Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Santorum: Don't put intelligent design in classroom
Beaver County Times & Allegheny Times ^ | 11/13/5 | Bill Vidonic

Posted on 11/13/2005 3:49:41 PM PST by Crackingham

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 651-686 next last
To: WildTurkey
You do know that ID means man evolved from a simple organism over millions of years ...

Nope! As such I apologize!!!

I've been under the impression that it was essentially a version of creationism, yet with some flaws, but by and large very close to it. After "further reveiw", I stand entirely corrected!!

151 posted on 11/13/2005 5:53:54 PM PST by Fruitbat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

See post 151 I believe!

Apologies!!!


152 posted on 11/13/2005 5:54:20 PM PST by Fruitbat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Great point. I hope for Senator Santorum's sake that he has his resume together. His secret plan to woo liberal voters by deliberately alienating his base might not pay off as well as he hopes.
153 posted on 11/13/2005 5:54:33 PM PST by Ronaldus Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: spinestein

I suppose. You're being gracious.

See post 151.


154 posted on 11/13/2005 5:55:05 PM PST by Fruitbat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
And the next ball is....B11, that is B11.

BINGO!!!

155 posted on 11/13/2005 5:55:30 PM PST by b_sharp (Please visit, read, and understand PatrickHenry's List-O-Links.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings

I have sought to state that belief in man's evolution from a single cell is not sustainable incotrovertably by the evidence. I have not sought to say it is impossible. As for ID, you can't prove that false or true. Neither can I.

I can deal with it. Can you?


156 posted on 11/13/2005 5:55:55 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: All
Am I the only one who's made the connection between Santorum's flip-flop on ID and the recent Dover trial on ID, followed by tossing out the whole Dover school board? Santorum gets it. ID is an electoral loser. I hope other republicans learn the same message.
157 posted on 11/13/2005 5:55:57 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Expect no response if you're a troll, lunatic, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
In the dark ages, it was the Christians who vilified scientific thinkers. Today it's the scientific thinkers turn.

Isn't Santorum being vilified for keeping I.D. out of science class?

158 posted on 11/13/2005 5:56:03 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
"Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life, and a worldview." (A worldview is a set of basic, foundational beliefs concerning deity, humanity and the rest of the universe.) Thus we would consider Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Native American Spirituality, and Neopaganism to be religions. We also include Agnosticism, Atheism, Humanism, Ethical Culture, Darwininan Originism etc. as religions, because they also contain a "belief about deity" -- their belief is that they do not know whether a deity exists, or they have no knowledge of God, or they sincerely believe that God does not exist. "

This is just a bunch of BS to confuse the issue. This is why I love etymology, because idiots like this love to destroy words in order to confuse the language.

The idea that an "atheist" is a religious person is a contradiction in terms. You can believe it if you want, but then again, you have the right to be stupid. I am not going there.

The fact is "a belief about diety" doesn't apply to several of these definitions. Diety doesn't figure into the picture at all.

This is why American children are so stupid and put rings in their lips and ears. Because the adults are so irrrational. Stupid.

And, to make the point, all those definitions didn't include the true "agnostic" position. You are ignorant.

159 posted on 11/13/2005 5:56:47 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: ICE-FLYER
"I accept your answer, Rebel_Ace. You're saying that we evolved from a combination of events ranging from the sun and its activity to the earth going from superheated surface to cooler surface to molicules coming in from space to then arrive on the planet through our atmosphere after the cooling period, to mix with others to have the suns heat and nutrition combine with that mixing to form yet more complex organisms to then on and on and on to today. Is this what you are saying?"

Well, more or less. My point is that complex biological activity depends upon energy from an outside source. There is no violation of the 2nd law, as we ARE INDEED increasing the entropy of the system as a whole.
160 posted on 11/13/2005 5:57:19 PM PST by Rebel_Ace (Tags?!? Tags?!? We don' neeeed no stinkin' Tags!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
LOL, which is a claim I could make about evolution as well.

You could, but you would be mistaken.

161 posted on 11/13/2005 5:57:19 PM PST by Quark2005 (Science aims to elucidate. Pseudoscience aims to obfuscate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: dbb

And for you science freaks:

Intelligent Design
The scientific alternative to evolution:
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf

For your reading pleasure. :)


162 posted on 11/13/2005 5:59:54 PM PST by Sun (Hillary Clinton is pro-ILLEGAL immigration. Don't let her fool you. She has a D- /F immigr. rating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Flimsy - Why don't you make your case and I'll respond?  If you think there is irrefutable evidence, please provide it.

There is a body of thought that man is simply too complex to have evolved from a single celled organism.  IMO your side has thrown together some observable facts and extrapolated a wildly unsustainable position, based on them.
163 posted on 11/13/2005 6:02:10 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Your belief in evolution based on a preponderence of the evidence is not a real strong arguement IMO.

That's OK. Your opinion isn't the arbiter of science.

I could just as easily state that the complexity of man provides a preponderence of evidence that Intelligent Design is the only possible origin.

You could, but the statement would simply be false. I've asked you several times now where on earth you got this idea that just because you say something means you have to be taken seriously. Honestly, it doesn't. You could just as easily state that the ubiquity of fecal matter provides a preponderance of evidence that you pulled the universe out your @$$. Who cares what it looks like to you? The only thing that matters is what it looks like. Period.

I don't seek to make that case.

Why not? If that's what the preponderance of the evidence shows, then make the case. I strongly encourage you to do so.

Your side does seek to claim that your theory is the only possible origin based on the evidence.

Based on the evidence, evolution is the only plausible explanatory model.

Well, I disagree.

Here's a cookie.

It's certainly your perogitive to claim falsity and inanity.

Yeah, but I don't rely on merely my say so.

I'm sorry, but I can't buy into your last statement.

That's OK.

Threads like this refute that perception. Some of you folks are willing to compare others and myself to the Taliban...

I wasn't talking about "us folks" but rather just about me. Nothing I've posted in this thread refutes my statement, which would be unlikely if for no other reason than that it's true.

...just because we don't buy into your theories lock stock and barrel, and do not think exclusivity should be yours any more than ours.

I am not a relativist, and never will be. If you want any claim to 'inclusivity' then support your position. Otherwise, you can spout whatever nonsense makes you happy, just don't expect to be taken seriously, at least not by me.

If you were genuinely concerned about scientific progress, you'd be willing to take a look at the 'evidence', and see two possible conclusions based on the evidence that exists and the evidence that doesn't.

I have taken a look at the evidence, and I even see multiple potential conclusions based upon it. Intelligent design isn't one of them.

Your conclusions concerning the evidence, are all focused on accepting what you cannot prove. What bothers you is that I have also elected to accept something I cannot prove.

That is false. What bothers me is that you have elected to equate fantasy with science.

The holes in your evidence don't dissuade me.

Gosh, I'd hope not. It's the evidence itself that's persuasive, not whatever holes might be in it.

The holes in my evidence should not disuade you.

You have no evidence at all. In fact, you explicitly stated above that you don't even seek to make the case.

This leaves us both unable to categoricly prove the other wrong.

Umm, no it doesn't. My position is that you have no evidence. If you disagree with that, then unless you come up with some you are categorically wrong.

None the less, your belief is teachable and my belief, both based on the uprovable, is not.

Your belief is definitely teachable as whatever it is, which isn't science.

Down through the ages, there have been many people judged to be heritics.

Yes, well, the most common reason for that is because they were.

Today the scientific community is the one making that charge, all the while claiming the high moral ground.

Science is not faith-based. What on earth makes you think that just because you represent it that way means anyone has to take you seriously?

164 posted on 11/13/2005 6:03:35 PM PST by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005
Or incorrect, for that matter.

I am getting tired of this. I don't have to prove it wrong, you have to prove it exists, before I have to prove it wrong.

Prove Unicorn Farts make rainbows before I have to prove they don't. Do you get it?

Prove elephants raping girls create BIGFOOT creatures before I have to prove that BIGFOOT doesn't exist.

Prove Leprechauns steal 4 leaf clovers which is why there are so few before proving that wishing on a 4 leaf clover will answer your dreams.

Do you get it yet?

165 posted on 11/13/2005 6:03:43 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

Perhaps we could revert to what is being taught in the classroom, and who's being vilified for trying to change that.

That is the reality isn't it? Hmmmm?


166 posted on 11/13/2005 6:03:47 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

"I hate to break the news to you, but evolution has been sustained as a scientific theory for 146 years. That's longer than most current scientific theories of physics and chemistry have been sustained.

Intelligent design has been sustained as a scientific theory for a grand total of zero years. To be clear, that's zero followed by an infinite number of zeros."

And more than 146 years ago, many thought the world was flat.

News evidence debunks evolution, and more and more scientists are becoming skeptical of evolution.


167 posted on 11/13/2005 6:04:27 PM PST by Sun (Hillary Clinton is pro-ILLEGAL immigration. Don't let her fool you. She has a D- /F immigr. rating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ICE-FLYER
"The 2nd law of thermodynamics had to be violated for the theory of evolution to move from idea to fact. Things had to go from disorder to order for it to have happened. Oh, I do get “explanations”, but they are point of view, not based upon the law they firmly believe in.

The 2LoT is necessary for evolution to have happened, it is not a restriction to evolution. The idea that the 2LoT is some sort of force that evolution must overcome is a misunderstanding of what the 2LoT means for the combination of chemicals.

168 posted on 11/13/2005 6:05:55 PM PST by b_sharp (Please visit, read, and understand PatrickHenry's List-O-Links.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Flimsy - Why don't you make your case and I'll respond?

Well, I would but the list of evidence for evolution is so massive that it would take up far too much space, and may well be zapped by the admin mods. However, if you're really interested in any particular subject within the field, you could start with PatrikHenry's List of Links and anything that Ichneumon has referenced in his personal page that contains the word "evolution".

If you think there is irrefutable evidence, please provide it.

Absolutely nothing in sciecne is "irrefutable".

IMO your side has thrown together some observable facts and extrapolated a wildly unsustainable position, based on them.

Then clearly you can point out flaws in the reasoning rather than just asserting them.
169 posted on 11/13/2005 6:06:45 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Sun
News evidence debunks evolution

References?

and more and more scientists are becoming skeptical of evolution.

I keep hearing this, but I never see any information to suggest that there is any sudden spike in biologists who are abandoning research into evolution.
170 posted on 11/13/2005 6:07:53 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

>>>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."<<<

I believe this is called pandering.


171 posted on 11/13/2005 6:07:56 PM PST by PhilipFreneau ("Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." - James 4:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sun
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf

Funny that the writers compare the 'research' in ID to that of SETI. Both projects have had about the same amount of luck finding what they're looking for.

172 posted on 11/13/2005 6:08:04 PM PST by Quark2005 (Science aims to elucidate. Pseudoscience aims to obfuscate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Sun

What are you babbling about?? No scientist has thought the earth was flat for well over 2000 years. From the very first instance that science is recorded to have looked at the question (Pythagoras) it was recognized that the earth is a sphere.


173 posted on 11/13/2005 6:10:11 PM PST by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Isn't Santorum being vilified for keeping I.D. out of science class?

Perhaps we could revert to what is being taught in the classroom, and who's being vilified for trying to change that. That is the reality isn't it? Hmmmm?

You didn't answer the question. I'll repeat. Isn't Santorum being vilified for keeping I.D. out of science class?

Another question: Do you D1 believe that ID should be taught in science class?

174 posted on 11/13/2005 6:10:11 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Malacoda

Me too! Toomey would have and could have won, if Bush and Santorum did not support the the other guy.


175 posted on 11/13/2005 6:11:23 PM PST by tuckrdout (The good man wins his case by careful argument; the evil-minded only wants to fight. Prov. 13:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ICE-FLYER
Ice-Flyer,

"...You reply to me on the law of thermodynamics because I ASKED about it and call that wielding?..."

Here is your original post I replied to, with the relevant section highlighted:

"Just because something is observable does not mean it is fully explainable. This is the wiggle room the evolutionist needs to keep their “theory” as the only acceptable form of knowledge describing our origin. Yet in all of this I have never heard why there can be laws of physics that had to be violated to make it possible. The 2nd law of thermodynamics had to be violated for the theory of evolution to move from idea to fact. Things had to go from disorder to order for it to have happened. Oh, I do get “explanations”, but they are point of view, not based upon the law they firmly believe in."

Now, as far as I can tell, there is NO QUESTION asked in this post. You flatly stated that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has to be violated for the theory of evolution to be true.

Later, you chide someone for not having complete knowledge of a subject before posting argumentative statements. I tried to gently remind you that in this case it is the pot calling the kettle black. It does not matter if the other poster is correct or incorrect about the 3/5ths clause. What does matter is that you were eager to condemn their lack of knowledge in a subject, rather than post facts and arguments supporting your position.

In many of these "crevo" threads, I have noticed that people often yell "LEARN ABOUT SUCH AND SUCH..." When I encounter posting with verifiable errors, I almost always try to explain the error using layman's terms. My posts on this thread have addressed errors/weaknesses in arguments regarding the 2nd Law and the "complexity" issue. While my manner of writing might be "colorful", it is not meant to "jump" on anyone.
176 posted on 11/13/2005 6:14:08 PM PST by Rebel_Ace (Tags?!? Tags?!? We don' neeeed no stinkin' Tags!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: tuckrdout
Me too! Toomey would have and could have won, if Bush and Santorum did not support the the other guy.

The voters are responsible for their own vote. That's a simple conservative philosophy.

177 posted on 11/13/2005 6:14:58 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Okay, if that's the argument you would like to fall back on, why do you guys go apoplectic when others wish to have intelligent design taught right along side your theory?

It's not an "argument [I'd] like to fall back on," it's the nature of a scientific theory. I find it ironic that someone who has no idea of how science operates takes it upon him(her?)self to inform the world of what science must allow.

ID fails as a scientific theory for a variety of reasons: It assumes an entity (the "intelligent designer"), for which there is no evidence and no possible test, it predicts nothing, and there's no way to falsify it.

If your theory is not provable, it's just comical to watch as you demand that it be taught to the exclusion of other theories.

Like I said, it's the nature of a scientific theory. There is no way to "prove" electromagnetic theory, gravitational theory, or any other scientific theory. So why would you think evolutionary theory should be any different?

You have faith in your theory. I don't necessarily have a problem with that. What I do find objectionable is that you simply refuse to accept the falibility of your theory.

I have no faith whatever in any theory. What I have is evidence. In the last 150 years, all evidence found has confirmed the accuracy of evolutionary theory, including evidence that Darwin and his contemporaries never imagined. No one anywhere in the scientific community has claimed "infalibility" for any theory. Theories are the best we have. They explain all the known evidence in the simplest manner possible. They are not contradicted by any evidence. And they are capable of falsification.

178 posted on 11/13/2005 6:16:23 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Well, just for starters:

In those days the cell was a black box, a mystery. But in the 20th century, scientists were able to open that black box and peek inside. There they found not a simple blob but a world of complex circuits, miniaturized motors, and digital code. We now know that even the simplest functional cell is almost unfathomably complex, containing at least 250 genes and their corresponding proteins.

Explains New Zealand geneticist Michael Denton, each cell “is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms.”

The odds of a primordial soup randomly burping up even one protein strand of moderate length are dramatically less than 1 chance in 10150.

It’s hard to grasp how long these odds are—one followed by 150 zeros. We know that a lot of strange things can happen in a place as big and old as our universe, but as mathematician and philosopher William Dembski explains in the Cambridge University Press book The Design Inference, the universe isn’t remotely big enough, old enough, or fast enough to generate that much complexity.

Nor have attempts to explain this complexity as the natural outworking of the laws of nature proven successful. The best explanation? INTELLIGENT DESIGN. (emphasis mine)

excerpt from http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...nd=view&id=2350

And.......

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1103ap_czech_intelligent_design.html
Monday, October 24, 2005 · Last updated 11:28 a.m. PT
'Intelligent design' supporters gather
By ONDREJ HEJMA
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
PRAGUE, Czech Republic -- Hundreds of supporters of "intelligent design" theory gathered in Prague in the first such conference in eastern Europe, but Czech scholars boycotted the event insisting it had no scientific credence.
About 700 scientists from Africa, Europe and the United States attended Saturday's "Darwin and Design" conference to press their contention that evolution cannot fully explain the origins of life or the emergence of highly complex species.
"It is a step beyond Darwin," said Carole Thaxton of Atlanta, a biologist who lived with her husband, Charles, in Prague in the 1990s and was one of the organizers of the event.
"The point is to show that there in fact is intelligence in the universe," she said. The participants, who included experts in mathematics, molecular biology and biochemistry, "are all people who independently came to the same conclusion," she said.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=b&refer=http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1103ap_czech_intelligent_design.html


179 posted on 11/13/2005 6:16:58 PM PST by Sun (Hillary Clinton is pro-ILLEGAL immigration. Don't let her fool you. She has a D- /F immigr. rating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
"There is no proof whatsoever that man evolved from a single celled organism. There are plenty of fairy tales, but when push comes to shove, it's nothing more than a pipe dream.

There is, however, substantial evidence that man evolved from a common ape ancestor and that other extant animals evolved from ancestors common with other extant animals. The evidence does not need to be a continuous line from man to protolife, or more correctly, initial life to man. Humans excel at discerning patterns, patterns such as the common descent of all animals, from incomplete information. If we see a pattern often enough in similar circumstances, we can infer that the consistency in the pattern is valid in other like circumstances. Why deny this pattern recognition ability when it comes to common descent but rely on it for everything else in your life?

"Those who have swallowed that pipe dream hook line and sinker are experiencing nothing more than a faith based experience.

Since scientists are the ones that actually investigate, test and verify their ideas before accepting them but creationists simply accept the meanderings of the Hovindites and Johnsonites of the world, which do you logically think are really swallowing that pipe dream? Remember, be logical.

"Even definitive proof of how the one celled organism originated is up for grabs.

That may be true today, but as science has shown time after time, what is unknown today will likely not remain that way very long.

180 posted on 11/13/2005 6:19:52 PM PST by b_sharp (Please visit, read, and understand PatrickHenry's List-O-Links.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
"How refreshing! Someone who gets it and whose faith is NOT threatened by science!"

You could go further. If you accept the Discovery Institutes mission statement to replace secular materialism with faith based science then you have to ask the question, "What could be more secular and materialist than using empirical observations of physical phenomena to infer the existence of God."

In the guise of de-secularizing science by inserting ID into the science curriculum the IDers are in fact secularizing religion, in the process diminishing the central importance of faith.

To insist on proof is an indication of a loss of faith and to insist on scientific proof of the existence of God is a form of blasphemy.

It don't think that's what IDers intended by this silly bit of shenanigans but then they aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer both scientifically and theologically.
181 posted on 11/13/2005 6:21:13 PM PST by beaver fever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

sorry my point went over your head. I'll type more slowly next time.


182 posted on 11/13/2005 6:21:21 PM PST by Sun (Hillary Clinton is pro-ILLEGAL immigration. Don't let her fool you. She has a D- /F immigr. rating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Sounds like Santorum knows he's down in the pols in PA and saw what happened to the Dover school board. He knows the losing side of an issue and isn't taking any chances.


183 posted on 11/13/2005 6:22:34 PM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005

You must have read: Pg. 29 - There is not only evidence supporting each theory, much of the evidence supports both (so therefore proves neither). There is no disagreement that small, adaptive chances...... BUT -

PLEASE READ THE REST OF IT.


184 posted on 11/13/2005 6:22:44 PM PST by Sun (Hillary Clinton is pro-ILLEGAL immigration. Don't let her fool you. She has a D- /F immigr. rating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Sun
Hmm. The author starts with establishing his false dichotomy up-front -- that is, stating that Darwinian evolution is consistent only with a purely "naturalistic (non-designed) universe". Later he presents a statement from the Natural Association of Biology Teachers that they have since retracted because, while the idea of a supernatural intelligence "guiding" evolution is not scientific, it is also not possible to rule out -- moreover, there is always the possibility of a natural intelligence secretly and subtly guiding evolution, thus their original statement was presumptive. Thus the author uses a retracted statement to "prove" a bogus point. Meaning that, deliberately or not, he has already given a premise for the theory of evolution that is not true.

The author dishonestly claims that "evolution" refers both to common descent theory and origins of life. He claims that it is used interchangably for both sciences by "most scientists (and laymen)". This is false. While many laymen mistakenly believe that the theory of evolution covers the ultimate origin of life (as is evident by the many creationists here who refuse to back down even when it is explained very clearly why the theory cannot address life origins), it is hardly common for professional biologists to lump the theory of evolution with abiogenesis. I have to wonder exactly how much research the author has done on the current state of the theory of evolution at this point.

The author then states firmly that he will be using the word "evolution" to refer to darwinian evolution, life origins and even cosmic origins, introducing yet another dishonest misrepresentation of the theory of evolution into the mix. The theory of evolution says nothing about how the universe came to exist, but the author says that amongst the uses of the term "evolution", he will use it to refer to "naturalistic theories regarding the origin and development of the universe". The author demonstrates that he is either fundamentally ignorant of the theory of evolution or a shameless liar. Given the amount of research he would have had to do in order to obtain the various quotes that he sprinkles through his paper, I strongly suspect the latter

The author then restates the "naturalism" issue, which is that evolution posits that we are just "here" and not here for any specific purpose. Which is actually a fundamental misrepresentation of the nature of science itself. Science only deals with the natural universe. Evolution, as a science, can only deal with a subset of the natural universe. As such, any speculation on a supernaturally-derived reason for our existence may well be correct, but it cannot be studied by science. As such, evolution cannot address such issues. Unfortunately, the author here dishonestly claims that evolution denies such things, when the fact of the matter is that it can't say anything one way or another about them. He even quotes Professor Richard Lewontin's "Divine Foot" statement, wherein Lewontin explains that we cannot allow supernaturalistic explanations into science because once we allow for any miracles we can come up with explanations for anything that are fundamentally meaningless by simply saying "divine intervention" when we come to an impasse in our understanding. But the author dishonestly misrepresents the statement as a "committment to a naturalistic worldview", as if no scientist who accepts evolution can be anything but an atheist.

Should I go on? The author's ignorance and/or deliberate dishonesty are really putting me off.
185 posted on 11/13/2005 6:23:29 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: ICE-FLYER
"I love your world view table of replies. The flat earth folks thought the same way...they were closed minded on the subject all the while accusing others of the same.

You just broke my irony meter.

Those that come up with new and novel ideas for a living are more closed minded than the absolutists that demand a return to a Biblical way of life? A Bible that has putatively not changed in 2 thousand years and is primarily a book of restrictions?

I don't know what to say.

186 posted on 11/13/2005 6:25:30 PM PST by b_sharp (Ad space for rent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Sun
I'll type more slowly next time.

Good. Hopefully typing more slowly will help you type more accurately.

187 posted on 11/13/2005 6:25:48 PM PST by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Sun
Let's see...

"Cells are complicated"

"Life from nonlife is really improbable, based upon a mathematical premise that I just made up..."

You seem to be arguing against abiogenesis (and Dembski's math has already been shredded -- he has no foundation whatsoever for his starting premise, so all of his numbers are meaningless). But evolution isn't abiogenesis, and I asked for references on evidence against evolution.

Demonstrating that a number of scientists are willing to accept Intelligent Design does not demonstrate that scientists are leaving the theory of evolution in droves.
188 posted on 11/13/2005 6:27:26 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: ICE-FLYER
but is not clearly and fully realized yet you believe in it.

I don't "believe" in anything. I accept the best plausible explanation. Might be right, might be wrong; but "belief" doesn't enter into it. That is your world.

That DOES require some faith.

No. You say this because you know your view can only exist on faith and so you seek to impose this upon everyone else, to justify yourself. What you cannot conceive is a person who has no faith, yet accepts the majority of natural evidence as true. Scares you, doesn't it?

Don't lecture me on trashing of words and their meanings.

Hey, you trash words, I'm going to call you on it. Get as defensive as you want. You don't scare me punk.

You are conveniently predisposed to evolution being on solid enough ground as to be perfect in its presentation when it is still a work in much progress requiring more.

You don't know what I think,(conveniently predisposed) and have no right to judge me by your meager intellect. My mind is "wide open" and I have made no firm conclusion. I fully accept the fact that I will die without ever knowing the "absolute truth." Have you? Or are you a coward?

Conflation is the part and parcel that you and your kin live by. Your example is your definition of faith:

Faith has meaning for you as well, here is your definition :Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

I would rather give up the meaning of the word faith than accept the equivalence of believing in something supernatural is the same as believeing the in the veracity of something provable in the natural world. The discrepancy between the denotation and the connotaion is the meaning of the Fallacy of Conflation.

That is what you are doing here, Conflation. Religious "Faith" with common faith such as the "belief" in gravity. The difference is ignoring a belief in gravity will kill you while ignoring a belief in a religious faith will result in some, unprovable in this life, punishment.

They aren't the same thing and only the ignorant will equate them.

189 posted on 11/13/2005 6:27:39 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
pour coffee in a cup, why is there coffee in the cup? A) Because of my actions
B) Because of a combination of physical laws which caused it to happen, such as coffee being in the pot, the pot being tipped over the cup, gravity etc.
C) Both. (And countless other details, including the fact that some farmer grew the coffee beans, who used some tools and supplies from other folks etc.)

I prefer answer A). It is simple and pragmatic. Am I wrong to do so? Is the simplest explination (all other things being equal) usually the best?

Technically, gravity pulled the coffee down into the cup. You did not do that. All you did was align the pot with the cup and let natural forces do the rest.

190 posted on 11/13/2005 6:28:39 PM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

The author has logic, rather than blind faith to the unproved evolution theory.

As does THIS author who you will put down, as does the ACLU.

Skepticism evolves

A 1980 Whitworth College graduate who majored in physics and geology, Meyer took a job out of college as a geophysicist with Atlantic Richfield. Meyer said that throughout his undergraduate years, he had always reconciled his scientific work and religious convictions by believing that evolution and theism were not incompatible. "I was quite comfortable accepting the standard evolutionary story, although I put a bit of atheistic spin on it - that (evolution) is how God operated."

While working for ARCO and living in Dallas, Meyer attended a conference that brought together top philosophers, cosmologists and origin-of-life biologists to debate the religious implications of contemporary scientific findings. "I remember being especially fascinated with the origins debate at this conference. It impressed me to see that scientists who had always accepted the standard evolutionary story were now defending a theistic belief, not on the basis that it makes them feel good or provides some form of subjective contentment, but because the scientific evidence suggests an activity of mind that is beyond nature. I was really taken with this."

excerpt

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC&id=1771


191 posted on 11/13/2005 6:30:39 PM PST by Sun (Hillary Clinton is pro-ILLEGAL immigration. Don't let her fool you. She has a D- /F immigr. rating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Fine, then remove the unproven 'theory' of evolution from science classrooms. I have no problem with it. Thanks.

Then, based on your misunderstanding of scientific theories and proof, ALL scientific theories, not just the Theory of Evolution, must be removed. There is not a single, proven scientific theory in existence. Never has been and never will be. Can you tell me why?

192 posted on 11/13/2005 6:31:55 PM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
Have you ever heard of a lizard in a jar?

And your point was . . .?

193 posted on 11/13/2005 6:34:05 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Sun
The author has logic, rather than blind faith to the unproved evolution theory.

Why do you say "unproved" as though that has any significance?

ALL theories in science are "unproved". Theories in science can never be proven. When you use "unproved" as a qualifier when speaking of the theory of evolution it makes it sound like either you don't understand how science works or you're being deliberately deceptive with your wording.

And an anecdote does not give me any information on the numbers of biologists who no longer accept the theory of evolution. There have always been scientists who claimed to be skeptical of the theory of evolution. You made a claim that implied that the percentage of scientists who no longer accept evolution is increasing lately.
194 posted on 11/13/2005 6:34:33 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
"Okay ace, please tell us how the original single celled organism came into being. Second, please point us to an uninterrupted lineage of that single cell to man.

We do not know how life started. We do not have a continuous line of fossils between the original life and man. Neither of these is necessary to show man has a common descendant with the other apes. Nor are they necessary to show the common descent patterns observed for other organisms. Your questions, whether answered or not, do not falsify evolution. There is far too much evidence of evolution in general and common descent in particular to be derailed by an incomplete store of information, information we may or may not acquire in the future. The information we do have verifies the patterns we see to a very high degree of confidence.

195 posted on 11/13/2005 6:35:08 PM PST by b_sharp (Ad space for rent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings

I'm a scientist. But please ignore the comment.


196 posted on 11/13/2005 6:36:37 PM PST by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I have sought to state that belief in man's evolution from a single cell is not sustainable incotrovertably by the evidence. I have not sought to say it is impossible. As for ID, you can't prove that false or true. Neither can I.

"Sustainable incontrovertably by the evidence" is not possible scientifically. You don't get to make up your own criteria and demand that science comply with them.

No one can prove whether ID false or true. The problem with ID is that there is no possible way to falsify it, which is not the same as proving it false. You do understand the difference?

I can deal with it. Can you?

Easily.

197 posted on 11/13/2005 6:37:24 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Science leads you where the establishment-approved scientists lead you.


198 posted on 11/13/2005 6:37:39 PM PST by skr (Shopping for a tagline that fits or a fitting tagline...whichever I find first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
To: DoughtyOne
Your belief in evolution based on a preponderence of the evidence is not a real strong arguement IMO.

That's OK. Your opinion isn't the arbiter of science.

But that doesn't bother me at all.  Unlike you, I'm not demanding my faith based beliefs be taught without an alternative.

I could just as easily state that the complexity of man provides a preponderence of evidence that Intelligent Design is the only possible origin.

You could, but the statement would simply be false

No, it would simply be a theory that you would choose not to accept.
<>I've asked you several times now where on earth you got this idea that just because you say something means you have to be taken seriously.Honestly, it doesn't. You could just as easily state that the ubiquity of fecal matter provides a preponderance of evidence that you pulled the universe out your @$$. Who cares what it looks like to you? The only thing that matters is what it looks like. Period.

Science at one time accepted that the earth was the center of the universe.  You'll have to excuse me for realizing that today's belief on the origion of the species is based on acceptence of something that is not provable.  It's rather comical that I have to keep saying this, because those on your side keep reiminding me that in science nothing is provable.

I don't seek to make that case.

Why not? If that's what the preponderance of the evidence shows, then make the case. I strongly encourage you to do so.

The preponderence of the evidence reveals that we do not know where man came from conslusively.  That statement is scientificly sustainable and you know it.

Your side does seek to claim that your theory is the only possible origin based on the evidence.

Based on the evidence, evolution is the only plausible explanatory model.

Based on the evidence, evolution is not far removed from Saturday morning cartoon plot lines.

Well, I disagree.

Here's a cookie.

It's certainly your perogitive to claim falsity and inanity.

Yeah, but I don't rely on merely my say so.

So what you are saying is that when the United States voted for Clinton twice, everyone should have adopted the majority opinion?  There you go again...

I'm sorry, but I can't buy into your last statement.

That's OK.

Threads like this refute that perception. Some of you folks are willing to compare others and myself to the Taliban...

I wasn't talking about "us folks" but rather just about me. Nothing I've posted in this thread refutes my statement, which would be unlikely if for no other reason than that it's true

Since your theory cannot be proven, and the preponderence of evidence doesn't sustain what you say it does, then I can come to no other conclusion that that your statement was false.

Your own words have betrayed you.  Based on flimsy evidence you have opted to believe the theory of evolution based on faith.  That may be acceptable to you, but it's hardly an example of scientific purity.  The evidence does not prove what you believe.  Why are you having such a hard time with this concept?

...just because we don't buy into your theories lock stock and barrel, and do not think exclusivity should be yours any more than ours.

I am not a relativist, and never will be. If you want any claim to 'inclusivity' then support your position. Otherwise, you can spout whatever nonsense makes you happy, just don't expect to be taken seriously, at least not by me.

...at least by me.  LMAO, look I'm not particularly interested whether you take me serioiusly or not.  For a guy that has expressed his belief in something that is not sustainable, but gets upset when others don't, I find it rather cute what you're trying to pass off as reasoned.

If you were genuinely concerned about scientific progress, you'd be willing to take a look at the 'evidence', and see two possible conclusions based on the evidence that exists and the evidence that doesn't.

I have taken a look at the evidence, and I even see multiple potential conclusions based upon it. Intelligent design isn't one of them.

Well you're welcome to you own conclusions on that.  For what they're worth.

Your conclusions concerning the evidence, are all focused on accepting what you cannot prove. What bothers you is that I have also elected to accept something I cannot prove.

That is false. What bothers me is that you have elected to equate fantasy with science.

Is it scientific to have some evidence, then extrapolate that man evolved from a single celled organism?  LOL, very impressive.  Talk about fantasy...

The holes in your evidence don't dissuade me.

Gosh, I'd hope not. It's the evidence itself that's persuasive, not whatever holes might be in it.

Isn't it interesting, you are impressed by the evidence and I'm impressed by the lack of it.

The holes in my evidence should not disuade you.

You have no evidence at all. In fact, you explicitly stated above that you don't even seek to make the case.

Hmmm, afraid to acknowledge my complete comment?  Evidently so.

This leaves us both unable to categoricly prove the other wrong.

Umm, no it doesn't. My position is that you have no evidence. If you disagree with that, then unless you come up with some you are categorically wrong.

I'm categoricly wrong when you can provide the complete lineage of mans evolution from a single cell.  You can't even muster the courage to admit you can't even prove without a doubt how the first single celled organism came into being, but trash me for not following the idiotic pipe dream that is faith based evidence very lite.

None the less, your belief is teachable and my belief, both based on the uprovable, is not.

Your belief is definitely teachable as whatever it is, which isn't science.

Okay, me beliefs are not science and your beliefs are not supportable.  I can live with that.

Down through the ages, there have been many people judged to be heritics.

Yes, well, the most common reason for that is because they were.

If that's the case you'd like to make, I'm willing to let that premise stand.  I'm not buying into it.

Today the scientific community is the one making that charge, all the while claiming the high moral ground. Science is not faith-based. What on earth makes you think that just because you represent it that way means anyone has to take you seriously?

This from a person who cannot prove his theory, cannot disprove anyone elses theory, and is wasting more time than is necessary to admit to it.

199 posted on 11/13/2005 6:38:18 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005
Or incorrect, for that matter. That's the whole problem with it.

I agree with you. But these ninnies continually harp on the "proof" thing. I keep asking for one single piece of evidence that justifies ID. Just one. They have none.

They can scream about fossils all they want but fossils support the ToE. There is nothing comparable for ID. Nothing. I'm just goading them. ID cannot be validated or refuted, by definition.

It isn't like science could ever support ID. There is one of those old lines: "It isn't even true enough to be wrong."

200 posted on 11/13/2005 6:40:32 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 651-686 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson