Skip to comments.
Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action
American Society for Clinical Investigation ^
| 01 May 2006
| Alan D. Attie, Elliot Sober, Ronald L. Numbers, etc.
Posted on 05/03/2006 8:23:06 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 961-973 next last
"Evolutionists are Just a Bunch of Homos" Placemarker
141
posted on
05/03/2006 11:16:13 AM PDT
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
So give those who believe a break from the ridicule and dogmatism. I have ridiculed no one. I have simply stated a fact.
What I do or don't believe in can hardly be surmised from what I wrote.
Unfortunately it seems to me that the people who are the most dogmatic and judgmental often seem to be those who profess to "believe" the most.
That's a shame.
142
posted on
05/03/2006 11:16:29 AM PDT
by
wireman
To: Publius6961
"Fortunately, I know only the bottom 5% of so-called scientists have so little to do as to consider this a "pressing issue"..."
"Are there that many gay "scientists"?"
Actually, the 5% figure corresponds to the percentage of scientists in all fields who reject evolution. Very interesting...
143
posted on
05/03/2006 11:17:53 AM PDT
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
To: Publius6961
>>Science which even thinks about "defending itself" from intelligent design can't be much of a science to begin with.<<
You think that it wrong for an academic area that is vital to the country to object when people try to make them teach something with no basis that can be observed?
Would the military object if non-military tried to force them to teach military theory based on biblical strategy?
Would air traffic controllers object to laymen forcing them to teach in way they felt would compromise air safety?
Would medical schools object to being forced to teach medicine based on religion without evidence?
I submit that science would be foolish to no object - and frankly so should anyone who cares about the country or the future of Christianity.
144
posted on
05/03/2006 11:18:45 AM PDT
by
gondramB
(He who angers you, in part, controls you. But he may not enjoy what the rest of you does about it.)
To: Zionist Conspirator
"Intelligent Design" is a form of Theistic evolutionism. It doesn't interpret the Genesis account literally or accept traditonal Biblical/Jewish chronology. Nor, however, does it affirmatively accept standard scientific chronologies of earth history. It refuses to address or incorporate such issues, period. It refuses to even speculate about when, where or how "design" is actually instantiated. Thus it is vacuous to the point of being useless as a scientific hypothesis.
The reason other evolutionists are opposed to this particular form of Theistic evolution
We're mainly opposed to it as (being falsely represented as a viable and established) science, not as theology or philosophy.
is that in it G-d slips out of the world of human philosophical speculation into the world of fact,
Actually it doesn't, because, again, ID proponents refuse to address, even speculatively, the question of actual instantiation of "intelligent design" events. Thus ID is systematically, and intentionally, detached from reality.
and most even "Theistic" evolutionists believe G-d should remain safely behind the Magical Door that also conceals Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
This only follows if the scientific account of reality is held to be complete complete -- requiring no supplementation from philosophy, religion, art, etc -- and held to be the only valid account. Most would brand this view "scientism".
145
posted on
05/03/2006 11:19:48 AM PDT
by
Stultis
(I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
To: furball4paws
Tastes like chicken? If man were created in God's image, then I suspect that it would taste more like pork.
146
posted on
05/03/2006 11:20:06 AM PDT
by
wyattearp
(Study! Study! Study! Or BONK, BONK, on the head!)
To: wyattearp
"If man were created in God's image, then I suspect that it would taste more like pork."
I don't want to know how you know that.... :)
147
posted on
05/03/2006 11:21:52 AM PDT
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
To: Virginia-American
Shouldn't the Scientologists be in the Inter Faith Network? Maybe. Are they into ID?
148
posted on
05/03/2006 11:22:12 AM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: Zionist Conspirator
Good analysis.
It is amazing how radically new this view of religion is and yet how universally it is now held.
It's not that new - in the XIIth century theologians at the University of Paris were condemning the notion that: "Something may be true in philosophy but false in theology and vice versa."
And Bl. Pope Pius IX and Pope St. Pius X were pretty vocal about identifying and condemning this muddleheaded approach to reality.
To: gondramB
Would the military object if non-military tried to force them to teach military theory based on biblical strategy?Would that Biblical military strategy include killing every man, woman, child, fetus, dog, cat and bunny rabbit among the enemy?
150
posted on
05/03/2006 11:24:36 AM PDT
by
js1138
(somewhere, some time ago, something happened, but whatever it was, wasn't evolution)
To: CarolinaGuitarman
Actually, the 5% figure corresponds to the percentage of scientists in all fields who reject evolution. Very interesting...Among biologists it's about 1/3 of 1%. I can post my Project Steve analysis again if necessary.
151
posted on
05/03/2006 11:24:54 AM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: Zionist Conspirator
>>The reason other evolutionists are opposed to this particular form of Theistic evolution is that in it G-d slips out of the world of human philosophical speculation into the world of fact, and most even "Theistic" evolutionists believe G-d should remain safely behind the Magical Door that also conceals Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.<<
That is often not true. I'm a Christian. I believe in ID. My objection to ID is to teaching in Science class unless and until it is supported by enough evidence that the scientific community views it as a reasonable possibility. I don't think that will happen because I think God wants faith, not demands for proof.
152
posted on
05/03/2006 11:25:25 AM PDT
by
gondramB
(He who angers you, in part, controls you. But he may not enjoy what the rest of you does about it.)
To: Liberal Classic
153
posted on
05/03/2006 11:25:29 AM PDT
by
mlc9852
To: js1138
>>Would that Biblical military strategy include killing every man, woman, child, fetus, dog, cat and bunny rabbit among the enemy?<<
I'm sure what your point is. My point is that we would never ask the military to fight based on biblical strategy - we expect them to fight based on what they have learned that works in the modern world.
154
posted on
05/03/2006 11:27:17 AM PDT
by
gondramB
(He who angers you, in part, controls you. But he may not enjoy what the rest of you does about it.)
To: gondramB
Weapons change, but generals still study Biblical military strategy. That's one thing the Bible seem to have right.
155
posted on
05/03/2006 11:29:52 AM PDT
by
js1138
(somewhere, some time ago, something happened, but whatever it was, wasn't evolution)
To: metmom; mlc9852
Notice the evolutionists avoid answering the question of whether Jesus was lying when He said that God created Adam and Eve. Of course He wasn't lying. And just as obviously, He never said or explained the "how" of that creation. For that matter, the "how" of creation isn't anywhere in the Bible. The so-called Biblical literalists simply skip over that inconvenience (and usually fill in the "how" gap with a juvenile image of God as a cheap magician waving a magic wand and sprinkling fairy dust).
156
posted on
05/03/2006 11:30:02 AM PDT
by
atlaw
To: js1138
>>Weapons change, but generals still study Biblical military strategy. That's one thing the Bible seem to have right.<<
I don't really understand what you are talking about. I would have said you you had been condescending about the bible all morning and now you seem to suggest basing military strategy on it.
157
posted on
05/03/2006 11:33:52 AM PDT
by
gondramB
(He who angers you, in part, controls you. But he may not enjoy what the rest of you does about it.)
To: PatrickHenry
To: Junior; CarolinaGuitarman
We are talking about the FSM, right? Chicken Tetrazini.
His Noodliness comes in many shapes and flavors.
159
posted on
05/03/2006 11:38:47 AM PDT
by
dread78645
(Evolution. A dying theory since 1859.)
To: BibChr
As with liberalism in general, opponents of intelligent design wish to muzzle alternative presentation (as seen when conservative speakers are blacklisted or shouted down when they attempt to speak on University Campuses) .
If the man-from-monkey crowd are secure in the correctness of their theories, believing that in honest debate their view will prevail, then why are they attempting to "burn the books" of those with an alternative view?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 961-973 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