Skip to comments.
Intelligent design goes Ivy League: Cornell offers course despite president denouncing theory
WorldNetDaily.com ^
| 04/11/2006
Posted on 04/11/2006 10:34:58 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 341-342 next last
To: Fester Chugabrew
I have long since stopped worring about what you think of me, or what you think of anything. You have absolutely no concept of what science is or does, and no interest in learning.
Science is naturalistic because it is impossible for it to be otherwise. Problems that are outside the scope of naturalism are outside the scope of science.
I have no idea why people want to claim that theological ideas or religious history can be studied or confirmed by science. I can only assume that science has acquired some prestige over the centuries, an religion would like some of it to rub off.
This is a waste of time. Science will never answer the question of why existence exists, or what the attributes and actions of God might be.
Religious people have nothing to gain and much to lose by pinning their faith on things that must be verified by science.
You would know this if you ever listened to the words of Jesus. His words are about being kind and generous and loving, not about spewing legalistic theological mumbo-jumbo.
181
posted on
04/12/2006 10:47:35 AM PDT
by
js1138
(~()):~)>)
To: js1138
The idea of organized matter performing specific functions, like the idea of intelligent design, is not by necessity theological. But it is logical, reasonable, and well within the confines of scientific endeavor. Your statement above is a clear example of favoring philosophy over science. Your interest is not in the accuracy of knowledge to be obtained by science, but in supporting the unscientific notion that all things are natural.
To: orionblamblam
(Obviously, it has, since you've gone to the bother of inventing positions for your "opponant," positions he doesn't hold.)
If this is not a position you hold, then I shall do what I said, and recant. But, I did not invent this position just to oppose you.
This is YOUR statement.
(People can indeed choose to believe in utter superstitious rubbish. And in a way, that's for the best. We need stratification in society. While some will choose to discover facts and will go to the stars, some will choose to disbelieve facts, and will serve a useful role scrubbing toilets and sweeping the streets, and wondering why it is that their prayers aren't curing their diseases.)
You seem to pride yourself on ridiculing those who believe in God. I had deduced, incorrectly it seems, that your belief is that there is no God. Which, applied to its full extent would mean that evolution was not designed. Now, it is your right to believe this, just as it is someone else's right to believe that there is a design guiding evolution. It seemed to me, that the root cause of your ridicule was emanating from this fundamental belief, which you do have the right to have. However, if this was the underlying foundation for your statements, such as the one above, I have the right to call to your attention that this is philosophical in nature. If it is dishonest to conclude this to be a philosophical issue, then please list all evidence that evolution could not have been designed by a creator, designer, maker, or so forth.
Since my premise is false though, and you do not take this position, then I stand corrected.
Hypothetically, if my premise were correct, then one should be careful in examining the root cause of derogatory statements before posting.
I am failing to see why you think I am dishonest, even though you keep insisting. I will concede that I may have drawn a false premise about you if I have taken your comments out of context. It was not purposefully dishonest.
(Yes, because you're debating dishonestly. I have little interest in actually debatign those who use such blatant falsehoods.)
May I suggest that you are accusing me of being dishonest because I am confronting you on a belief issue, and not a scientific one. I have no problem with you if your belief is that there is no purposeful design behind evolution. I do have a problem with you throwing out insults emanating from a false since of superiority based on such a belief.
Since this is not what you were doing, then never mind.
Will you kindly point out my falsehoods so I will formulate more accurate premises in the future.
183
posted on
04/12/2006 10:55:13 AM PDT
by
Conservative Texan Mom
(Some people say I'm stubborn, when it's usually just that I'm right.)
To: Fester Chugabrew
I am saying that science can only study those things that follow regular processes. Regular phenomena, by definition, are natural.
184
posted on
04/12/2006 10:56:42 AM PDT
by
js1138
(~()):~)>)
To: js1138
Intelligent design, in case you did not know it, is a highly regular process.
To: SirLinksalot
"We have found him always ready to go out of his way to encourage diversity of thought, and his former students speak highly of his fairness," the group said. "We look forward to a course where careful examination of the issues and critical thinking is encouraged."
There you go. Perhaps there's hope for American universities yet...
186
posted on
04/12/2006 11:00:47 AM PDT
by
Antoninus
(I don't vote for liberals regardless of their party affiliation.)
To: Fester Chugabrew
Intelligent design, in case you did not know it, is a highly regular process. This seems to have remained hidden from those advocating Intelligent Design. They have, for two hundred years, been unable to explicate the process, provide specific examples, or describe the who, how, when and where of it.
Simply saying it is built in to the nature of matter is a restatement of the anthropic principle or fine tuning.
If you don't mind, science will continue its business of unraveling the specifics of this fine tuning. It makes no difference to the methods and goals of science.
187
posted on
04/12/2006 11:08:06 AM PDT
by
js1138
(~()):~)>)
To: gondramB
That's one of those things you really know the answer to before you try to change the scientific community - much as you should study the government or the church before you try to run them. Very profound, but, none the less, meaningless and simply a dodge on your part. There is no such thing as the "scientific community" there are associations, clubs, mailing lists, credentials, titles ect, but there is no ruling body, constitutions or elections that have end all, say all.
Science can be discovered or invented by anyone. It is elitism that is the greatest danger to science not ID or anything else. Most of what you would like to think of as the "Science Community" is big business with all the good and bad that comes along with it.
The biggest problem I see with evolution is that it is way to restrictive. My view of the universe is that it's infinite and it all has purpose and opportunity. The evo view of the world is meaningless, randomness and most of what is around us is a mistake. Now which view do you think promotes science?
188
posted on
04/12/2006 11:24:20 AM PDT
by
Boiler Plate
(Mom always said why be difficult, when with just a little more effort you can be impossible.)
To: Conservative Texan Mom
> This is YOUR statement.
Note the context that it was put in: not general belief in some god or other, but in a specific belief that some god or other did things in contradiction to all scientific evidence.
> You seem to pride yourself on ridiculing those who believe in God.
Wrong. It is a curious quirk among those whose faith is weakest and yet whose opinions are loudest that if you ridicule some ridiculous *facet* of a belief system, you are ridiculing the whole thing.
> May I suggest that you are accusing me of being dishonest because I am confronting you on a belief issue,
Suggest all you like. Doesn't change the fact that you are setting up dishonest strawmen. I seem to recall *some* religion or other had a minor provision that said that "bearing false witness" was a general no-no (it was probably in the small print, somewhere in a little-used Appendix at the back).... but I'm sure you'll get special dispensation.
189
posted on
04/12/2006 11:27:28 AM PDT
by
orionblamblam
(I'm interested in science and preventing its corruption, so here I am.)
To: gondramB
"...it threatens the future of the country.."
And how - exactly - does it do this?
190
posted on
04/12/2006 11:34:13 AM PDT
by
DennisR
(Look around - God is giving you countless observable clues of His existence!)
To: Boiler Plate
The biggest problem I see with evolution is that it is way to restrictive. Oddly inconsistent with your statement that it has no ruling bodies and can be done by anybody. The problem with your complaint is that the critics of evolution have had hundreds of years to do some science, and have not done any. This is their evaluation of the situation, not mine. This is the position of the Discovery Institute.
191
posted on
04/12/2006 11:38:44 AM PDT
by
js1138
(~()):~)>)
To: js1138
Oddly supporters of evolution refuse to debate the scientific merits of evolution with evolutions critics. Hmmm sounds like someone is afraid of something.
192
posted on
04/12/2006 11:43:34 AM PDT
by
Boiler Plate
(Mom always said why be difficult, when with just a little more effort you can be impossible.)
To: Boiler Plate
Supporter of heliocentrism have no interest in debating with geocentrists. Wonder why.
What we have on FR is not a debate, but rather a demonstration that not all conservatives are ignorant of science.
If you claim that the evidence has not been exhaustively presented, day after day, year after year, you are simply being untruthful.
193
posted on
04/12/2006 11:49:17 AM PDT
by
js1138
(~()):~)>)
To: orionblamblam
(Note the context that it was put in: not general belief in some god or other, but in a specific belief that some god or other did things in contradiction to all scientific evidence.)
I do indeed stand corrected!
(Wrong. It is a curious quirk among those whose faith is weakest and yet whose opinions are loudest that if you ridicule some ridiculous *facet* of a belief system, you are ridiculing the whole thing.)
Careful, you're bordering on a philosophical assumption here. Weak faith = loud opinion, reasoning behind this is?
I have also found it to be a curious quirk that opposing opinions often result to insults when evidence for an argument is weak.
Suggest all you like. Doesn't change the fact that you are setting up dishonest strawmen.
Please provide evidence of my purposeful dishonesty that I may be more cautious in the future.
I seem to recall *some* religion or other had a minor provision that said that "bearing false witness" was a general no-no (it was probably in the small print, somewhere in a little-used Appendix at the back).... but I'm sure you'll get special dispensation.
Another example that supports the probability that my previous premise was indeed correct. This premise being that the root cause of many of your comments is a general disdain for all things religion. I am beginning to suspect that you are attempting to twist an argument to avoid confronting the possibility that your "probable disdain" is founded in philosophy and not science.
You should have ended your reply with your first sentence.
194
posted on
04/12/2006 11:52:19 AM PDT
by
Conservative Texan Mom
(Some people say I'm stubborn, when it's usually just that I'm right.)
To: Conservative Texan Mom
> Weak faith = loud opinion, reasoning behind this is?
Insecurity.
> Please provide evidence of my purposeful dishonesty
This thread, and your repeated misrepresentations. Had you truly misunderstood, you should have asked for clarification prior to making incorrect assessments.
> This premise being that the root cause of many of your comments is a general disdain for all things religion.
And where do you see that, praytell? Or are you unable to separate a complaint about *you* from a complaint about your *religion*? Are you that special? Are you Chosen of God?
![](http://www.st-enterprise.de/images/news/babylon5-sebastian.jpg)
I don't think so.
195
posted on
04/12/2006 11:59:12 AM PDT
by
orionblamblam
(I'm interested in science and preventing its corruption, so here I am.)
To: DennisR
""...it threatens the future of the country.."
And how - exactly - does it do this?
-----
I would refer the gentleman to my answer above.
196
posted on
04/12/2006 12:08:10 PM PDT
by
gondramB
(Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.)
To: Conservative Texan Mom
"You should have ended your reply with your first sentence."
It is sad but true that there are conservatives on each side of this debate who are not helping their "side" and also not helping conservatives to have good dialog and come to a useful conclusion.
197
posted on
04/12/2006 12:16:09 PM PDT
by
gondramB
(Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.)
To: js1138
js1138,
Look, if you claim there is no science behind ID, then you have nothing to worry about and the class will be abject failure. So relax and have a nice day.
Best Regards,
Boiler Plate
198
posted on
04/12/2006 12:35:23 PM PDT
by
Boiler Plate
(Mom always said why be difficult, when with just a little more effort you can be impossible.)
To: JamesP81
In addition to the fact that there are Christian and Jewish scholars who do not agree with the reference that you have supplied, there is also the matter that not all who believe in a deity are Jewish or Christian.
199
posted on
04/12/2006 12:37:17 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Boiler Plate
I have no problem with addressing ID in a history of science class, but since it has contributed no new ideas in 200 years, it is not exactly cutting edge.
There are areas of research that ID advocates cite as promising for their beliefs, but these areas are being explored quite adequately by mainstream science.
ID is basically the assertion that not everything can be explained. In the meantime, work goes on and explanations keep coming.
200
posted on
04/12/2006 12:43:44 PM PDT
by
js1138
(~()):~)>)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 341-342 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson