Posted on 10/20/2005 6:17:41 PM PDT by furball4paws
http://www.waronscience.com/excerpt.php?p=1
Chapter 1: The Threat IN THE SUMMER OF 2001, long before his reelection and even before he became a "wartime president," George W. Bush found himself in a political tight spot. He responded with a morsel of scientific misinformation so stunning, so certain to be exposed by enterprising journalists (as indeed it was), that one can only wonder what Bush and his handlers were thinking, or whether they were thinking at all. The issue was embryonic stem cell research, and Bush's nationally televised claim—that "more than sixty genetically diverse" embryonic stem cell lines existed at the time of his statement—counts as one of the most flagrant purely scientific deceptions ever perpetrated by a U.S. president on an unsuspecting public. Bush's assertion, made on August 9, 2001, came as the president sought to escape a political trap of his own making. Campaigning in 2000, Bush told the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that taxpayer money "should not underwrite research that involves the destruction of live human embryos." The statement threw a bone to Bush's pro-life followers, who view the ball of about one hundred fifty cells constituting a five-day-old embryo as deserving of the same moral and legal protections as fully developed human beings. Accordingly, these religious conservatives consider embryonic stem cell research—the study of excess embryos donated for research from in vitro fertilization clinics—ethically abhorrent. But some prominent Republicans, such as Utah senator Orrin Hatch, favored the research because of its scientific promise. As the issue came to a head in the summer of 2001, Bush publicly agonized over what to do. Finally, he opted for a supposed compromise: he would allow federal funding, but only for research on preexisting cell lines.
(Excerpt) Read more at waronscience.com ...
It's a minor point but I note that you misrepresented my position and also put something in quotes that I did not say. But I am used to seeing that from religious zealots.
So I take it that your position is that ID and Mr. Behe are not credible?
And what's the fricking difference between theistic evolution via occasional direct interference and theistic evolution via a purely naturalistic guided at all times by Divine Providence?
None, but it has nothing to do with the point. The point is that Behe is claiming that the direct interference is scientifically observable, when it is not.
Oh zowie wow. Big whoop. Man, what a yawning chasm divides the two. Oh, I understand everything now. [/sarcasm]
This being the case, perhaps you will answer the question "WildTurkey" is unable to--since you admit that "intelligent design" is not identical to Biblical creationism, why do you constantly contradict yourselves by turning around and claiming that it is?
Sheesh, if Mr. Behe would just advocate teaching that G-d creates by providential governance of a purely naturalistic mechanism you folks probably would have no objections to him saying this to public school children. Why don't you anti-ID theistic evos merely call your theory "providential design?" That's what it is, after all.
You hit the nail on the head. That is why it is called stealth creationism.
LOL Good one!
Hey,Cyote'm- the Crazy Years have happened in real time. Search www.stalin.com. Please keep reading speciously juxtaposed fiction onto the fabric of life- such is a dedication, known only to....
I did and we don't.
Sounds good. Count me in!
I never made such a claim.
Sheesh, if Mr. Behe would just advocate teaching that G-d creates by providential governance of a purely naturalistic mechanism you folks probably would have no objections to him saying this to public school children.
I would object if he were doing it in science class.
Why don't you anti-ID theistic evos merely call your theory "providential design?" That's what it is, after all.
That's a great name for it! I think I just might use it in the future, giving you proper credit of course. Thanks for suggesting it!
I never made such a claim.
Sheesh, if Mr. Behe would just advocate teaching that G-d creates by providential governance of a purely naturalistic mechanism you folks probably would have no objections to him saying this to public school children.
I would object if he were doing it in science class.
Why don't you anti-ID theistic evos merely call your theory "providential design?" That's what it is, after all.
That's a great name for it! I think I just might use it in the future, giving you proper credit of course. Thanks for suggesting it!
I would think you would be on the side against ID and Behe. After all Behe wants children to be taught that God may be dead.
I doubt any scientist is doing any such thing.
My position is that "science" deals only with the way the wrold works now and not how that world or its laws or processes came into existence. That it totally outside the realm of science and is strictly theological. Do you have some sort of problem with this?
And since you express so much interest in my opinion on the credibility of "intelligent design" (which you admit isn't Biblical creationism but you don't like it because the crevos are pushing it), do you show the same respect to my opinion on the credibility of evolution?
There are ways to argue, and you are simply falling off the cliff. Quotation marks around single words are a way of expressing sarcasm and not necessarily the same as the quotation of a passage. Besides, weren't you arguing earlier with a creationist who claimed that evolution and Theism are mutually exclusive? Was it you or someone else? I'm so used to evolutionists loudly claiming that science has no argument with the "virginal" conception of Chr*st or his resurrection (or anything else outside Genesis or perhaps the "old testament") that you must forgive me if I get occasionally confuse your identities. So you're saying that evolution is opposed to Theism? What do you think of Patrick Henry's home page, then, where he quotes with approval Pope John Paul II and shows no objections to the "miracles" of chr*stianity?
You are right. All in or all out. Though I would push harder for the Bible than other faiths. I wouldn't go to any length to cover them up either. It's not as if the students won't encounter them elsewhere. Might as well be up front. They already know there are other religions besides mine.
and yes, it is ultimately the individual's descision to accept the gospel . I can't force anyone.
But you've been admitting in post after post that it isn't stealth creationism, since its "designer" may be dead.
Somehow you don't seem to be getting the point I'm making. Oh well.
This being the case, perhaps you will answer the question "WildTurkey" is unable to--since you admit that "intelligent design" is not identical to Biblical creationism, why do you constantly contradict yourselves by turning around and claiming that it is?
I did and we don't.
When did you? And since Mr. Behe's "designer" may be dead (as you have said over and over), your statement that ID is "stealth creationism" is an internal contradiction in your argument.
But you can't see this. You're far too limited in your rationality to see this, so I certainly don't think you're a liar.
But you can't see this. You're far too limited in your rationality to see this, so I certainly don't think you're a liar.
I see your bias allows you to ignore what is in black and white. The contradiction is that the creos are pushing ID while Mr. Behe is up there testifying that he believes in evolution and that children should be taught that God may be dead. And the creos on this board literally adore Mr. Behe.
This being the case, perhaps you will answer the question "WildTurkey" is unable to--since you admit that "intelligent design" is not identical to Biblical creationism, why do you constantly contradict yourselves by turning around and claiming that it is?
I never made such a claim.
Well, Wild Turkey is constantly jumping back and forth between "ID is stealth creationism" and "ID says the 'designer' may be dead." You can't blame me for becoming confused!
Sheesh, if Mr. Behe would just advocate teaching that G-d creates by providential governance of a purely naturalistic mechanism you folks probably would have no objections to him saying this to public school children.
I would object if he were doing it in science class.
Perhaps you will explain why science claims the right to teach how the universe and life came into existence in the first place.
Why don't you anti-ID theistic evos merely call your theory "providential design?" That's what it is, after all.
That's a great name for it! I think I just might use it in the future, giving you proper credit of course. Thanks for suggesting it!
Sounds like a good idea. Thanks!
The way you use it implies that I said it and I didn't.
Besides, weren't you arguing earlier with a creationist who claimed that evolution and Theism are mutually exclusive?
No.
I'm so used to evolutionists loudly claiming that science has no argument with the "virginal" conception of Chr*st or his resurrection (or anything else outside Genesis or perhaps the "old testament") that you must forgive me if I get occasionally confuse your identities.
You must be on a different board.
So you're saying that evolution is opposed to Theism?
I never said that.
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.