Posted on 07/11/2002 9:44:50 AM PDT by ZGuy
The prominent magazine Scientific American thought it had finally discredited its nemesis—creationism—with a feature article listing ‘15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense’ (July 2002). Supposedly these were the fifteen best arguments that evolutionists could use to discredit the Bible’s account of Creation. (National Geographic TV also devoted a lengthy report to the article.)
Within 72 hours, Dr Jonathan Sarfati—a resident scientist at Answers in Genesis–Australia—had written a comprehensive, point-by-point critique of the magazine article and posted it on this Web site.
So Scientific American thought it would try to silence AiG with the threat of a lawsuit.
In an e-mail to Dr Sarfati, Scientific American accused him and AiG of infringing their copyright by reproducing the text of their article and an illustration. They said they were prepared to ‘settle the matter amicably’ provided that AiG immediately remove Dr Sarfati’s article from its Web site.
AiG’s international copyright attorney, however, informed Scientific American that their accusations are groundless and that AiG would not be removing the article. Dr Sarfati’s article had used an illustration of a bacterial flagellum, but it was drawn by an AiG artist years ago. AiG had also used the text of SA’s article, but in a way that is permissible under ‘fair use’ of copyrighted materials for public commentary. (AiG presented the text of the SA article, with Dr Sarfati’s comments interspersed in a different color, to avoid any accusations of misquoting or misrepresenting the author.)
Why the heavy-handed tactics? If AiG’s responses were not valid, why would Scientific American even care whether they remained in the public arena? One can only presume that Scientific American (and National Geographic) had the ‘wind taken out of their sails.’ Dr Sarfati convincingly showed that they offered nothing new to the debate and they displayed a glaring ignorance of creationist arguments. Their legal maneuver appears to be an act of desperation. (AiG is still awaiting SA’s response to the decision not to pull the Web rebuttal.)
Um, why? If a creation event is not an element of your religion, then why hold the belief at all? What difference does it make to the way you lead your life? Or anything else?
I believe in the theory of Intelligent Design because it's obvious to me (I'm only speaking for myself) that someONE or someTHING designed everything. I see design in everything. From a leaf, to a flower, to a tree, to a human being, to whatever, it all seems to have been designed.
I only differ with the creationists in that I don't know who the designer was, or how they did it. The creationists believe it is the God of the Bible; I don't. I think it is an unknown or unknowable entity (or entities).
Fine, so you have lost and are going into character assassination mode. What else is new?
"wildly elliptical" planetary orbits
"1720"
placemarker
Learned to count to two yet?
This is an attempt to get you to explain why you refuse to admit you are wrong about PatrickHenry's being suspended more than once. Are you aware that A + B does not equal 2A when A does not equal B?
This is an attempt to get you to realize that one suspension of PatrickHenry, plus one suspension of VadeRetro does not equal two suspensions of PatrickHenry.
Have you decided which religion will control scientific inquiry?
You like to mock Darwin because the theory isn't "spiritual," remember? Just like astrophysics, gravity, and quantum mechanics aren't spiritual. You've ignored thi question ever since: Which religion will control science, and will science then vary from country to country, according to which religion is running things?
Are you still doing your mind-reading act?
In the space of one paragraph, you managed to accuse me of "putting words into Darwin's mouth," and to reveal that you actually know what Darwin was thinking when he wrote his theory. I'll ask another question again: I'm thinking of a number from one to ten -- what is it?
You have repeatedly ignored these points -- are you a dishonest LIAR???
Help your... evo Right Wing whack Professor---out!
Is this the evo infallibility---final coming.... professor CLEO---of the tribe of taliban/evozionists?
Going to be in the everglades---ozarks?
Famous word of RW-W-professor! Follows!!
In the preceding text, the Pontiff referred to a multiplicity of theories of evolution. In the section you quote, he discusses that subset of such theories which "regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter".
Got it now, or would you prefer a translation into monosyllables?
209 posted on 7/11/02 2:02 PM Pacific by Right Wing Professor
Wow...even quotation marks---authentic evo swill!
Even willing to translate the swill in monosyllables...how classy!
No evidence will suffice to cure the evo brain infected diseased...you should pray/beg for God's grace/intervention---miracles!
As a result, the theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter(where you put a period in place of a comma...it keeps going), are incompatible with the truth about man. They are therefore unable to serve as the basis for the dignity of the human person.
oops...caught!
If you say so. I just don't see the point. However, and again, how does that belief change your life in any way?
Hummmm? What are you talking about? DYODR.
I have somewhat frequently in recent months run into Evolutionists who insisted that since the Pope has no problem with Evolution, why should I? Noting fChristian's obvious displeasure with your position on this, I went back and found your original post, which appears above. Contrasting it to the Pope's 1996 Magisterium, as fChristian has done and I now do again below, it is indeed clear that you have joined the ranks of those Evols who will misrepresent the position of the Catholic Church on this most fundamental of issues. There is indeed a conflict between any "theory of evolution" that assumes or concludes that there is only material and there is no God, a la Dawkins and Gould, and the position of the Catholic Church.
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
And you have the temerity to suggest that I am a liar?
Just HOW do you get an ENTIRE population to change?
Isn't it hard enough to get ONE creature to have a slight difference?
Don’t you understand? If you pick up a newspaper and do not conclude that the ink formed words by chemical bonding alone – you are a creationist!
No wait. If you conclude that the complex information contained in DNA was designed and contains complex information – you are a creationist.
Oops… I mean, that if you determine that something was intelligently designed and man did not do it – you are a creationist!
Umm… I mean if you think that there is intelligence causing, or prior to man’s intelligence – you are a creationist!
OK. What I am trying to say is that if you believe a cause must always occur before an effect – you are a creationist!
Now surely you are not so stupid as to think that there was intelligence that caused man’s intelligence. Intelligent design comes only from man and biological design comes from natural selection. Fortunately we are intelligent enough to figure this out… at least some of us.
(Natural selection sarcasm mode, i.e.… not sarcasm via intelligent design)
Consider any of the common notions of early human existence which are based more or less on evolutionary principles. One way or other, you've got humans living in little bands in caves, out on the savanna, on the edge of the forest or somewhere or other without a whole lot of distance from wild animals including predators. Aside from everything else which is wrong with the picture, consider prey animals which actually DO live under such circumstances: are there any such, whose young do not have the good sense not to shreak their heads off every time something isn't 101% to their liking? What would happen to a small band of humans living in the wild the first time some human infant threw some temper tantrum? Are all the lions, dire-wolves, sabre-tooth cats etc. etc. gonna think "Well, he's young, he probably just doesn't know any better"??
Why do people even care about humanity if the mechanism which created it doesn’t care at all, that being nature.
Is it just procreation for procreation? Circular reasoning for circular reasoning? Incomplete questions, sentences, and answers because – hey, who cares?
Our intellect is just a temporary freak of nature that is part of the environment where these animals exist. We are no different than wind, rain, and earthquakes.
There is more to our lives than this!
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.