Posted on 11/13/2005 3:49:41 PM PST by Crackingham
U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum said Saturday that he doesn't believe that intelligent design belongs in the science classroom. Santorum's comments to The Times are a shift from his position of several years ago, when he wrote in a Washington Times editorial that intelligent design is a "legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in the classroom."
But on Saturday, the Republican said that, "Science leads you where it leads you."
Santorum was in Beaver Falls to present Geneva College President Kenneth A. Smith with a $1.345 million check from federal funds for renovations that include the straightening and relocation of Route 18 through campus.
Santorum's comments about intelligent design come at a time when the belief that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power, an alternative to the theory of evolution, has come under fire on several fronts.
A federal trial just wrapped up in which eight families sued Dover Area School District in eastern Pennsylvania. The district's school board members tried to introduce teaching intelligent design into the classroom, but the families said the policy violated the constitutional separation of church and state. No ruling has been issued on the trial, but Tuesday, all eight Dover School Board members up for re-election were ousted by voters, leading to a fiery tirade by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson.
Robertson warned residents, "If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected him from your city."
Santorum said flatly Saturday, "I disagree. I don't believe God abandons people," and said he has not spoken to Robertson about his comments.
Though Santorum said he believes that intelligent design is "a legitimate issue," he doesn't believe it should be taught in the classroom, adding that he had concerns about some parts of the theory.
[LogicWings]...Just because Antony Flew proved he was an idiot...
yeah
That was because there was nothing to defend. You couldn't defend giving me "one wet iota" of evidence for ID. There is none, so you tried to change the subject. There is no probability for that which does not exist. Evolution exists, therefore the probability is 100 percent.
Pathetic
Yeah.
It seems strange that you would want me to present evidence for your own cosmology, particularly when you insist not only that you have none, but that there is none.
For the sake of whatever your argument is, lets say that there is not even one iota of evidence for your cosmology. I am curious to know what you would argue with such a strange premise.
One "wet iota" (see poet John Ciardi) of evidence for ID. That's all. Just one.
Now you say:
It seems strange that you would want me to present evidence for your own cosmology, particularly when you insist not only that you have none, but that there is none.
My, my you people are dishonest. I never said there is none. I could never assert that, it would require Proving the Negative.
For the sake of whatever your argument is, lets say that there is not even one iota of evidence for your cosmology. I am curious to know what you would argue with such a strange premise.
So for you to turn this on its head say that I am asserting there isn't "one wet iota" for my point of view is laughable.
What I said is precisely the opposite, there isn't one wet iota of evidence for ID and you simply will not admit that fact.
This a wholesale abdication on your part.
I take it as Proof that you have no argument. You can't prove your alternate universes. And your probabilities are insupportable.
Design is the only logical conclusion. And that goes for your probabilities on the biochemistry too. The supposedly 'higher probability' interactions which you assume have not been accounted for...are themselves highly improbable, hence likely designed in. I.e., the conclusion is well-nigh inescapable, that the universe was designed to support life. Again, probability defeats you handily.
Hence, you can''t give one wet iota of proof for naturalism. The burden of proof is on you, and you don't know probability:
"Evolution exists" says you. ..."therefore the probability is 100 percent."
That turns around. Clearly, first, that is a nonsequitur. And then second, if you start from the opposite,( and well defended alternate hypothesis) "Evolution doesn't exist"...therefore the probability is 100 percent against. Ditto, eh?
Read both parts of post 660:
[Me]I hardly care to argue that you do not have "even one iota of evidence".
[You]There isn't. Present it. My cosmology doesn't need it.
Your "no iota" reflex seems to have fired at the wrong time. It might behoove you to check what you are responding too first.
Moreover my argument in post 354 has certainly met your "one iota" standard in terms of ID, and seems that in two weeks you have only presented two incomplete attacks against it:
1) I have always held that something has always existed, that the Big Bang as stated is flawed.
Sure you can maintain this, but this does nothing to make all the evidence that supports the big bang go away.
2) Just because we don't know how it happened doesn't mean it has a supernatural cause.
I did not present a proof, I simply presented something that met your "one iota of evidence" standard.
The postulate that God created the universe predicted that there was a definitive starting point. Thus evidence for the big bang is evidence for creation.
The postulate existed before the evidence supporting it was found. Thus it seems to meet the reckless definition of science used by many arguing for Darwinism--although it does not meet mine.
But don't let reality slow you down. Go ahead and call me stupid, or and idiot, or dishonest. And then tell me how I have no class and am attacking you personally. And then keep repeating that there is not one iota of evidence for creation.
"In God We trust was designated national motto in 1956..."
Actually "In God We Trust" was was printed on Federal Notes after the abandonment of the gold standard in 1948.
Fiat currency became the new God and a false god at that.
It has everything to do with phoney money and nothing to do with theology.
Intelligent Design is not a conclusion, it is a hypothesis. You have no content, no evidence, no premise to justify this supposed "conclusion."
The supposedly 'higher probability' interactions which you assume have not been accounted for...are themselves highly improbable, hence likely designed in.
"Probability" is an abstraction. Thus you commit the Fallacy of Reification when you assert "...are themselves highly improbable". That is merely an opinion, not a fact. The word "improbable" reveals the uncertainty of the assertion.
hence likely designed in.
Now there's hard science for you. It is likely, maybe, might be, I guess it may, I guess it might, be "designed in."
Yeah, that is really useful in science. That is going to a much better understanding of the Universe.
Hence, you can''t give one wet iota of proof for naturalism.
HA HA HA !!! I don't have to give proof of naturalism since "proof" BY DEFINITION is naturalistic. There is no "evidence" in science that stands outside of naturalistic evidence. Besides "Naturalism" is a philosophy that I never said I embraced so don't put that on me.
And then second, if you start from the opposite,(and well defended alternate hypothesis) "Evolution doesn't exist"...therefore the probability is 100 percent against. Ditto, eh?
What "evidence" do you have that "Evolution doesn't exist?" Go ahead Prove that Negative.
Or conversely, give one wet iota of evidence for Intelligent Design. Just one.
Actually -the theory of evolution can make no such claim. It is the atheist evolutionists that make such faithful claims at the altar of their moral relative God of science...
You did not. The rest of your post is irrelevant.
Actually -the theory of evolution can make no such claim. . . .
the altar of their moral relative God of science...
I wish you guys could go back to the world as it would be without the "God of science."
Can you say DARK AGES?
I would say that you have exposed your bigotry. I would suggest you frequent a Christian hate forum rather than meekly cloak your bigotry in 'science'...
My argument was pretty easy to understand, but being that you reject it so vehemently without expressing a logical reason to, let us take it one little baby step at a time and see where you have a problem with it:
Premise A) There is much more then "one iota" of evidence for the Big Bang theory (albeit not conclusive proof, the evidence could be interpreted a different way).
Any problem so far?
Can you say DARK AGES?
Once again I am impressed with the way that LogicWings uses logic to back up his position. The argument above clearly shows that:
Evolution rejects the notion of a supernatural.
You mean aside from the fact that your statement isn't a premise?
There was no bigotry in the post. Ain't no time to hate, barely time to wait. Nice beam you got there. Doesn't that hurt?
If evolution is science it rejects the notion of the supernatural as an explanation for natural occurances. Evolution is science. Therefore:
You can choose to take fraternal correction or leave it... It is your choice.
And when you loose control, you'll reap the harvest that you've
sown
So have a good drown, as you go down, alone
Dragged down by the stone.
It may not be a premise that you accept. I am trying to find a starting point that we can both agree on.
If you insist on being obtuse, I can guarantee that it will haunt you.
So shall I broadcast on later threads that LogicWings will not accept that there is an iota of evidence for the big bang? Or does LogicWings grow wings and fly away at the first sign of a logical argument?
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.