Posted on 10/10/2006 10:00:04 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Nice try, but articles from advocacy groups do not count. You don't trust PFLAG for unbiased research into homosexuality, do you? Or Greenpeace for information on ecology?
And as noted, AiG has already been caught in a lie that they refuse to correct, so linking to them specifically is highly suspect.
Real science requires peer review. Which of these articles has been submitted for such review?
what do you expect from people who fight tooth and nail against the idea of Cause And Effect reigning in science class?
I know, I know. But it's my stubborn streak - I have this foolish notion that words actually mean something. ;-)
See my post above, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1716922/posts?page=153#153
I'm just not able to jump through your hoops right now. The fact remains that there are many legitimate, scholarly, scientific ID theories out there. Let's put to rest the lie that IDers are stupid/misguided and haven't proposed any theories.
A common and legitimate question. If it's more than just a snide rhetorical question for you, the answers exist.
"Who designed the designer?" is a perfectly legitimate question. After all, the advocates of ID claim their "theory" is "scientific" so they can't invoke theological doctrines to dismiss the question, like theologians do about God -- who has existed eternally. Clearly, the designer -- if he's a scientific proposition -- should be the subject of investigation. But that's where the "science" of ID crashes and burns.
Since the school does not provide any area for discussion of ID it is the same as preventing discussion period.
What if the universe just so happens to be a self-generating, self-replicating design, completely independent of turtle causality?
Then nothing you say "counts," for you are an advocate of what you believe. By your standards, nothing anybody writes "counts," because if they are writing about it, they are advocating their theories.
You just don't want to hear that there are IDers with brains writing on this topic, do you? Threatens your anti-God we-came-from-mush theories, hm? Keep covering your eyes and ears and shouting down opposing voice, then. That'll get you far.
Yours is a common tactic: the old ad hominem attack....
"A common and legitimate question. If it's more than just a snide rhetorical question for you, the answers exist.
"
It is, indeed, a common question. However, like the question of what came before the Big Bang, it is essentially unanswerable. That is because we cannot have a sufficient vantage point from which to examine the question.
In the case of what was the state of things before the Big Bang, science simply says, "we do not know." In the case of one deity, Christianity simply says, "Oh, God existed always and is beyond considerations of time."
Other creation stories have different approaches, but the answer is pretty much the same. There is no way to study either question. We cannot see beyond our physical universe. What is beyond that point, if anything, is not observable.
Now, if you have some other answer, I'd welcome the opportunity to hear it.
You said "There is no morality in evolution", as if scientific theories were supposed to contain morality. I asked if you could name one theory that did (I'm still waiting for an answer on that one). It seems that you are holding the ToE to a different standard. It seems that the "preening intellectuals" aren't the ones for whom the ToE is special; that honor belongs to the anti-evos.
Nope.
Let's put to rest the lie that IDers are stupid/misguided and haven't proposed any theories.
No one said they haven't proposed theories. I'm pretty sure the consensus is that none of the theories they have proposed are valid.
You refer to it as a design, indicating intelligent life must have created it. Back to square one.
Is the term 'peer reviewed scientific journal' totally meaningless to you ? Honestly.
To those who are ignorant of the theory, yes, it seems it has. It's a real devil, id'nit?
mess with their funding and it is like the wrath of a politician about to loose an election.
To those who make lots of money demonizing science and exploiting ignorance, yes, it seems it is.
There you go. You put the period in the wrong place.
"First, fixity of species would be a poor design principle if God intended for the revelation to persist. God knew that sin would enter His creation, and He knew that the consequences of sin would bring drastic changes to the Creation. Thus, any organisms that were perfectly adapted to their environments and fixed in that adaptation could only die in the face of environmental changes brought on by sin. In order for God’s revelation in creation to persist, organisms must be adaptable to the inevitable environmental changes. Fixity of species would lead to catastrophic extinction and thus the elimination of the revelation in creation (apart from God intervening by re-creation, for which we find no biblical support)."
You wouldn't happen to have any citations to creationist research on the correlation between specific sins and specific environmental effects, would you?
Remember, Newton's Laws of motion were corrected by Einstein's Theory of Relativity
> Since the school does not provide any area for discussion of ID it is the same as preventing discussion period.
What, kids can't talk at recess? Lunch? After school?
Or are the children of Creationists *so* robotic that their entire ability to discuss a topic can be completely shut down if they are not supposed to talk about it in *one* class?
And where does the school provide an area of discussion for Holocaust denial? Apollo moon landing conspiracies? Raelian worldviews? 9-11 conspiracies? Alien abduction memory retrieval? Past live regressions? Seances? Fairies and elves? Jesus-was-a-Martian theories?
"Quick quiz: can you be an evolutionist and a Christian at the same time? Those who say "no" pretty much universally proclaim themselves Christians
Okay, I'll bite.
By definition, Christians beleive in the teachings of Christ. I'm not aware in any of His teachings where He refers to us as being evolved from another creature (i.e., apes). In Genesis it says that we were created from "the dust"....this, to me, means that our creation was instantanoeus, not evolved from a pre-existing living being.
With that said, I believe that we are all descendants from Adam & Eve. Not from apes. There maybe Christians out there who beleive otherwise, and that's fine...we ALL have freewill.
So, I would say that, yes, there are true Chistians who beleive in evolution...God's desire is the tranformation of your heart, not necessarily what our opinion is on evolution.
~Scott
> You wouldn't happen to have any citations to creationist research on the correlation between specific sins and specific environmental effects, would you?
Lust makes it rain. Gluttony makes it snow. Anger makes the sun explode.
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.