Interesting...have YOU clicked on your link....????
When I do all I get was my first comment...it didn’t show to what it responded to...at the time, I was responding to multiple posts to multiple threads...so that was my fault, I apologize.
....and now I don’t even recall reading that post of yours to js AT ALL.
in fact I’m beginning to think something’s going on here because with the myriad complaints about slow loading (in one case someone even saying on broadband...) and the holes and missing familiarity, I’m hopelessly lost now. And tired from ObamaNation fatigue just now.
But who knows. Now I’m certain I’ll never know.
As to your question...I think we both know radical Islam has little interest in genuine science. And I’m not sold even a person of no religious persuasion accepts that they have a handle on religion, with a “God” that recommends not only enemies, but even their own women submit to the will of “Islamic culture” or suffer decapitation or slit throats via “honor killings” and the like.
Seems like a very monstrous idea of a God to me!
More like worshipping Satan, but I digress.
I’ve got no problems with evolution being in text books etc. My argument all along has been no more censorship and allow evolution to stand on it’s own (often feeble) two feet to ANY competing “theory”.
Even though I believe in a Supreme God/Creator my two primary interests are indeed the science of origins as well as UN-American censorship to obtain “truth” and/or accepted theory for all students.
I don’t think ID opponents fully understand their problem with saying they want it to be about strictly the science and not injecting religion while at the same time the ONLY way they know to ensure their so-called objectivity and making sure it’s ‘strictly about the science’ is to enforce their worldview via censorship or suing opponents into silence.
Let the scientists debate and promote their theories over time and let the results come out in the wash in a TRUE strictly scientific arena, NOT decided by either religion OR lawsuits.
It’s a little disingenuous particulary when taken into consideration and within the context of the incessant anti-Christian agenda as seen in politics, education, law and everywhere else in public. There’s truly too much evidence to suggest we’re not engaged in a bit of a culture war right now. Towns being sued for their logos, santa and nativity bans, “Christmas” stricken from school calendars, and so on.
And since we have more believers in a God figure than not, I think this is going to eventually become a culture war between western civilization vs. most likely Islam.
I forget the numbers, but it’s in the billions of believers...Christians, as many if not more muslims, buddhists, hindus, etc. etc. etc.
And lest we forget, we didn’t develop into some kind of “Theocracy” that shut down and shut out evolution when kids were not only thinking openly in terms of a creator but actually indeed PRAYED to Him in school!
I have seen several offers by scientists to debate the ID 'scientists'. In every case the ID 'scientists have refused!. NO credible work has been performed by the ID 'scientists' and put up for peer review to the scientific community.
When I do all I get was my first comment...it didn’t show to what it responded to...at the time, I was responding to multiple posts to multiple threads...so that was my fault, I apologize.
....and now I don’t even recall reading that post of yours to js AT ALL.
I was referring to this link. The one that goes to Harun Yahya’s site.
Take a look at this FR thread. It’s about Harun Yaha specifically. I stand by my arguments there: IDers are so driven to inject ID into science, they'll approvingly quote radical Islamic propaganda if they think it advances their cause.
… in fact I’m beginning to think something’s going on here because with the myriad complaints about slow loading (in one case someone even saying on broadband...) and the holes and missing familiarity, I’m hopelessly lost now. And tired from ObamaNation fatigue just now.
It’s been slow and erratic.
As to your question...I think we both know radical Islam has little interest in genuine science. And I’m not sold even a person of no religious persuasion accepts that they have a handle on religion, with a “God” that recommends not only enemies, but even their own women submit to the will of “Islamic culture” or suffer decapitation or slit throats via “honor killings” and the like.
Seems like a very monstrous idea of a God to me!
More like worshipping Satan, but I digress.
I’ve got no problems with evolution being in text books etc. My argument all along has been no more censorship and allow evolution to stand on it’s own (often feeble) two feet to ANY competing “theory”.
There is no competing scientific theory. Evolution can be falsified, an element common to every scientific theory (if I observe X, then the theory is disproved). The famous Precambrian rabbit fossil would disprove evolution to the satisfaction of every scientist in the world. How do you go about disproving ID? What observation would result in ID proponents all agreeing that ID is wrong?
Even though I believe in a Supreme God/Creator my two primary interests are indeed the science of origins as well as UN-American censorship to obtain “truth” and/or accepted theory for all students.
“Origins” has nothing to do with evolution.
Limiting science education to science is not “censorship.” Otherwise, we’d have to teach astrology in science class. Behe, himself said that a definition of science expansive enough to allow ID would also allow astrology. If the definition of science that includes ID is so broad as to allow astrology to be taught as science, the definition is as worthless as the “science” it allows.
I don’t think ID opponents fully understand their problem with saying they want it to be about strictly the science and not injecting religion while at the same time the ONLY way they know to ensure their so-called objectivity and making sure it’s ‘strictly about the science’ is to enforce their worldview via censorship or suing opponents into silence.
It sounds like you think ID is a good idea because it has a religious component, which undercuts your argument that ID is science. And how should the scientific community respond when an individual or group wants to introduce manifest nonsense into the science curriculum? To defend ID as science you also have to defend astrology. That’s what Behe said, and he’s the academic force behind ID.
Let the scientists debate and promote their theories over time and let the results come out in the wash in a TRUE strictly scientific arena, NOT decided by either religion OR lawsuits.
That’s what happens every day in science. But that's not what we're talking about here, which is people trying to smuggle unscientific concepts into science class at the middle and high school level: this is manifestly NOT where scientific debate takes place. It appears deliberate: IDers want to expose children who haven’t got the background to evaluate a scientific theory -- who are attempting to learn what science is -- to a series of claims that are unscientific. We're supposed to pretend, I guess. But we're supposed to pretend they are science in the name of ... what? Fairness? That sounds like affirmative action science to me. The other pretext is that to do otherwise would be "censorship."
I'm in favor of that sort of censorship. Otherwise, you'd could have people trying to teach Abbott & Costello's "Seven times thirteen is twenty-eight" routine as mathematics. It's as close to math as ID is to science.
It is the job of the science community to prevent this.
It’s a little disingenuous particulary when taken into consideration and within the context of the incessant anti-Christian agenda as seen in politics, education, law and everywhere else in public. There’s truly too much evidence to suggest we’re not engaged in a bit of a culture war right now. Towns being sued for their logos, santa and nativity bans, “Christmas” stricken from school calendars, and so on.
You’re undercutting your own argument. If your objection to ID not being taught in science class is that there’s an anti-Christian agenda at work, it would seem that ID must be in and of itself Christian for your argument to make any sense.
And since we have more believers in a God figure than not, I think this is going to eventually become a culture war between western civilization vs. most likely Islam.
You’re assuming here that science is anti-Christian or anti-God. It’s not. The number of “believers in God” is irrelevant.
I forget the numbers, but it’s in the billions of believers...Christians, as many if not more muslims, buddhists, hindus, etc. etc. etc.
So … if there were more Muslims than Christians, would that make a difference?
And lest we forget, we didn’t develop into some kind of “Theocracy” that shut down and shut out evolution when kids were not only thinking openly in terms of a creator but actually indeed PRAYED to Him in school!
Irrelevant.