Posted on 04/20/2008 8:49:48 AM PDT by Soliton
What does that mean?
Sorry, but evolution, and the origin of life, is not science because it hasn't been proven. Species variation, yes, crossing o different species, no. You can deny that all you want but it won't make it true. Evolution is based on faith, it is also held as absolute truth by the people who believe it and they will book no debate on it, even though the original theory has been modified several times to try to cover up big glitches between the theory and reality.
As for how life started on Earth, it cannot have started the way(some)scientists have outlined, they know this so now they are trying to gloss over it by saying life came to earth on an asteroid or meteor from out in space somewhere.
This is supposed to stop the questions about how life started, completely ignoring the fact that even if life came here on some hunk of rock it still had to START somewhere and they haven't answered how it started. It didn't start the way it has been outlined, this is a known fact, spin all you want but it is true that life didn't start the way evolutionists say it did.
In order to believe in the origin of life and evolution according to Neo-Darwinists, and other branches of Darwin, one has to have faith because there is no proof, this makes it a religion, not a science.
I am not a Christian by the way, nor a member of any religion at all, but I do NOT believe in the theory of evolution the way it is laid out now, there is to much evidence to suggest it just didn't happen that way.
Wrong. If you can’t examine it without being fired and banned, then you can’t look for evidence.
Let’s see. If you tell the university you are going to look for evidence of I.D. and they fire you and you never work in the field again...is there any wonder the potential evidence won’t be found?
PURE INTELLECTUAL FASCISM.
The writer, (of this article,) either missed the whole point of the movie or is trying to deflect the topic into one of a scientific argument, which the movie did not intend to address. The movie was about intellectual freedom and censorship. Anyone discussing any other topic than this in regards to this movie is either a troll, or an idiot.
Then explain ID to me.
If ToE is "not science" because it hasn't been proven, then no theory is "science". You've basically gotten so desperate to discredit the ToE, you're prepared to declare that semantically there is no legitimate science.
What makes gravity work hasn’t been proven yet.
Does that make gravity wrong?
Bad Premise #1 is that there are only two possibilities, evolution or Supernatural.
Bad Premise #2 is that any Designer either evolved or was designed by a sunernatural being.
Argument by definition. All evidence of design, examination and discussion thereof, is hereby swept away by defining any such designer as Supernatural.
I submit, that God is the only natural being/thing in the Universe. And that the entire Universe is an unnatural creation by the natural God. Thus by the Evo's contorted argument, only God should be taught in Schools and no science, since all design is supernatural.
You are correct. But here's the rub.
If a supernatural agent, in fact, did create the universe and all life therein and science by definition cannot state that fact because it's beyond its scope (by definition), and is then forced (again by definition) to offer up only a naturalistic explanation, then we are left with an explanation that is "scientific" but false and an alternate explanation that is true but not scientific.
The ID people are welcome at the science table if they would simply bring evidence to support their ideas which is something they sadly refuse to do.
Perhaps they don’t have any evidence and are trying to change science to have their ideas let in. Of course their changes also allow in astrology but one can not make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
Fantastic! Will be passing “The Watchmaker” on to all and hopefully others will follow your recommendation as well.
Baloney. If you’re telling me that the only people who can provide evidence of ID must work in educational institutions funded by the taxpayer, then it’s a weak idea, indeed.
The various religions never seem to lack money for major building projects, why don’t they direct some of that money into ID research?
If ID research is true they could make billions to further spread their %deities% word to the masses.
You prove my point. Intelligent Designer is just another name for God.
The scientific method is a start.
The essential elements[9][10][11] of a scientific method[12] are iterations,[13][14] recursions,[15] interleavings, and orderings of the following:
* Characterizations (observations,[16] definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)
* Hypotheses[17][18] (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)[19]
* Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction[20] from the hypothesis or theory)
* Experiments[21] (tests of all of the above)
This is an ID thread. Big Bang theory does not suggest supernatural beings and is therefore not religion. It is then legal to teach it in school (but the hardly do).
That equally true of any natural phemonema. If we cannot risk scientific inquiry because we might come up with erroneous scientific explainations about how things work, when they are actually the result of divine intervention, then what scientific disciplines can we allow to be pursued?
Exactly my point, but more concisely said. IDers deliberately avoid identifying or characterising the nature of the designer. They can’t without exposing themselves as creationists.
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.