Posted on 01/07/2009 6:00:18 PM PST by Inappropriate Laughter
I recall that years ago a very accomplished mathematician on the forum (pro-evolution by the way) was explaining to other evolutionists in an abiogenesis debate that a single instance of non-life to life would not be sufficient. In essence he claimed that mathematically speaking, the phenomenon would have to be unique in time and widespread.
I recall thinking the reply was odd because it disputed the notion of a common ancestor, a major claim of evolution theory.
betty boop might recall the thread - she and I were engaged in many of the abiogenesis v biogenesis debates.
Behe accepts common descent and an ancient earth. This is important to know, since he is the only qualified expert witness who testifies in court for the ID position.
He accepts that most evolution, including the ape to human transition, could have arisen by stepwise mutation and selection. This seems to me like something that ID in the classroom advocates should be aware of. If they succeed in getting ID in the classroom, they will be endorsing an alternative to evolution that admits common descent and a multi-billion year old earth.
.
No it doesn't. The common ancestor breaks down at the microbe level. Single celled organisms participate in forms of gene sharing that make terms like species meaningless.
Regardless of what skeptics say, we are learning more and more about what is minimally necessary for life. We will probably never know the exact history of first life, but we will find possible scenarios.
And as we find possible scenarios we will be better equipped to calculate probabilities and to narrow down the necessary conditions.
In our homeschool, the same science that would likely be taught in atheist worldview school was taught in our home. The scaffolding was different.
At appropriate times the children were reminded that the universe, with all its creations, was the work of a rational God. Since He is a rational being, his creations are rational. It is possible and even our duty to discover the workings of our Creator. Doing so does 2 things:
1) It allows us a glimpse into the mind of God.
2) We can use that knowledge to serve our neighbor. ( Jesus said the second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself.)
So....Leaving this philosphy out of a science class is just as profoundly religiously non-neutral as including it. The **motivations** for studying science would be very different between the two ( godless or God-centered) and the political, cultural, and religious consequences for a our nation would be very different.
There is only **one** possible solution: Get government out of the K-12 business. We must stop trying to crush the freedom of conscience of our neighbor!
nd if one invoked God's blessing or whatever upon the science they do, would they not then defend their interpretation as if it were something of God's rather than just a working model that helped explain and predict the data?
Our family, being Christian believes in a **rational** and **true** God. If the findings aren't **rational** then we have likely made a mistake in our reasoning or scientific process. It would be time to start over looking for the truth.
In our Christian tradition we invoke God's blessing on everything we do. Even something a simple as making a meal, washing the clothes, or stacking the dishwasher are opportunities to thank God that we can bless and serve our families and friends.
We **absolutely** pray over our work. My patients may not have been aware of it but I prayed over **every** one of them. I can't tell you how many patient's told me how strange it was to them that they felt sooooo **comfortable** and safe in my office.
And what would incorporating God do to Science other than drive away any who didn't share your view of God?
It is not a conservative principle to **force* our opinions on other people. We respect the free will of others and we would like them to respect ours. That is why we advocate privatizing K-12 schooling.
cites?
“What’s the alternative to chance and selection?”
Ummm, let me see...oh yeah, design and creation.
Not sure where you’re going with the Behe stuff. I’m not a particularly big fan of generic ID teaching and am not well versed in it. I favor privatization of the school system or, at a minimum, a return to complete local control of schools so that these issues can be resolved closer to the parent level which is where they belong. Despite relatively recent court meddling to the contrary, there is nothing unconstitutional about allowing local schools to teach the bible if they choose to do so.
I am a strong believer in God and His word if you have any questions about that. And, for the record, I am not some pew potato that’s been taught silly things such as young Earth stuff or Adam and Eve being the very first humans. Serious bible students know those are man-made notions.
Of course not, if they're private schools.
“Of course not, if they’re private schools.”
Please cite where the constitution disallows it for public schools.
I assume you realize the First Amendment says no such thing. And, yes, I do understand that later, misguided, SC rulings have used the incorporation doctrine to wield unintended control over states.
Hi A-G! Unfortunately, I don't recall many details about that conversation. Wish I could: It's a most interesting insight!
[Still reading the Penrose, just completed the chapter on complex numbers. How thrilling to learn that the value of the imaginary number ii, instead of being a total abstraction (as I'd earlier supposed), actually has a real-number value; i.e., 0.207879576.... And he shows you how to derive it!]
Sorry I couldn't be more helpful re: that earlier discussion of abiogenesis. I do agree with that correspondent's statement, FWIW.
You can argue all day about how things should be, but reality says the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution means.
The only check on that is the president’s ability to appoint justices and the people’s ability to elect presidents.
Guess who will be appointing justices?
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
I favor privatization also, and I don't like meddling by federal judges either...but if you want Bible teaching in public schools, you are probably envisioning it's your Bible being taught in your way...but supposed you lived in a community where Catholics were in control, or Mormons, or Muslim immigrants have taken over, and it's the Qu’uran that's taught.
For what purpose, exactly?
Demanding that scientists incorporate God into their work would be like me demanding that you say “I bless you in Jesus’s name” aloud over your patients.
Curiosity, at least initially.
Where dis I say I prayed ***ALOUD**? Hm?
I would be impossible for you to find even **ONE** instance where I demand scientists incorporate God into their science. I have no power of their free will and they none over my mind.
I cannot defend an argument of your own creation.
Demanding power over another’s freedom of conscience is NOT a conservative value!
Religious conservatives would **welcome** privatization of K-12 schooling. Let these matters be decided privately. We must stop playing “King of the Freedom of Conscience Hill”!
Actually....I rarely discussed religion with my patient and neither did my husband with his colleagues. The following is the religious reason why:
1) My patients were paying me for my ***FULL***attention to their problem. To have taken time away from that would have been ***stealing**!
2) My husband agreed to work for employer and the agreement was that he do **chemistry**. Doing anything other than that is **stealing**.
However....There is plenty of opportunity before the beginning of the day, during breaks, lunch, and at home to pray for my patients in a quiet and reverent manner.
I am assuming that you have merely missed the mark and would **never** deliberately distort anything I have posted.
But I think what you said was in line with what I have been convinced of lately. I think when you say macro evolution, that equates to Darwinism.
In an ealrier thread I wrote...even Darwin himself admitted that without fossil records to bridge the evolution gaps(which dont exist), his theory was bunk. And Darwin never imagined the nano-tech like machinery of the DNA contained in cellular structure. The cell was just a black box to him from which life could spring from nothing. If Darwin knew what we know today about the intelligent design going on within DNA and the complex machinery required for something as simple as blood clotting, he would not come to the same conclusion he did.
But some scientists will never admit the answer lies in God. They would rather suppose it was placed here by some other worldly species...just pushing out the question they dont want to actually find the right answer to.
It sounds like this is more your area of expertise than mine. But I thought my post was supportive of your position. I would be interested in your thoughts.
You don’t reject evolution because bad things happen, do you?
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.