Until we're allowed to pull out the comfy chair and the soft cushions, conversions are likely to remain few and far between.
Posted on 12/25/2005 1:41:41 PM PST by RussP
ID is not a theory. Neither is evolution. They are both explanations.
Based on faith? Yes.
Scientific? No.
Here we go again. Has anyone ever been persuaded, convinced or cajoled into accepting the opposing view?
ID theory has not enough evidence for it to be taught in school. Maybe if there is more evidence for it, but little or none exists for it.
No one taught continental drift theory in school in the 1800's. Not enough evidence for it. Scientists are open minded and will embrace ID if there is evidence for it. As of now, there is almost none.
Teaching ID in schools would be nonesense and a bastardization of the word science.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Close. ID is a belief. Evolution is a theory.
This excerpt was certainly convincing: "Those dissenters are modern day Galileos who are standing up to the Neo-Darwinian dogma and the misleading attacks by its believers..." /sarc
Bingo. I first met Judge Jones about 11 years ago. Smart man. Tough to pull the wool over his eyes. I hope that other courts find his opinion to be very persuasive authority on the issue.
I don't think you understand the definition of theory.
That bears repeating.
I say let all the thoeries, ideas, and explanations get haashed out in every individual's mind. What are the Darwinites afraid of?
Starting creation v. evolution threads on Christmas is an offense against good taste and manners for which I would gleefully revive hanging, drawing and quartering.
I think you'd better look at this PA judge for an example of who sounds like a liberal.
Is he, by chance, an ACLU member? I have no idea, but it wouldn't surprise me. He certainly shares their hostility to anything reflecting a reverence for God.
Yes. The Talk.Origins newsgroup (a longstanding public internet forum for the discussion of origins, most discussion centers around evolution/creationism) keeps a list of people who have been persuaded, by following the discussions, to accept the validity of evolution, and understand fallacies in the creationists' anti-evolution arguments. Last I saw (and that was several years ago), the list had about 40+ people.
Meanwhile, the creationists never seemed to be able to offer a list of people who had been persuaded to switch sides in the opposite direction.
Wrong. Both are beliefs and both are models. Neither is really a theory because neither are duplicatable.
Until we're allowed to pull out the comfy chair and the soft cushions, conversions are likely to remain few and far between.
Some of the evidence for continental drift was evident as soon as accurate maps of the South Atlantic coasts were available, which was in the 1800s. Abundant additional evidence was presented by Wegener and others in the early 20th century. Yet orthodox geologists continued to reject it, just as dogmatic Darwinists continue to reject anything which challenges their pet theory. Ruthlessly suppressing anything but an orthodoxy is not science! What should really be asked is why Darwinists are so obsessed with having their theory taught at the secondary or even elementary level. As a trained scientist, I know that knowledge of evolution is not necessary in most areas or science. One could even get along in geology without it, although one would have to keep one's ignorance hidden, and recognize that life did progress through geologic time. This doctrine is really being pushed, not so much because it is needed to succeed in life, but because of its absolute necessity to the determinist-materialist worldview which underlies socialism.
Now see, that's what happens when you jump to conclusions without bothering to learn anything about your subject first.
The judge in the Dover case was appointed by President George W. Bush, is not a liberal, and his 139-page decision shows no hostility towards religion. In the decision, he also mentions that the decision will probably be attacked by some as being a case of "judicial activism", but he explains that his court is "manifestly" not an activist one (i.e., he does not believe in judicial activism), and he explains why this decision is not a case of activism, and is in fact the opposite.
Finally, several of the plaintiffs in the case, as well as the chief expert witness for the prosecution on the subject of evolutionary biology (Kenneth R. Miller) are themselves devout Christians.
So this case cannot be easily dismissed as "godless liberals against religion", nor should it. The judge's decision is based on the expert testimony and evidence presented by both sides, and from my reading of it, it was the correct decision based on the facts and the Constitution.
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.