Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The challenge to Darwin’s theory of evolution – Part 3
World Peace Herald ^ | October 16, 2006 | Sekai Nippo

Posted on 10/16/2006 8:10:58 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger

TOKYO -- To understand ID theory, we have to review Darwinism, and its founder.

English naturalist Charles Robert Darwin (1809-1882) conducted a scientific survey while aboard the British warship HMS Beagle from 1831 to 1836. Based on his encounter with diverse forms of life on the Galapagos Islands off Ecuador, Darwin wrote “The Origin of Species” in 1859. The central focus of the book was the theory of natural selection.

The natural selection theory is remarkably simple. It proposes that individual organisms gradually mutate and that those with favorable traits for adaptation are more likely to survive. It claims that the organisms evolved transcendent of species by the repetition of mutation and natural selection.

According to Darwin, “Natural selection acts only by the preservation and accumulation of small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being; and as modern geology has almost banished such views as the excavation of a great valley by a single diluvial wave, so will natural selection banish the belief of the continued creation of new organic beings, or of any great and sudden modification in their structure.” (Origin of Species)

Mutation and natural selection are both gradual processes. Today researchers have made advances in population genetics, biochemistry, and neo-Darwinism (modern evolutionary synthesis) that explain DNA mutations which Darwin referred to as random. However, the basic concept is no different from the one established by Darwin.

Darwinism claims that all evolution of life can be explained by accidental mutation and natural selection, and implies that evolution has no purpose. It claims that humans are an extension of apes, and that human intelligence and language ability are accidentally acquired abilities.

Importantly, ID theory does not question the history of evolution as a process of life becoming more complex and advanced. Rather, it raises the question of why it evolved. It claims that the concept of an intelligent designer’s involvement can better explain the evolution of complex life forms.

A drastic change of world view

The legacy of Darwin is not limited to the interpretation of evolution. “Great scientists before Darwin, including Newton, considered that the universe and life are designed in some way,” (Dr. Paul Nelson), but the birth of Darwinism drastically changed the world view and value system of the Western world.

Darwinism came to be considered a truth rather than a hypothesis. Naturalism, which claims that the universe and life can be explained by materialistic factors alone, (Materialism and Darwinism can be considered forms of naturalism) became the mainstream thought and teaching around the world.

On the other hand, ID theory emerges as a new paradigm to interpret complex life, fossils and facts observed in the universe, challenging science’s old materialistic framework that has been sustained for almost 150 years since Darwin’s “Origin of Species.”

For this series of articles, Sekai Nippo interviewed leading scientists of the ID movement. These scientists include Stephen Meyer, director and senior fellow of the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute, Jonathan Wells, senior fellow of CSC, Scott Minnich, associate professor of microbiology at the University of Idaho, senior fellow at CSC, Michael Behe, professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, and Guillermo Gonzalez, assistant professor of astronomy at Iowa State University.

These scientists embrace different faiths, and their articles do not state the identify of the designer. They are engaged in a scientific debate and they think it is not the role of science to answer who the designer is.

Later in this series, we will introduce the core concepts of ID theory, irreducible complexity in the area of biochemistry, specified complexity in the area of logics, and the correlation between habitability and measurability in the area of cosmology and astronomy.

Cambrian fossils are a major issue for Darwinism. ID advocates stress that they prove the role of a designer.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: crevo; crevolist; evolution; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-236 next last
To: orionblamblam

Oranguatans are great apes.


51 posted on 10/16/2006 9:45:48 AM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

> Why do you all keep saying ID is the same as creationism?

ID is a subset of creationism, just as "trout" is a subset of "fish." All trout are fish, not all fish are trout... all IDers are creationists, not all creationists are IDers.


52 posted on 10/16/2006 9:46:18 AM PDT by orionblamblam (Prayers... give people the feeling they're doing something without making any real effort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla

So are gorillas, chimps and humans. One of the great ape species can pray. Which do you think it is?


53 posted on 10/16/2006 9:47:25 AM PDT by orionblamblam (Prayers... give people the feeling they're doing something without making any real effort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
One of the great ape species can pray. Which do you think it is?

Gotcha now. Slow on the uptake this morning.

54 posted on 10/16/2006 9:48:50 AM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
Can you spot the difference?

Tails.

55 posted on 10/16/2006 9:49:19 AM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam

Still, I like the idea of praying orangutans.


56 posted on 10/16/2006 9:49:24 AM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam; metmom; Mamzelle; RunningWolf; Alamo-Girl

An unspiritual human won't pray, but will rely on himself and the great god, Reason. Only a spiritual human will pray and he is not a "great ape", but a man made in the likeness of his creator, God.


57 posted on 10/16/2006 9:52:46 AM PDT by 1000 silverlings (why is it so difficult to understand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger; RightWingNilla
Really! Okay, so then. Why do you all keep saying ID is the same as creationism? (Note that creationism is the only thing I endorse...)

You really need to do more research.

ID is not compatible with YEC, but it is a form of creationism.

It is a stealth attempt to get creationism in some form in the schools. Google "Wedge Document", read it and tell me what you think.

I wish more creationists would actually take the time to learn what ID is. ID assumes that Darwin is right.

ID just grafts a vague and undefined "designer" (which they internally agree is the Christian God, but don't actually admit that publicly, see the Wedge Document) as a guiding force influencing Darwinian evolution. That's when it ceases to be science.

58 posted on 10/16/2006 9:52:54 AM PDT by highball (Proud to announce the birth of little Highball, Junior - Feb. 7, 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings

How do you know that orangutans never pray?


59 posted on 10/16/2006 9:55:57 AM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Shazam.


60 posted on 10/16/2006 9:57:01 AM PDT by orionblamblam (Prayers... give people the feeling they're doing something without making any real effort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: highball
ID assumes that Darwin is right.

Exactamundo.

ID is like "Darwin-lite", whereupon some unspecified designer (*snicker*) seeded planet Earth with single celled critters all pre-equipped with flagella and whatnot.

ID should only appeal to intellectually lazy biochemists.

61 posted on 10/16/2006 9:58:11 AM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings

> the great god, Reason.

Curious. The only people I've ever seen refer to Reason (and also Science and Logic) as a "god" are people who claim to be monotheists.

So are you a polytheist?

> Only a spiritual human will pray and he is not a "great ape",

So he's a monkey? Does this "spiritual human" have a prehensile tail?

> a man made in the likeness of his creator, God.

Witha lot of the *exact* same genetic flaws - caused by recognizable implants of retro-virus DNA - as chimpanzees. So, does this "God" person have the same retro-virus alien DNA inserted into his gene code?


62 posted on 10/16/2006 10:00:30 AM PDT by orionblamblam (Prayers... give people the feeling they're doing something without making any real effort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam; metmom; RunningWolf; Dr. Eckleburg; Mamzelle; Alamo-Girl

Such a gordian knot your post is. Man as a spiritual being is not an ape. Spirit is born of God, and this we know, because the bible tells us so.


63 posted on 10/16/2006 10:07:42 AM PDT by 1000 silverlings (why is it so difficult to understand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
describe mathematicaly and objectively what the actual effort is involved in prayer

Can you do the same with the effort involved in the many other forms of thought? How do you measure the effort which resulted in E=mc2? You are confirming my observation that you have a very limited concept or understanding of prayer. You might google that term and do a little research.

and what the relationship between input and output can be expected to be.

There have been countless healings based upon prayer throughout history. They have been documented - even in medical journals. Another opportunity for a google search. You will more likely believe if you do the research rather than me doing the "real effort". But the most important proof is how prayer works in your own life. I can attest that it works in all manner of circumstances for all manner of challenges. Check my bio for an idea of where that has been true.

64 posted on 10/16/2006 10:08:33 AM PDT by Semper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger; RightWingNilla; orionblamblam; highball
Really! Okay, so then. Why do you all keep saying ID is the same as creationism? (Note that creationism is the only thing I endorse...)

Dave, I have posted the following material to you numerous times before, include for example here *and* here. Could you please explain why you are now pretending that you're not aware of the reasons we say that ID is creationism? Or like all too many anti-evolutionists, do you suffer from some tragic form of disorder which induces selective amnesia concerning any inconvenient facts you'd prefer not to have to face?

Confusion at the Times Higher Education Supplement: Intelligent Design Theory is NOT Creationism

Yeah, sure, pull the other leg now. Try saying something insulting about the alleged designer and see how fast the "ID" folks start whining about you "attacking God" or "attacking religion"...

"Intelligent Design" is just a Trojan horse for creationism. Read the transcripts of the Dover _Kitzmiller_ trial for more than ample evidence on that score.

Also see:

ARE THERE ANY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND CREATIONISM?

"Intelligent Design": Religion Masquerading as Science

The "New" Creationism

Intelligent Design: The New Stealth Creationism

The Bait and Switch of "Intelligent Design": Religion Masquerading as Science

Intentional Deception: Intelligent Design Creationism

Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design

Barbara Forrest's Expert Witness Report & Trial Transcripts, Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District

The "Intelligent Design" book "Of Pandas and People" started out as a book on "creationism" (explicitly), then suddenly "morphed" into a book on "intelligent design" (via the authors swapping the labels, but NOT the text or even the definition of "creationism"-oops-we-meant-ID) when a court case struck down "scientific creationism" from the classroom:

In their unguarded moments, the leaders of the "ID" movement even admit it flat out:

And the "ID is


65 posted on 10/16/2006 10:08:42 AM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings

"Only a spiritual human will pray and he is not a "great ape", but a man made in the likeness of his creator, God."

Exactly.


66 posted on 10/16/2006 10:10:11 AM PDT by scottdeus12 (Jesus is real, whether you believe in Him or not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Tulane
"... is absurd."

You want absurd?

The intricate, value-laden processes called "human conscience," aesthetic discernment and codes of morality -- all thought up by the inanimate spin-offs of hygrogen atoms in collision and all in response to "natural law," also thought up by inanimate molecules, creating and directing themselves.

That's not just absurd. It's insane. It's also what evolutionists believe.

67 posted on 10/16/2006 10:12:05 AM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tulane
Can you see what I'm getting at in post 67, Tulane?

Atoms existing before they existed and instructing themselves in what they do not and cannot know.

This is what passes for "science."

68 posted on 10/16/2006 10:17:22 AM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cliff630

Cliff:

I don't disagree with anything you write. My point is this: our belief in God, at the present moment cannot be proved via the scientific method, nor can the existence of a designer. ID has no place in a SCIENCE class. Period.


69 posted on 10/16/2006 10:18:07 AM PDT by Tulane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Regarding post #48:

THAT is what I was after. You presented an argument based upon much more than just the source of the opinion.

I agree with much of what you have expressed but I will continue to look for Truth everywhere.


70 posted on 10/16/2006 10:21:28 AM PDT by Semper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte

No sir:

It is not what they "believe." It is what they have observed through scientific observation. It does not disprove a higher power, nor does it prove one. It is simply scientific method in action.

Religion has no place in a science classroom, since Science deals with the world of fact and observation, whereas Religion deals with belief and faith in what cannot be observed.


71 posted on 10/16/2006 10:21:55 AM PDT by Tulane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
I'm sorry, but you've exceeded the once daily limit on the word "coprolite." Please wait a day before using it again

No, I don't think so....I defer to having not succumbed to using the word before today all the way back to my inception here at FR back in 2000 and I reserve the right to back dibs.

72 posted on 10/16/2006 10:24:11 AM PDT by Vaquero ("An armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tulane
"... religion has no place in a science classroom."

I was referring to logic, not religion. Post 67/68, point out the logical impoverishment at the foundation of evolutionary theory.

Animism, to which evolutionists obviously subscribe, is the superstition that inanimate object have consciousness, are capable of the rationality inherent in the design of organized systems.

As I said -- absurd.

73 posted on 10/16/2006 10:26:10 AM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings

> Man as a spiritual being is not an ape.

Sorry, wrong. Man is a "great ape," like it or not. We are also mammals. Hopefully that's not too much of an earth-shattering revelation for you.


74 posted on 10/16/2006 10:26:12 AM PDT by orionblamblam (Prayers... give people the feeling they're doing something without making any real effort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Semper

> Can you do the same with the effort involved in the many other forms of thought?

With some *actual* effort, yes. By measuring brainwaves and the like through technical means. Can you do the same via prayer?

> There have been countless healings based upon prayer throughout history.

*Really.* There have been innumerably more healings that occured due to the fac ttha tthe human body is a self-repairing mechanism. There have been a vast number of healings due to the action of medical technology.

> They have been documented - even in medical journals.

*Really.* There have been a few statistical studies which show that those being prayed for *sometimes* ahve a higher statistical likelihood of healing... but there have been other studies that show no such relationship, and that if those being prayed for *know* they're being prayed for, their chances are *worse.*

Of course, whenever a study comes out showing that prayer has no measurable value, the Prayer Squad comes out and loudly brays that prayer cannot be studied scientifically. But these same yahoos tend to not say the same thing when someone produces a study showing some value for prayer. Odd, that.

> But the most important proof is how prayer works in your own life.

Worst for of science imaginable.


75 posted on 10/16/2006 10:31:20 AM PDT by orionblamblam (Prayers... give people the feeling they're doing something without making any real effort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte

Animism, to which evolutionists obviously subscribe, is the superstition that inanimate object have consciousness, are capable of the rationality inherent in the design of organized systems.

________________________________________________

I don't think evolutionists "subscribe" to animism. They have a scientific theory of how species have developed and evolved (changed, if you will) over millions of years, based on their observation of archeological, physiological and other data.


76 posted on 10/16/2006 10:31:20 AM PDT by Tulane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte

> Animism, to which evolutionists obviously subscribe...

Ah. A lie. I'm shocked, SHOCKED to find that anti-science types resort to such.


77 posted on 10/16/2006 10:33:15 AM PDT by orionblamblam (Prayers... give people the feeling they're doing something without making any real effort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam

"> Man as a spiritual being is not an ape.

Sorry, wrong. Man is a "great ape," like it or not. We are also mammals. Hopefully that's not too much of an earth-shattering revelation for you."

Classic....Bananas anyone?


78 posted on 10/16/2006 10:35:53 AM PDT by scottdeus12 (Jesus is real, whether you believe in Him or not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Tulane; metmom; RunningWolf; Alamo-Girl; DaveLoneRanger; Dr. Eckleburg; Mamzelle
Religion has no place in a science classroom,

No fundamentalist is arguing this. When I went to high school we spent many happy hours doing research experiments in class. We were taught strict protocol on how to carry out the experiment and to observe and record the results.

We had dozens of other classes too and religion was absent from all of them. To this day I have no idea what religion any of my classmates even were and are.

However, like it or not, there is an agenda behind this theory of evolution, the like which was never seen in our schools until recently.

Just from the posts here on FR it is obvious that it is an emotionally charged source of contention, and that is because it is a concept that is the antithesis of our JudeoChristian culture and our way of life. If it was science, and provable, there would be no refuting it. As such, I have no problem with teaching it in Universities along with other philosophy, but it has no business being taught in elementary or high school.

79 posted on 10/16/2006 10:36:25 AM PDT by 1000 silverlings (why is it so difficult to understand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan; DaveLoneRanger
I think the Grand Master's gang is onto "Moonie" talking points. They think if they say "Moonie" every other sentence, somehow that's scoring--trying to smear by association.

I'd listened to G Gordon Liddy (back when conservatives had practically nothing in the way of media) read every day from Pruden and Greenberg and Gertz for quite a few years before I ever knew what a Moonie was. Next we'll be Hare Krishnas if we like the color orange.

80 posted on 10/16/2006 10:36:40 AM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tulane
"... Science deals with the world of fact and observation, whereas Religion deals with belief and faith in what cannot be observed."

Sub-atomic particles have not been observed either. And yet they are rightly included in the literature of science. Their existence is posited from consistent observation of effects, just as conscious purpose is inferred from consistent observation of effects that could only be the result of a purposeful plan rather than randomity, accident, chance.

81 posted on 10/16/2006 10:41:40 AM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings

Indeed. Thanks for the ping!


82 posted on 10/16/2006 10:45:03 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Semper; orionblamblam
Does "real effort" exclude mental effort? Try this mental exercise: See if you can conceive of something/anything beyond your limited awareness based upon the physical senses and grossly incomplete scientific information.

Okay, done:

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us Image Hosted by ImageShack.us Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

83 posted on 10/16/2006 10:46:24 AM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
"Ah. A lie [evolutionists' implicit belief in animism]."

If you believe natural law comes into existence through the sole agency of inanimate objects, such as free floating atoms, then you believe not only in animism (objects ability to instruct themselves) but also deny the best predictions of probability theory and information theory.

84 posted on 10/16/2006 10:51:57 AM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings
it is a concept that is the antithesis of our JudeoChristian culture and our way of life.

Amen to your righteous posts, 1001 silverlings.

"It is exceedingly dangerous to confuse the orthodox concept of the incomprehensibility of God with the ultimate mysteriousness of the universe as held by modern thought. Modern thought in general, and modern logic in particular, holds . . . that God is, at most, an aspect of Reality as a whole. Hence, God is himself surrounded by darkness or mystery, just as man is surrounded by darkness or mystery. In other words, modern thought believes in an ultimate irrationalism, while Christianity believes in an ultimate rationality. It is difficult to think of two types of thought that are more radically opposed to one another. It is the most fundamental antithesis conceivable in the field of knowledge. . . . The very foundation of all Christian theology is removed if the concept of the ultimate rationality of God be given up." -- Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1995), p. 13

"A scientific method not based on the presupposition of the truth of the Christian story is like an effort to string an infinite number of beads, no two of which have holes in them, by means of a string of infinite length, neither end of which can be found." -- The Protestant Doctrine of Scripture (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1968), p. 2.

85 posted on 10/16/2006 10:52:09 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
I doubt we have reached the point of determining productive mental effort "By measuring brainwaves and the like". I'll bet there is plenty of brainwave activity in someone watching a close football game.

There have been a few statistical studies which show that those being prayed for *sometimes* ahve a higher statistical likelihood of healing...

Try checking for cases where medical care was given up (medically incurable situation) and then were healed by prayer. They are out there - just look.

It has been enjoyable exchanging ideas with you - mainly because I felt like expressing the ideas. But, it appears as though it is a waste of time to debate someone who has not figured out the spell check option or is too lazy to use it.

86 posted on 10/16/2006 10:53:44 AM PDT by Semper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
"A scientific method not based on the presupposition of the truth of the Christian story is like an effort to string an infinite number of beads, no two of which have holes in them, by means of a string of infinite length, neither end of which can be found." -- The Protestant Doctrine of Scripture (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1968), p. 2.

Not only false but ridiculous as well.

The scientific method cannot be limited in advance to verifying "the truth of the Christian story" or any other dogma, or it is no longer the scientific method.

These folks are doing apologetics, not science.

87 posted on 10/16/2006 10:59:10 AM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings
"Religion has no place in a science classroom"

No fundamentalist is arguing this.

Ah, but the Discovery Institute is. ID is a stealth attempt to get religion in science classes. They would never admit it in public, but when they're talking amonst themselves the candor is amazing, as evidenced by their own internal documents.

However, like it or not, there is an agenda behind this theory of evolution

That can't go unchallenged. No, there is not. The only "agenda behind this theory of evolution" is the advancement of knowledge.

There is no anti-God agenda, as evidenced by the simple fact that a majority of scientists are Christians, just like the majority of the rest of the United States. The notion is absurd on its face.

it is a concept that is the antithesis of our JudeoChristian culture and our way of life

If you had limited it just to being an "antithesis of our JudeoChristian culture," I would have pointed you to the writings of Pope John Paul II, who declared that it isn't (and who ought to know). But the rest of the sentence intriques me.

How on Earth could scientific knowledge be antithetical to "our way of life"?

88 posted on 10/16/2006 10:59:20 AM PDT by highball (Proud to announce the birth of little Highball, Junior - Feb. 7, 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte

"Animism, to which evolutionists obviously subscribe..."




I know of no scientists who work in the evolutionary fields who are animists. I know Christians, Jews, and atheists who work in that field, but no a single animist.

If you can find a scientist working in any field related to evolutionary theory who will claim animism, I would be very interested in hearing about that person.


89 posted on 10/16/2006 11:02:22 AM PDT by MineralMan (Non-evangelical Atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: scottdeus12

"Classic....Bananas anyone?
"

Every primate knows how to peel a banana, even those who do not have bananas in their natural environment. Hand a banana to any adult or older juvenile primate, and it will peel it and eat it...even if it has never seen one before.

Humans are no different.


90 posted on 10/16/2006 11:04:37 AM PDT by MineralMan (Non-evangelical Atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle; MineralMan
I think the Grand Master's gang is onto "Moonie" talking points.

Say what? It's the *anti*evolutionists who seem to be addicted to posting goofy and incorrect material from the Moonies, parroting the Moonie talking points.

91 posted on 10/16/2006 11:05:25 AM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte

But you can observe and test one, but not the other. That's what science is about...


92 posted on 10/16/2006 11:05:27 AM PDT by Tulane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

"I think the Grand Master's gang is onto "Moonie" talking points. They think if they say "Moonie" every other sentence, somehow that's scoring--trying to smear by association."




If someone tells you he is a Communist, I have no doubt that you will regard his further statements with some skepticism. I have the same attitude toward Moonies. Sometimes, association is a reasonable way to detect nonsense.


93 posted on 10/16/2006 11:05:59 AM PDT by MineralMan (Non-evangelical Atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
The scientific method cannot be limited in advance to verifying "the truth of the Christian story"

Well it can be, but that was called the Dark Ages.

94 posted on 10/16/2006 11:06:24 AM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Tulane
"It is not the role of science to prove or disprove whether a designer exists. Science tests educated guesses through observation.

To introduce ID in a science class is absurd (I understand the article was not doing this).

Indeed, it is quite *impossible* to prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural creator and it is quite absurd to introduce *any* 'designer' (including a naturalistic non-teleological one) into the classroom purely through axiom and definition. Evos basically insist that they get to have their cake and eat it too... by definition.

Scientists are not honest enough to admit that they merely eliminate any ideology that competes with their personal favorite through the use of the 'naturalistic' axiom and the 'naturalistic explanation only' as acceptable definition.

Unfortunately, such is the state of 'science' today.

95 posted on 10/16/2006 11:07:45 AM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; atomsandevil
"Are you a moonie?" Again, "Are you a moonie?" from the newest evo persona, following with some inquisitorial demands and boorish questions. Tell Grand Master that he needs a new bag to carry.
96 posted on 10/16/2006 11:10:31 AM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte

"If you believe natural law comes into existence through the sole agency of inanimate objects, such as free floating atoms, then you believe not only in animism (objects ability to instruct themselves) but also deny the best predictions of probability theory and information theory."




That is incorrect. For example, if you introduce oxygen into a vessel containing hydrogen, the two will simply join to make water, with the release of heat.

Both are inanimate, and are merely combining because there is no alternative to their combination.

You err here in assuming that scientists attribute will to inanimate objects. They do not. Inanimate objects obey natural laws in all cases.

You are confusing the laws of nature with will. There is no will in inanimate objects. Living things, on the other hand, may have will and may do things based on other things. Inanimate objects may not behave other than in ways that match with the laws of nature. They have no will.


97 posted on 10/16/2006 11:10:37 AM PDT by MineralMan (Non-evangelical Atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Evos basically insist that they get to have their cake and eat it too... by definition.

It isn't the fault of scientists that words mean things.

98 posted on 10/16/2006 11:13:06 AM PDT by highball (Proud to announce the birth of little Highball, Junior - Feb. 7, 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

""A scientific method not based on the presupposition of the truth of the Christian story is like an effort to string an infinite number of beads, no two of which have holes in them, by means of a string of infinite length, neither end of which can be found." -- The Protestant Doctrine of Scripture (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1968), p. 2.
"




Well, now...that's just silly. Were it true, then no scientific knowledge could ever have been gained by any non-Christian. Utterly ridiculous, on its face.

The mere fact that some religious writer has written something is evidence of nothing.


99 posted on 10/16/2006 11:13:21 AM PDT by MineralMan (Non-evangelical Atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle; Ichneumon; atomsandevil
"Are you a moonie?" Again, "Are you a moonie?" from the newest evo persona, following with some inquisitorial demands and boorish questions. Tell Grand Master that he needs a new bag to carry.

If someone was defending the journalistic integrity of The Daily Worker, wouldn't it be reasonable to ask if that person was a communist?

100 posted on 10/16/2006 11:15:04 AM PDT by highball (Proud to announce the birth of little Highball, Junior - Feb. 7, 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-236 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson