Posted on 05/03/2006 8:23:06 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
And a very instructive comparison to be made with 'anti-Darwin' texts intended for Biology classes can be found here
Uh, there's more to reality besides science. Science is limited. God is bigger than science.
Can you measure a soul?
Really?? I love this! I was philosophical? Where was that, pray tell? Was it the part where I said scienctific explanations do not depend on "supernatural" phenomena? Oh I suppose what I claimed is a "branch" of philosophy. That branch is known as "logic". Let's play with Logic a bit shall we?
I used to write software for forensic scientists and I know a little bit of the trade. Now... do you think that if scientists answered questions based on the "supernatural" instead of the evidence a jury could take him/her seriuously? Let's look at an example:
Lawyer: "His DNA was on her Dress? Couldn't there be a 'supernatural' explanation"?
Scientist:"Well gee... since scientific answers are now based on the supernatural and unknown intelligence I suppose it could have."
Judge and Jury: "Mr. Rapist... you are free..."
Well thankfully scientists don't do such things... but for some reason YOU want to. See science is based on evidence... that is not so much philosophical as it is LOGICAL! Oh... I am sorry... sometimes I scream the obvious.
And may I ask what makes intelligent design "supernatural?"
Intelligent Design says what? Go to the BIG PROPONENT of ID: the Discovery Institute web site and they say that an "unknown intelligence made life". They don't say God... as a matter of fact the founder of the Discovery Institute recently wrote an article saying "Oh no we don't mean God, but we do mean some form of unknown, invisible, intelligence". Hmmmm.... now that is funny... IF that is not "supernatural" then what is my friend???
Are you spooked by orgnized matter that peforms specific functions? Intelligent design is the stuff of science. Without it nothing would be observable or quantifiable, let alone intelligible.
Oh... well here I stop having fun because none of this makes a bit of sense. How about doing me a favor. Show me what evidence there is for ID and I will debate it with you. Otherwise your theory doesn't really hold up to any scientific scrutiny does it? It is on par with the Tom Cruise belief of Xenu, intergalactic ruler of the Universe.
That's silly. You're essentially saying, unless you accept MY theory of truth, you can make no truth claims period.
Here, for instance, is a different truth theory: Truth is correspondence with reality. A claim is true if it correspondents to reality, and false if does not.
Under this theory truth is RELATIVE rather than absolute. But since it is relative to reality, and we are able to consult reality by tests and observation, truth claims are testable. This is far superior to your theory, where truth is "absolute" and therefore not testable.
How is anyone actually able to decide what exactly it was that He said? I've heard of this sort of thing before, that some experts or scholars determined that what is attributed to Jesus was not what He really said but who's to make that decision and on what basis? Since there are obviously no eyewitnesses left, I can't see how someone could make that determination.
Would it be wrong of me to assume that would also be the rate of schizophrenia among biologists as well?
I remember that case, it got a lot of coverage over here. Except, wasn't it a "Mr. Clinton" whose DNA was found on the dress? :-)
Congratulations on your new career as an author of philosophical arguments, and an evader of questions, such as "What makes intelligent design inherently supernatural?"
The ball's in your court on this one, my friend! :-)
If you can get the scientific community, not to mention the ACLU and the federal courts, to accept a public school science book that clearly explains, in plain English, that science can neither confirm nor deny God's existence, you'll win my applause.
But Judge Jones may have given us an even simpler proposition. In his ruling, he wrote (in reference to evolution critics):
#####“Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, plaintiff’s scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.”#####
So how about quoting the judge verbatim? Prior to learning about evolution, the kids could be told that the theory "in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator". Do you think that would be acceptible? Given the Cobb County sticker case, something tells me that it wouldn't be.
The post essentially said no such thing. It made no reference to the personal belief of the poster, but referenced truth as an absolute, which, by nature, would not be subject to the poster's whims, but is an objective ideal. If there is no such ideal, then nothing can be held to any objective standard. Truth is that which is in accord with objective reality. In that regard we all fall short in terms of comprehension.
Have a good evening.
Which God. Ganesh? Shiva? Allah?
Hello Libertarian! Good to hear from you as always! I'm about debated-out for the day, so you get the last word!
We'll meet again, I'm sure!
Well, that's your opinion, and I've given mine. I appreciate your willingness to debate in good character!
Can you or do you read past the first sentence? I did answer your question go back and re-read it or here... I will make it easy on you:
And may I ask what makes intelligent design "supernatural?"
Intelligent Design says what? Go to the BIG PROPONENT of ID: the Discovery Institute web site and they say that an "unknown intelligence made life". They don't say God... as a matter of fact the founder of the Discovery Institute recently wrote an article saying "Oh no we don't mean God, but we do mean some form of unknown, invisible, intelligence". Hmmmm.... now that is funny... IF that is not "supernatural" then what is my friend???
Next time you accuse anyone, especially ME of evading a question you BETTER be right. I don't take kindly to such inaccurate accusations.
"sigh" :-)
Okay, substitute deity or deities for God.
You do realize that you're making my point in my discussion with stands2reason? :-)
So let's go a step further. Why only deities? Fairies, ogres, sprites, djinns, banshees....
"How is anyone actually able to decide what exactly it was that He said?"
They guess.
"Since there are obviously no eyewitnesses left, I can't see how someone could make that determination."
Exactly.
I have no idea what that post was about or how it fit into the discussion.
Come on... I promise not to tease you about not reading my whole post... I forgive you for you accusation...
"...It seems outside of the ID realm, does it not? Now... I can speculate but I am curious what others think. Are the politicians we appointed trying to slowly tear down science?"
Not outside ID at all, since ID is simply creationism.
The cynics who promulgate this stuff think they can just take away the para\ts of science they don't like, but still get the benefits that they do.
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.