So, you would be doing all these things if you didn't believe in God? That is all that's stopping you from going nuts killing and raping?
Hope you don't ever have a crisis of faith.
Have a nice Easter 
Posted on 04/13/2006 6:51:19 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
A statement opposing the misrepresentation of evolution in schools to promote particular religious beliefs was published today (11 April 2006) by the Royal Society, the UK national academy of science.
The statement points out that evolution is "recognised as the best explanation for the development of life on Earth from its beginnings and for the diversity of species" and that it is "rightly taught as an essential part of biology and science courses in schools, colleges and universities across the world".
It concludes: "Science has proved enormously successful in advancing our understanding of the world, and young people are entitled to learn about scientific knowledge, including evolution. They also have a right to learn how science advances, and that there are, of course, many things that science cannot yet explain. Some may wish to explore the compatibility, or otherwise, of science with various beliefs, and they should be encouraged to do so. However, young people are poorly served by deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding in order to promote particular religious beliefs."
Professor David Read, Vice-President of the Royal Society, said: "We felt that it would be timely to publish a clear statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design as there continues to be controversy about them in the UK and other countries. The Royal Society fully supports questioning and debate in science lessons, as long as it is not designed to undermine young people's confidence in the value of scientific evidence. But there have been a number of media reports, particularly relating to an academy in north-east England, which have highlighted some confusion among young people, parents, teachers and scientists about how our education system allows the promotion of creationist beliefs in relation to scientific knowledge. Our Government is pursuing a flexible education system, but it should also be able to ensure and demonstrate that young people in maintained schools or academies are not taught that the scientific evidence supports creationism and intelligent design in the way that it supports evolution."
The Royal Society statement acknowledges that many people both believe in a creator and accept the scientific evidence for how the universe and life on Earth developed. But it indicates that "some versions of creationism are incompatible with the scientific evidence".
It states: "For instance, a belief that all species on Earth have always existed in their present form is not consistent with the wealth of evidence for evolution, such as the fossil record. Similarly, a belief that the Earth was formed in 4004 BC is not consistent with the evidence from geology, astronomy and physics that the solar system, including Earth, formed about 4600 million years ago."
The Royal Society statement emphasises that evolution is important to the understanding of many medical and agricultural challenges: It states: "The process of evolution can be seen in action today, for example in the development of resistance to antibiotics in disease-causing bacteria, of resistance to pesticides by insect pests, and the rapid evolution of viruses that are responsible for influenza and AIDS. Darwin's theory of evolution helps us to understand these problems and to find solutions to them."
The statement also criticises attempts to present intelligent design as being based on scientific evidence: "Its supporters make only selective reference to the overwhelming scientific evidence that supports evolution, and treats gaps in current knowledge which, as in all areas of science, certainly exist as if they were evidence for a designer'. In this respect, intelligent design has far more in common with a religious belief in creationism than it has with science, which is based on evidence acquired through experiment and observation. The theory of evolution is supported by the weight of scientific evidence; the theory of intelligent design is not."
The statement is published ahead of a public lecture today at the Royal Society by Professor Steve Jones on Why evolution is right and creationism is wrong'. The text of the statement follows.
April 2006
The Royal Society was founded in 1660 by a group of scholars whose desire was to promote an understanding of ourselves and the universe through experiment and observation. This approach to the acquisition of knowledge forms the basis of the scientific method, which involves the testing of theories against observational evidence. It has led to major advances of understanding over more than 300 years. Although there is still much left to be discovered, we now have a broad knowledge of how the universe developed after the 'Big Bang' and of how humans and other species appeared on Earth.
One of the most important advances in our knowledge has been the development of the theory of evolution by natural selection. Since being proposed by Charles Darwin nearly 150 years ago, the theory of evolution has been supported by a mounting body of scientific evidence. Today it is recognised as the best explanation for the development of life on Earth from its beginnings and for the diversity of species. Evolution is rightly taught as an essential part of biology and science courses in schools, colleges and universities across the world.
The process of evolution can be seen in action today, for example in the development of resistance to antibiotics in disease-causing bacteria, of resistance to pesticides by insect pests, and the rapid evolution of viruses that are responsible for influenza and AIDS. Darwin's theory of evolution helps us to understand these problems and to find solutions to them.
Many other explanations, some of them based on religious belief, have been offered for the development of life on Earth, and the existence of a 'creator' is fundamental to many religions. Many people both believe in a creator and accept the scientific evidence for how the universe, and life on Earth, developed. Creationism is a belief that may be taught as part of religious education in schools, colleges and universities. Creationism may also be taught in some science classes to demonstrate the difference between theories, such as evolution, that are based on scientific evidence, and beliefs, such as creationism, that are based on faith.
However, some versions of creationism are incompatible with the scientific evidence. For instance, a belief that all species on Earth have always existed in their present form is not consistent with the wealth of evidence for evolution, such as the fossil record. Similarly, a belief that the Earth was formed in 4004 BC is not consistent with the evidence from geology, astronomy and physics that the solar system, including Earth, formed about 4600 million years ago.
Some proponents of an alternative explanation for the diversity of life on Earth now claim that their theories are based on scientific evidence. One such view is presented as the theory of intelligent design. This proposes that some species are too complex to have evolved through natural selection and that therefore life on Earth must be the product of a 'designer'. Its supporters make only selective reference to the overwhelming scientific evidence that supports evolution, and treat gaps in current knowledge which, as in all areas of science, certainly exist - as if they were evidence for a 'designer'. In this respect, intelligent design has far more in common with a religious belief in creationism than it has with science, which is based on evidence acquired through experiment and observation. The theory of evolution is supported by the weight of scientific evidence; the theory of intelligent design is not.
Science has proved enormously successful in advancing our understanding of the world, and young people are entitled to learn about scientific knowledge, including evolution. They also have a right to learn how science advances, and that there are, of course, many things that science cannot yet explain. Some may wish to explore the compatibility, or otherwise, of science with various religious beliefs, and they should be encouraged to do so. However, young people are poorly served by deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding in order to promote particular religious beliefs.
We've seen Nobel Prize winners speak on the subject of racial genetics and on the subject of ho vitamin C cures all human ailments. Clearly they are qualified to speak on every subject.
Just as retired generals are more qualified than their former commander to speak on strategy.
The expression of ideas is often restricted and suppressed by law. You apparently think it is necessary to employ the law in order to squelch expression of the idea that organized matter performing specific functions might be best explained by intelligent design. For you the idea seems to be necessarily religious, even though there is nothing inherently religious about intelligence, design, or any combination of the two.
Even if the idea were but "religion" of the purest kind it is contrary to our Constitution to prohibit freedom of religious expression in a public, academic context. Don't tell me about ignorance when you neither honor nor acknowledge a fundamental principle under which this country was founded.
Your knee jerk reaction, like that of your ilk, shows that you are not so much interested in defending science - let alone the free expression of ideas in a scientific context - as in expecting the rest of us, by law, to believe as you do about the general nature and purpose of the physical universe.
You speak of a "grossly inept creator," yet I doubt you ever designed and built a single living cell. I'd like to see you try without the aid of intelligence or design. Perhaps the gross ineptness better applies to your capacity as a scientist. You ask whether it is "some kind of threat" to call you anything but a scientist when you argue for the suppression of reasonable inferences in a scientific context. No. It is simply a case of a label properly applied.
Apparently all it takes to be a scientist is to substitute the word "nature" for "God." It's been emprically demonstrated, you know. And unless you do as much you will not be practicing "legal" science.
Perhaps you should inform the founder of FreeRepublic of your concerns about this being a conservative site..after all, Jim Robinson, is fully aware of what goes on, on these threads, as well as the mods are fully aware of it...
Is this your site?...No, its not...seems your definition of conservative, and Jims definition of conservative, may not be quite the same thing...as long as he allows free discussion, free exchange of ideas, and the ability of folks to disagree on evolution/Creationism/ID, I hardly know what you have to complain about...
On these threads, one should never make the mistake that because someone supports evolution, they are necessarily an atheist...that is a lame brained assumption many creationists make and will insist on this, but hollering 'atheist' does not make one an atheist...however that particular thought continues to exist in many minds, and its wrong...but if they are avowed atheists, are you suggesting that they have no place on FR?
Why dont you just shoot off a post to Jim Robinson, and tell him about how, gosh, there are atheists on this conservative site...how could you let that happen?...lets see what reply you get....
Of course, you could always start your own 'conservative' site, and stifle discussion, by not allowing anyone to participate unless they are of your particular religious persuasion...how long do you think that would last?...not long, thats for sure...
Of course FR, is a conservative site, but nowhere does it say, that avowed Atheists are not welcome to come, participate and discuss...heck, the atheists have been here for years, I am sure everyone, everyone knows that...but every so often, someone pops up, and remarks, gosh, I thought this was a 'conservative' site, why are the Atheists here?...you are not the first to post such a thought, you certainly wont be the last...
And of course, your whining, has no effect...the atheists are here, in spite of your objections...take it up with the boss here...
Get off it. Have the cops been knocking at your door?
You still don't seem to understand that "freedom of expression" does not mean that any blast emanating from some undisclosed portion of your anatomy gets to be called "science."
For you the idea seems to be necessarily religious, even though there is nothing inherently religious about intelligence, design, or any combination of the two.
Ah, there's that incoherence we've come to know and, um, expect. Still haven't figured out why ID isn't science. Too bad.
Even if the idea were but "religion" of the purest kind it is contrary to our Constitution to prohibit freedom of religious expression in a public, academic context.
Don't get around much anymore?
Don't tell me about ignorance when you neither honor nor acknowledge a fundamental principle under which this country was founded.
You seem to think you have a license to pretend any fool notion you've latched onto is science. That's not the case. And it's certainly not the case that you can force the rest of us to share your delusion.
Your knee jerk reaction, like that of your ilk, shows that you are not so much interested in defending science - let alone the free expression of ideas in a scientific context - as in expecting the rest of us, by law, to believe as you do about the general nature and purpose of the physical universe.
You're really on a roll, tonight ... or maybe it's just some "jerk" of your own. Only it's not your knee. There is no such thing as "the free expression of ideas in a scientific context" -- unless you're possessed of your own copy of the Constitution as peculiar as your ideas about science. You don't know what science is. Your right to "free expression of ideas in a scientific context" is the same as my dog's.
Except that the dog is nearly as laughable.
You speak of a "grossly inept creator," yet I doubt you ever designed and built a single living cell. I'd like to see you try without the aid of intelligence or design.
You seem to be implying the creator did it without the aid of intelligence -- hmm.
Perhaps the gross ineptness better applies to your capacity as a scientist. You ask whether it is "some kind of threat" to call you anything but a scientist when you argue for the suppression of reasonable inferences in a scientific context. No. It is simply a case of a label properly applied.
That's not what you posted before and it's not what I called you on. Go back and read your own words, Fester.
You've consistently ignored the points I and many other posters have raised about how science works. I suspect it's because you really don't have a rational answer. If you have one, post it. If you don't, we'll know you're continuing that jerk reaction again.
You seem to have a disconnect regarding the content of science in general. It tends to operate with tentative assumptions, one of which happens to be intelligent design. When you open your mouth and say something "is not science," you speak out of ignorance regarding its limitations.
No, the cops have not been knocking at my door. But a certain judge in Dover, PA thinks it is his prerogative to prohibit mention of the idea that intelligent design might better explain the ubiquitous presence of organized matter that performs specific functions.
You do not have a scientific answer to intelligent design. All you have are emotional rants.
A theory must explain the data. Data must be intelligible. Intelligibility cannot exist apart from design. Design cannot exist apart from order. Order can exist on the basis of only two possibilities I can conceive of: intelligent causation or unintelligent causation. Perhaps you'd care to suggest a third. Either way, science must proceed under one or the other assumptions, yet it has no way I know of to test the empirical veracity of either one.
Which assumption do you reckon the Royal Society operates under? Which one do you prefer to see outlawed in public schools, O "champion of academic freedom?"
Thank you for demonstrating the accuracy of the one sentence of mine you were able to quote, "You have again ignored all the tests a theory must meet to be considered science."
Which assumption do you reckon the Royal Society operates under? Which one do you prefer to see outlawed in public schools, O "champion of academic freedom?"
What difference does it make, Fester? You'd only ignore the answer.
Well, O "champion of academic freedom," please enumerate all the tests a theory must meet to be considered science. We'll work with that and see how ID fits. I'm not sure you can accomplish as much since you've been reduced to emotional blather.
Meanwhile you've by no means scientifically refuted the reasonable, tentative suggestion that organized matter performing specific functions may best be explained as a product of intelligent design. You've also failed to tell me how the ideas of intelligence and design are necessarily religious.
Hilarious. Not content with attempting to shove ID into science, now you're asserting it's an assumption of science. You make this stuff up as you go along, don't you?
But a certain judge in Dover, PA thinks it is his prerogative to prohibit mention of the idea that intelligent design might better explain the ubiquitous presence of organized matter that performs specific functions.
"A certain judge in Dover, PA," heard all the evidence and issued a ruling. His ruling even referred to the evidence presented extensive testimony. You're not even capable of holding a thought from one post to the next. Why should I listen to you?
You do not have a scientific answer to intelligent design. All you have are emotional rants.
Fester, do you work in a movie theater? You're great at projection. Many posters have addressed scientific issues on the Theory of Evolution, and they've addressed the reasons ID doesn't measure up. They've told you the way science works, and the tests a theory must pass before it's considered science. You've ignored them all.
You finally noticed that? I'm impressed. Let's work with just two:
1. A theory must suggest new lines of research.
2. A theory must be capable of falsification.
This has been posted many times recently. If you don't know know what the terminology means, look it up. You don't get to assign your own meanings to the words.
We'll work with that and see how ID fits. I'm not sure you can accomplish as much since you've been reduced to emotional blather.
Sure, Fester.
Meanwhile you've by no means scientifically refuted the reasonable, tentative suggestion that organized matter performing specific functions may best be explained as a product of intelligent design. You've also failed to tell me how the ideas of intelligence and design are necessarily religious.
Define your terms. All of them.
The words are my own, yes. I create them as I go along. That, too, is part of intelligent design: creativity. But the meaning? That science can and does operate under the assumption of intelligent design? No. That is not something I made up. It is something other people like Isaac Newton, Galileo, and others have assumed as they undertook science.
Show me a single theory that came about without intelligent design and I'll show you a single living cell built all by myself without the aid of either intelligence or design.
Show me a single theory that came about without intelligent design and I'll show you a single living cell built all by myself without the aid of either intelligence or design.
Looks like you're back to asserting that if something somewhere has been designed, then everything everywhere was designed. You've told me before that's not what you mean, but I can't for the life of me see any other meaning in it.
Is that all? Where did you get these "tests?" Have they been empirically tested so we know for certain if a theory passes these tests, the theory meets the criteria of being "scientific?" How do you know falsification is absolutely necessary before an idea can be considered "scientific?" We cannot falsify any idea regarding the finite or infinite. Should we cease work in establishing a periodic table of elements since it entails an unfalsifiable idea?
The capacity for falsification can always be created by the imagination. The disintegration of particle matter and nonexistence of intelligence and intelligibility would be a fairly firm falsification of intelligent design. But perhaps you think science is merely about proofs.
So, you would be doing all these things if you didn't believe in God? That is all that's stopping you from going nuts killing and raping?
Hope you don't ever have a crisis of faith.
Have a nice Easter
Because atheism has to do with the dark, abyssmal depths of human society. Atheism is a religion unto itself. A mystery that even the darker spots of Hell have not fully comprehended yet. That is..the Satanic power to pervert..to corrupt..that which is initially a Good thing.
(That and the fact the communism needed a Religion).
The whole argument is about Proofs. Pure and Simple. Thomas demanded proof that Jesus was crucified. He said: "I shall not believe, unless I see the scars on your hands!!!". To which Christ said: "You have believed because y ou have SEEN, Thomas. How happy are those that believe and NOT see!".
Faith with PROOF is not faith at all. Why cast pearls before swine? The rewards of Heaven are not wasted upon the petty, whiney demands of atheists.
An animal is an animal. Have you ever observed the animal kingdom? Older male bears will kill young males to keep the competition down so to say. Females will walk off and leave their young refusing to feed them.
If we are but animals there is no morals there are no rules, we are but beasts. If I were but an animal I would only know to react through instincts. So there are no consequences for my actions. It is basically eat drink rape and pillage for tomorrow we may die.
But there is something that separates us from the animals and that is the soul the breath of God that gives us the power to reason and a conscience. Man is not an animal and no argument is the world will convince me that he is.
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.