Posted on 06/13/2005 7:50:19 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
Great leaps of progress, or just great leaps. Is that word spelled as you intended--methological?
And truly, I am no writer. If you want beautifully organized, eloquent advocacy of these same points - I suggest you read the links at the bottom - all the articles written by betty boop.
My style around here, lo these many years, is to compile research and insights of posters and lurkers. That is the purpose of this article as well.
LOLOL! I really should proof read. No, it should have been methodological.
How about you AG, wanna take a crack at 15? :-}
~~~~~~~~
Obviously, I'm not AG, (although we do seem to agree on many things) but does the Creator's very first command, "Be fruitful and multiply" seem to apply?
Who is the designer, in your honest opinion?
What we should look for--new method. New way of thinking.
Derailed train of thought place mark
If you really believe, Alamo Girl, that life is just 'a poor player that struts and frets, a tale told by an idiot' and all that, and that before too long we all will step off into a pitch-dark abyss of eternal nothingness . . believing that, what prevents one from going home and facing the business end of a 12 gauge shotgun?
I mean, what's the point?
(AlamoGirl: `Thank you for your input, insight, tumblindice!')
You're welcome in advance.
Assumptions other than "randomness" lead to testable experiments. So far the experiments all come down on the side of "randomness."
Utter and complete nonsense. Natural selection, among many other processes, is such a source. People need to learn the basics of a topic before they attempt to "contribute" to it.
It never ceases to amaze me how many creationists (yes, that's right, I used the "C" word) try to critique evolutionary biology without actually understanding the most elementary things about it. Most of the "gaps" they try to "fill" with creationism aren't even gaps at all -- it's just their own misunderstandings about it.
There's ID's first problem. It does not proffer positive evidence for its validity. ID is not in itself a scientific theory, but simply an attack (however valid or invalid) on natural selection. Scientific attacks on theories are good, because they serve to eliminate false theories (as with geocentricity), or reinforce or enhance existing theories that survive the attack (as natual selection has survived, modified).
But it's still not a theory, and shouldn't be taught or referred to as such, however much the neo-Creationist CSC wishes it were true.
But most assuredly, I Spiritually know that the Creator of "all that there is" is God through Jesus Christ (Gen 1, John 1, etc.) Even so, the creating process is ongoing and He thus may have allowed for man, or any intelligent entity (from cells to collectives) to be part of the process which results in a 4D sense of "reality".
The God of Abraham. I know you didn't ask me but what the hell.
You're welcome in advance.
Could you tell me why "survival of the species" is the prime directive and from where that directive came?
It comes as a natural -- indeed, inevitable -- result of the interplay of replication and selection.
Your question is like asking where the "prime directive" of "puddles form when it rains on uneven ground" comes from. There is no separate "form puddles" law of nature -- there doesn't need to be -- it's just an inevitable result of how water droplets migrate in the presence of gravity when falling on the contour of uneven surfaces. Given the mere presence of a) gravity, b) water, and c) uneven ground, puddles (or in extreme cases, lakes or oceans) will inevitably occur, due to the simple interplay of gravity/water/ground. Puddle-formation is not an "extra" ingredient or law, it's a necessary *consequence* of the interplay of simpler entities.
And the same goes for evolution -- it's the inevitable outcome of what happens when variable replication exists in any environment where selection occurs (and selection itself is another inevitable consequent of what happens when replicators interact with their surroundings).
That is a method too, of course. Metamethodical method.
I do not want to make a response as long as your post.
I think your intentions do not warrant it.
I think the majority of conservatives should avoid getting caught up at all in political battles about evolution vs creationism vs intelligent design; the entire issue does not stand anywhere near the heart of conservatism in general nor is it at the heart of the major problems that plaugue the country - from a conservative perspective. It is a way-down-there-at-the-bottom side issue and far below the basic problems with Marxist oriented judges and academic insttutions; and the left's constant success at achieving its goals through the courts and acadmemically indocrinated dogma, when it can't when democratically.
The fringe issue of evolution vs creationism vs intelligent design does not help conservatives win on the basic conservative issues of how our government is supposed to be organized and work (as opposed to what someone wants to achieve out of that properly working government). This fringe issue attempts to place legitimate, overall, general conservative goals into a minority's agenda, much like leftists do to the agenda of Democrats. I want no part of it and will not contribute to it.
You are not "unChristian" if you do not accept either Creationism or Intellligent Design.
First off intelligent design was brought out to offer the same arguments as Creationism, ony to leave the religious sentiment out of it. It is a masquerade and it has never worked.
Secondly, the majority of Christians accept that (1)actual creation is a mystery of God and one we do not have to understand, God does not expect us to understand, salvation does not depend on our understanding it and (2) which the Bible explains in mostly allegory, not "history". The truth is in the spiritual meaning if you have the ears and the faith to hear it. Some people will read many things in the Bible their whole lives and never hear what is really being said. The truth is not the story; it is spiritual and moral truth embeded in the story. That is why the Bible can be followed on many levels.
Therefore, many Christians can accept God's "intelligent design" in the universe, even in the acceptance of "evolution" and "DNA" and astrophycics and many other scientific areas as wonderous examples of knowledge about WHAT God has created because we know, that in spite of all we know, we have no idea HOW God created all of this. The greatest scientists have never bought into either Creationism or Intelligent Design, but they have all seen the hand of God, or "the creator" or "intelligence" behind their greatest discoveries.
Conservatives, if we want to keep advancing, should relegate the issue of Creationism and Intelligent Design to the place they belong, which is the same place as American Marxists - on the fringes of important political discourse.
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.