don't think that evolutionary biologists (with regard to the ToE) claim to know anything about what god does or does not do. And how is this any different from a creationist or ID'er? The same complaint applies, but even more so.
2) Why is it inappropriate for scientists to claim to know what science is? I can't really think of any objection to the ToE that is sillier, except perhaps for....
3) Scientists holier than thou? How so? By studying their fields for years, and then having the chutzpah to claim that they know something about their field? Guess what? They do know more than the layman about their field! That's just how it works! I wouldn't hire a plumber to re-roof my house, you know?
4) Why should scientists debate ID proponents? First, I'm sure that most scientists have better things to do with their time, and second, ID'ers have yet to present any real science to be debated.
5) Please, Ichnuemon's posts may be long, but that's kind of the point. He is presenting just a miniscule amount of the actual science and information available that supports the ToE, and this same information gets routinely ignored. I have yet to see a creationist or ID'er on here actually address ANY of the ACTUAL SCIENCE presented in one of Ichneumon's posts. How is it bullying to present information, when the creationists/ID'ers routinely DEMAND the information, and then just as routinely ignore it? Frankly, I think that's the mark of a bully.
6) Stepping out of their proper role? By defending their work and defending their fields of study? Perhaps if creationists and ID'ers would quit attacking the sciences, then all of those folks could go back to happily researching and developing. How about you guys start leaving science alone?
7) I think you're deliberately confusing the issue with this point. Do you know how much work and study go into obtaining an advanced degree in the hard sciences? How much rigorous thought and application is involved? Believe me, it's intense. When people tell you that the ToE is basically accepted as the most legitimate explanation for the diversity of life, that actually means something. It isn't an appeal to popularity, it's just a statement of fact.
What is it about this document that caused the defendants in the Dover case to lie on the stand? Sounds like the work of the devil, not God.
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.