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 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-236 next last

DOGPILE!

1 posted on 10/16/2006 8:10:59 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

2 posted on 10/16/2006 8:13:03 AM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

> Cambrian fossils are a major issue for Darwinism.

Indeed so. "Major issue" as in "hey, look, here's even *more* evidence for undirected evolution in the natural world."


3 posted on 10/16/2006 8:13:32 AM PDT by orionblamblam (Prayers... give people the feeling they're doing something without making any real effort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gobucks; mikeus_maximus; MeanWestTexan; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; Elsie; LiteKeeper; ...


You have been pinged because of your interest regarding news, debates and editorials pertaining to the Creation vs. Evolution - from the young-earth Creationist perspective.
Freep-mail me if you want on/off this list:
Add me / Remove me



This series seems to be focusing more on intelligent design, and right now it's focusing on the basics (WHICH, as a good citizen of FR, you already know) but I think we'll stick with it a ways and see where it goes. Be nice, or I shall tie your shoe strings together. WHILE they're on your feet.
4 posted on 10/16/2006 8:13:35 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Darwinism came to be considered a truth rather than a hypothesis.

The theory of evolution is a theory and this article is from a Moonie newspaper

===> Placemarker <===

5 posted on 10/16/2006 8:14:37 AM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

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).


6 posted on 10/16/2006 8:15:10 AM PDT by Tulane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
Prayers... give people the feeling they're doing something without making any real effort.
I gotta hand it to you for not coming into the debate with any prior bias against Christianity or faith.
7 posted on 10/16/2006 8:15:25 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Like The Washington Times. According to your definition, that is also a Moonie newspaper.


8 posted on 10/16/2006 8:16:39 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger; PatrickHenry

Creationism/ID....just so much dino coprolite.


9 posted on 10/16/2006 8:16:54 AM PDT by Vaquero ("An armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

If one is intellectually honest, they must look at the assumptions that evolution makes, if one does this, they could never support this lie (evolution).


10 posted on 10/16/2006 8:20:04 AM PDT by ThisLittleLightofMine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero
**BZZZZ**

I'm sorry, but you've exceeded the once daily limit on the word "coprolite." Please wait a day before using it again.
11 posted on 10/16/2006 8:20:29 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

The ID movement does that itself.


12 posted on 10/16/2006 8:21:32 AM PDT by orionblamblam (Prayers... give people the feeling they're doing something without making any real effort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ThisLittleLightofMine

> If one is intellectually honest, they must look at the assumptions that evolution makes...

...and come to the conclusion that evolution is the only rational explanation.


13 posted on 10/16/2006 8:22:41 AM PDT by orionblamblam (Prayers... give people the feeling they're doing something without making any real effort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Wow.
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. (emphasis mine)

He conveniently leaves out the fact that both Michael Behe and Guillermo Gonzalez are senior fellows of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Wonder why?

Five persons interviewed, and all five from the same organization. Interesting that all the "leading scientists of the ID movement" are from the same advocacy group, isn't it?

14 posted on 10/16/2006 8:30:12 AM PDT by highball (Proud to announce the birth of little Highball, Junior - Feb. 7, 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Like The Washington Times. According to your definition, that is also a Moonie newspaper.

No, Dave. This paper is a Moonie front!

A Google search for the name of the author attributed to this article, "Sekai Nippo", reveals that it is not a person, but an organ of the Unification Church.

http://www.tparents.org/library/religion/cta/ch/ch4/ch41.htm

Media Projects



It was early in his ministry that Reverend Moon perceived the importance of the media in the realization of an ideal world, and he has since continued to invest in and develop his work in this field. The media projects have made a notable contribution to the task of informing humankind of his thought and work. A variety of daily newspapers, as well as weekly and monthly news magazines, have communicated his ideas and expanded a movement for a moral awakening throughout the world.

These publications, directed to the fulfillment of God's will, have paved the way for people to participate in the providence of God. Daily newspapers include the Segye Times (Segye Ilbo) in Korea, its sister paper the Segye Times in New York, the Sekai Nippo in Tokyo, the Washington Times and Noticias del Mundo in the United States, and Ultimas Noticias in Uruguay. In addition, a news wire service, the Free Press International (FPI), accelerates the communication of global news.

For heaven's sake will you people please stop shilling for the Moonie cult?

There are thousands and thousands of Christians and Jews working in science and engineering disciplines who understand exactly what evolutionary theory is and how it is appiled. Science is not evil. Science is a tool. People on these threads are calling mainstream Christians and Jews things like heretics, apostates, idolators, or worse, but at the same time stumping for the Moonie cult.

The Moonies are a mind-control sex-cult. They worship their false Christ in the so-called Reverend Sun Myung Moon. Sun Myung Moon is evil! His cult is evil! His followers are deceived. Opinion pieces coming from media organs of his cult should be viewed with suspicion.

Jim, what on earth is going on with your website?

15 posted on 10/16/2006 8:31:04 AM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic; DaveLoneRanger
A Google search for the name of the author attributed to this article, "Sekai Nippo", reveals that it is not a person, but an organ of the Unification Church.

For heaven's sake will you people please stop shilling for the Moonie cult?

Wow. That also tells us a lot, doesn't it?

16 posted on 10/16/2006 8:32:53 AM PDT by highball (Proud to announce the birth of little Highball, Junior - Feb. 7, 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

As has been pointed out to you already, there is no person with the name of the "author" on your post.

You're quoting from a Moonie propaganda organ. Why?


17 posted on 10/16/2006 8:37:37 AM PDT by MineralMan (Non-evangelical Atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tulane
When the first computers appeared during WW2,
it was Newman who developed the concept of the
stored program. And, of course, assemblers &
compilers shortly became available.

What a simple breaktrough. Now we had a methodology
that allowed programmers the ability to develop
computer applications rather than manually hardwiring
a computer.

Don't you agree that the designer is far more complex
than what he/she designs.

Think. If you were going to create a universe, one way
would be to develop everything piecemeal. But, an ID
would design humans with the brain and its inherent
ability to conceive,design,and build what is needed.
e.g a 747, sky scrapers, medicine, vaccines etc.

That would be a stretch for evolution. wouldn't it?

18 posted on 10/16/2006 8:40:05 AM PDT by cliff630 (whwn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
Prayers... give people the feeling they're doing something without making any real effort.

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. If you have trouble with that, you might try a little more "real effort".

19 posted on 10/16/2006 8:41:36 AM PDT by Semper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Here's your leader. He doesn't believe in evolution, either:


20 posted on 10/16/2006 8:42:48 AM PDT by MineralMan (Non-evangelical Atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Semper

> Does "real effort" exclude mental effort?

Depends on the process. The "effort" required to compose a sonnet, devise a battle plan, think througha puzzle is a different order fo thing than the "effort" required to wish real hard.

> See if you can conceive of something/anything beyond your limited awareness based upon the physical senses and grossly incomplete scientific information.

It's called "imagination." Everyone has it to some degree or another. But there's a difference between science fiction... and fantasy.


21 posted on 10/16/2006 8:47:00 AM PDT by orionblamblam (Prayers... give people the feeling they're doing something without making any real effort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam

Pop Quiz: Can monkeys pray?


22 posted on 10/16/2006 8:58:38 AM PDT by scottdeus12 (Jesus is real, whether you believe in Him or not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
Opinion pieces coming from media organs of his cult should be viewed with suspicion.

Opinion pieces coming from the vast majority of Main Stream Media should be viewed with suspiction. It seems as though you have dismissed all the ideas in this piece based only on its source.

23 posted on 10/16/2006 8:58:43 AM PDT by Semper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Semper
It seems as though you have dismissed all the ideas in this piece based only on its source.

Discredited ideas, suspicious source. What's to trust?

24 posted on 10/16/2006 9:03:07 AM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Semper

No, articles coming from the mainstream media should be viewed critically. Articles coming from Moon's evil cult should be viewed with suspicion by *any* thinking person, Christian, Jew, or atheist. I have considered the source, and I deem it to be unreliable.

Semper Fi


25 posted on 10/16/2006 9:06:39 AM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
think througha puzzle is a different order fo thing than the "effort" required to wish real hard.

Equating "wishing real hard" to prayer displays major ignorance regarding the nature of prayer. Reaching a conclusion based upon a grossly inadequate understanding of an essential element of the matter is not the result of "real effort".

26 posted on 10/16/2006 9:07:45 AM PDT by Semper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


27 posted on 10/16/2006 9:12:08 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo (The best theory is not ipso facto a good theory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Discredited ideas, suspicious source. What's to trust?

Several Discovery Institute senior fellows, one of them a Moonie, write an opinion piece that gets printed in an offshore Moonie publication that is admitted by the Moonies to be a propaganda rag for their ideas and causes. No reason to be suspicious or skeptical...LOL. After all, it's about on par with a lot of the other anti-science ID/creationist sources referred to on FR...except for that Moonie connection thing. LOL

Maybe DI considers this peer review.

28 posted on 10/16/2006 9:15:28 AM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: highball

Good question. I don't suspect foul play, because as far as I'm concerned, Behe is more identifiable with ID than Gonzalez.


29 posted on 10/16/2006 9:18:29 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: highball

Good question. I don't suspect foul play, because as far as I'm concerned, Behe is more identifiable with ID than Gonzalez.


30 posted on 10/16/2006 9:18:37 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
What's to trust?

The Truth. To get that, you analyze and test. The "crying wolf" story is an example of an unreliable source speaking the truth. It was not believed because of the source but it was still the truth. It is too easy to dismiss (or accept) something based only upon who expresses it.

31 posted on 10/16/2006 9:20:39 AM PDT by Semper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Whitehead seems to be a vital link in evolution as it is meant in philosophy. He once visited Darwin's house, that much is known. Whether Darwin's wife served tea and crumpets is not of record. If we want to notch this tedium up a notch we could examine Whitehead's work. He was not a Positivist even though associated with Russell.


32 posted on 10/16/2006 9:22:04 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Semper
Opinion pieces coming from the vast majority of Main Stream Media should be viewed with suspiction. It seems as though you have dismissed all the ideas in this piece based only on its source.

Not necessary.

We can dismiss it either on its extremely limited sample (only interviewing people from one advocacy group) or its intellectual dishonesty ("forgetting" to mention that everyone interviewed was from the same source, implying that the sample was larger than it was in fact).

Either way, we have ample reason to dismiss it.

33 posted on 10/16/2006 9:26:05 AM PDT by highball (Proud to announce the birth of little Highball, Junior - Feb. 7, 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Good question. I don't suspect foul play, because as far as I'm concerned, Behe is more identifiable with ID than Gonzalez.

And yet, he didn't mention the connection.

If I could find Gonzalez's link in a 5-second Google search, why couldn't the author?

It's mentioned for all the others - why hide the connection those two men have with the DI?

34 posted on 10/16/2006 9:28:46 AM PDT by highball (Proud to announce the birth of little Highball, Junior - Feb. 7, 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
For heaven's sake will you people please stop shilling for the Moonie cult?
Is The Washington Times doing so also?
Science is not evil. Science is a tool
On this we agree.
People on these threads are calling mainstream Christians and Jews things like heretics, apostates, idolators, or worse, but at the same time stumping for the Moonie cult.
A source from the same parent company that owns the Washington Times is not "stumping" for the Moonie cult. When I first posted this, I was not aware the parent source was Moonie-based. I never said I agreed with the source either. Does posting from The Lutheran mean PatrickHenry is stumping for them? It seems as if one frevo can post from a religious source, and when it is moved to the Religion forum, everyone has a cow! Yet you're insisting I am endorsing the Moonie religion because the source is owned by the Unitarian church! DUH-BULL STAN-DARD?
The Moonies are a mind-control sex-cult. They worship their false Christ in the so-called Reverend Sun Myung Moon. Sun Myung Moon is evil! His cult is evil! His followers are deceived. Opinion pieces coming from media organs of his cult should be viewed with suspicion.
On the evils of the Moonie cult, we agree. I'm still unclear as to how you arrive at some kind of standard of good vs. evil, though.

If you think I endorse anything from the Moonies, you are mistaken, if not deluded. They're about as far from where I am as they can get.
35 posted on 10/16/2006 9:29:38 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

So who exactly wrote this article?

And why use a pseudonym?


36 posted on 10/16/2006 9:30:49 AM PDT by highball (Proud to announce the birth of little Highball, Junior - Feb. 7, 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
If you think I endorse anything from the Moonies, you are mistaken

Are you kidding?

The whole ID movement is kneedeep in the Moonie cult.

Jonathan Wells is a protege of the reverend and calls him "father".

37 posted on 10/16/2006 9:32:50 AM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: scottdeus12

> Pop Quiz: Can monkeys pray?

Don't know. At least one member of the great apes branch of primates can, though. Not that it ever does 'em much good.


38 posted on 10/16/2006 9:33:12 AM PDT by orionblamblam (Prayers... give people the feeling they're doing something without making any real effort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: highball

Darned if I know. You think we can find out?


39 posted on 10/16/2006 9:33:27 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

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

This whole article is pathetic.

Keep posting this garbage. It does more to discredit this ID nonsense than anything else.

40 posted on 10/16/2006 9:35:08 AM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Semper

> Reaching a conclusion based upon a grossly inadequate understanding of an essential element of the matter is not the result of "real effort".

Sounds like you're describing a Creationist.

> Equating "wishing real hard" to prayer displays major ignorance regarding the nature of prayer.

OK. Then describe mathematicaly and objectively what the actual effort is involved in prayer, and what the relationship between input and output can be expected to be.


41 posted on 10/16/2006 9:35:50 AM PDT by orionblamblam (Prayers... give people the feeling they're doing something without making any real effort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
At least one member of the great apes branch of primates can, though.

Orangutans?

42 posted on 10/16/2006 9:36:02 AM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


"THERE HE IS, LADS! FRAG HIM!"
"YAAAAAA!"
"HE MUST BE A MOONIE PLANT! (*@#$& IDIOT!"
"TAKE HIM DOWN! TAKE HIM DOWN!"
"DARNED IF WE'RE GOING TO STAND FOR THIS!"

43 posted on 10/16/2006 9:37:00 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam

"Don't know. At least one member of the great apes branch of primates can, though. Not that it ever does 'em much good."

Chimpanzees?


44 posted on 10/16/2006 9:38:12 AM PDT by scottdeus12 (Jesus is real, whether you believe in Him or not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Dave, I thought you were a YECer?

You do know that YECism and ID are totally incompatible right?

45 posted on 10/16/2006 9:38:45 AM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: 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...)


46 posted on 10/16/2006 9:39:01 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
"So who exactly wrote this article?

And why use a pseudonym?"


Darned if I know. You think we can find out?

To be honest, I'm not terribly interested. We have already established that the article is poorly written at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.

Plus we know it comes from a disreputable source. Do we really need to know the specific author's name?

47 posted on 10/16/2006 9:41:15 AM PDT by highball (Proud to announce the birth of little Highball, Junior - Feb. 7, 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Semper
What's to trust?

The Truth. To get that, you analyze and test. The "crying wolf" story is an example of an unreliable source speaking the truth. It was not believed because of the source but it was still the truth. It is too easy to dismiss (or accept) something based only upon who expresses it.

I have looked at ID. I find it to be religion masquerading as science and failing to even reach the "junk science" stage.

The modern version of ID was invented after the 1987 Supreme Court decision that blew creation "science" out of the water. The whole game was given away by the Wedge Strategy.

There really is no scientific research; rather there is research done by a few scientists who became apologists.

As an example, take a look at what "scientists" who join this group must agree to:

The Creation Research Society has the following on their home page:

The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation. The Society was organized in 1963 by a committee of ten like-minded scientists, and has grown into an organization with an international membership.

Lets see what else they say.

CRS Statement of Belief

All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.

Does this sound like science to you? Does this sound like research?

Anytime preconceived beliefs, such as these, override the scientific method, an individual is doing apologetics, not science. It doesn't matter what scientific degrees one may have; to agree to a set of standards such as this, which is common (whether explicit or implicit) in creationist circles, is to cease doing science.

48 posted on 10/16/2006 9:42:29 AM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Really! Okay, so then. Why do you all keep saying ID is the same as creationism?

Its a bastardized version of Creationism, but not YEC Creationism.

YEC isn't the *only* version of Creationism you know.

49 posted on 10/16/2006 9:43:37 AM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
Try again.

Hint:

These are monkies:

And these are great apes:

Can you spot the difference?

50 posted on 10/16/2006 9:44:07 AM PDT by orionblamblam (Prayers... give people the feeling they're doing something without making any real effort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 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