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

Skip to comments.

Darwinist Ideologues Are on the Run
Human Events Online ^ | Jan 31, 2006 | Allan H. Ryskind

Posted on 01/30/2006 10:27:35 PM PST by Sweetjustusnow

The two scariest words in the English language? Intelligent Design! That phrase tends to produce a nasty rash and night sweats among our elitist class.

Should some impressionable teenager ever hear those words from a public school teacher, we are led to believe, that student may embrace a secular heresy: that some intelligent force or energy, maybe even a god, rather than Darwinian blind chance, has been responsible for the gazillions of magnificently designed life forms that populate our privileged planet.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: crevolist; delusionalnutjobs; evolution; idiocy; ignoranceisstrength; intelligentdesign; whataloadoffeces
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 1,151-1,188 next last
To: editor-surveyor
Yeah, those damn references to research. Nothing but propaganda. Thank God ...oops...The Designer that ID doesn't have these irritating research articles to clutter up the discussion!
151 posted on 01/31/2006 9:09:53 AM PST by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
TOE makes no such assumption, ...

OK, then lay out the TOE, and point out the possibility that God may have created everything we see. There is no mention of God, because the TOE assumes His non-existance.

152 posted on 01/31/2006 9:10:29 AM PST by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Sweetjustusnow
I believe that the ToE explains a lot about how life developed. However, I don't think it's the last word--it's a theory in process and thus, should be discussed and refined.

If ID can bring something useful to the table, I say let it.
153 posted on 01/31/2006 9:10:39 AM PST by Antoninus (The only reason you're alive today is because your parents were pro-life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
Please explain how an asexually-reproducing creature will eventually create a sexually-reproducing creature.

There are creatures that can reproduce asexually or by sharing genetic material with another of the same species. Why do you think that it was a one-and-then-the-other event?

Then explain how two asexually-reproducing creatures can produce two complementary-but-different sexually-reproducing creatures--within the same lifetime and in the same geographical area so that they may meet and reproduce.

I don't understand what you mean by that.

Yes it does

No, it doesn't.

as it attempts to use nothing but chance and slective breeding to explain us.

It uses random mutation and nonrandom natural selection to explain species diversity starting from common ancestry. Nothing from that statement states or implies that there are no deities. I cannot imagine what twisted crime of logic someone must commit to come to such a conclusion.

There is no reference to a God (or His absence) anywhere within the TOE, thus it assumes He is persona non grata.

Are you serious? Absolutely no scientific theory at all mentions any deities. Relativity theory says nothing whatsoever about any gods. Does that mean that relativity denies the existence of God?

Scientific theories cannot make mention of any gods, much less the God that you might worship, whether to affirm or deny existence. Deities are completely outside of the scope of scientific inquiry, and as such science can never say anything one way or another about them or any involvement they might have with the natural universe.
154 posted on 01/31/2006 9:11:01 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: MedicalMess

I think we all feel sorry for you. You sound extremely bitter which is understandable. I pray you find peace.


155 posted on 01/31/2006 9:12:35 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
There is no reference to a God (or His absence) anywhere within the TOE, thus it assumes He is persona non grata.

This must pass for logic in your universe, but not mine.

156 posted on 01/31/2006 9:13:23 AM PST by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
Yeah, I can see youre passionate. Just make sure nothing "pops".


157 posted on 01/31/2006 9:13:27 AM PST by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
OK, then lay out the TOE, and point out the possibility that God may have created everything we see.

To which "God", out of the thousands of deities worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history, do you refer and why should that particular deity be "pointed out" as something that "may" have been involved to the exclusion of all other possible deities?

Also, why make mention of a supernatural entity in a context that cannot, in any way, address the supernatural?

There is no mention of God, because the TOE assumes His non-existance.

Absolute poppycock. Not mentioning an entity is not the same as assuming or stating that said entity is non-existent.
158 posted on 01/31/2006 9:14:29 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
"Thank you. Please explain how an asexually-reproducing creature will eventually create a sexually-reproducing creature. Then explain how two asexually-reproducing creatures can produce two complementary-but-different sexually-reproducing creatures--within the same lifetime and in the same geographical area so that they may meet and reproduce."

All your answers are in Escherichia coli and Salmonella Cellular and Molecular Biology, Frederick C. Neidhardt, Editor in Chief. After you've read it, if you have any questions, I'll be glad to help.

159 posted on 01/31/2006 9:16:00 AM PST by furball4paws (Awful Offal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; ShadowAce

Sorry, not enough coffee on my part: the defective log belongs to shadowace.


160 posted on 01/31/2006 9:16:02 AM PST by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Do you consider bacteria sexual or asexual?

Given that Bacteria usually reproduce by simply dividing in two and from Encyclopedia.com:" Reproduction is chiefly by binary fission, cell division yielding identical daughter cells. Some bacteria reproduce by budding or fragmentation.", I would say that they reproduce asexually.

161 posted on 01/31/2006 9:17:20 AM PST by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent
Right, it's not religion, it's just a supernatural entity that operates outside physical laws. Gotcha.

Can you define "physical law?" Will said law be the same 100 years from now given further discovery? Through history things just always seem to be changing; quantum physics being a good example.

"The true wiseman is the one who realizes he knows nothing-Socrates

162 posted on 01/31/2006 9:17:49 AM PST by 101st-Eagle (Imagination is more important than knowledge-Albert Einstein..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

The Conspiracy That Cares

Corrupting the World's Youth Since 1859


January 31, 2006

The CrevoSci Archive

Since June 25, 1999


Keyword Searches


Links


Box Scores
(All values subject to change)

Year Threads Daily Avg.
1999 42 0.12
2000 120 0.33
2001 255 0.70
2002 356 0.98
2003 467 1.28
2004 399 1.09
2005 1366 3.74
2006 164 5.29
Totals 3169 1.31

Lost Threads

%
43 1.4

Participants Banned %
1034 110 10.6

Freepdays

  1. [2000-01-18] 2banana
  2. [2001-01-24] agenda_express
  3. [2002-01-26] ALS
  4. [1999-01-23] Antiwar Republican
  5. [1998-01-19] BB2
  6. [1999-01-26] Bernard Marx
  7. [1998-01-21] Cameron
  8. [1999-01-24] Cautor
  9. [2000-01-03] Condorman
  10. [2003-01-17] conservativecorner
  11. [2006-01-03] Creationist
  12. [2003-01-16] cyborg
  13. [2002-01-12] Dajjal
  14. [2000-01-26] DallasMike
  15. [2000-01-08] Deadeye Division
  16. [2003-01-31] Diddley
  17. [2003-01-23] El Laton Caliente
  18. [2000-01-11] exnavy
  19. [2005-01-30] From many - one.
  20. [2005-01-03] Fruit of the Spirit
  21. [2003-01-23] ganeshpuri89
  22. [1999-01-29] Gritty
  23. [1999-01-31] Hacksaw
  24. [1998-01-16] holly
  25. [2005-01-17] isaiah55version11_0
  26. [2005-01-21] JCRoberts
  27. [2002-01-02] Jeff Gordon
  28. [2001-01-31] JMFoard
  29. [2001-01-24] Just another Joe
  30. [2000-01-07] Keyes2000mt
  31. [2002-01-14] Lost Highway
  32. [2005-01-27] manny613
  33. [1999-01-04] Map Kernow
  34. [1999-01-31] Mark Felton
  35. [1999-01-25] Matchett-PI
  36. [2004-01-16] mc6809e
  37. [2002-01-17] MEGoody
  38. [2005-01-20] MHalblaub
  39. [2002-01-22] mikegi
  40. [2003-01-21] Mikey_1962
  41. [1999-01-31] Mr.Clark
  42. [2004-01-08] orionblamblam
  43. [2002-01-02] Oxylus
  44. [2003-01-25] Prolixus
  45. [2005-01-05] Right Wing It
  46. [2000-01-31] RoughDobermann
  47. [1999-01-22] Rudder
  48. [2000-01-21] SJackson
  49. [2003-01-06] skinkinthegrass
  50. [1999-01-31] Slings and Arrows
  51. [2001-01-13] Still Thinking
  52. [2004-01-03] SunkenCiv
  53. [2002-01-12] Tomalak
  54. [2002-01-30] truenospinzone
  55. [2003-01-12] Voice in your head
  56. [2004-01-29] wagglebee
  57. [2002-01-30] wallcrawlr
  58. [2001-01-10] Weatherman123
  59. [1998-01-22] wotan
  60. [2004-01-15] writer33
  61. [1998-01-21] zerosix

CrevoSci Threads for the Past Week

  1. 2006-01-31 Darwinist Ideologues Are on the Run
  2. 2006-01-30 Belief in intelligent design is pure logic
  3. 2006-01-30 Buddhism and Neuroscience [The spirit helps/owns science! YES! for capitalists]
  4. 2006-01-30 Celebrate Darwin Day Feb. 9-13 at Cornell, Ithaca College and the Museum of the Earth
  5. 2006-01-30 Intelligent Design belittles God, Vatican director says
  6. 2006-01-30 Intelligent design is not creationism (Stephen Meyer)
  7. 2006-01-30 Scientists Find Gene That Controls Type of Earwax in People
  8. 2006-01-30 Summing Up Some Politically Incorrect Positions
  9. 2006-01-29 Design and the Anthropic Principle
  10. 2006-01-29 Intelligent Design in the Philosophy of Biology Curriculm at University of Bern (Switzerland)
  11. 2006-01-29 The Symbolic Species The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain
  12. 2006-01-27 Evolutionary Theory: Verified or Vilified?
  13. 2006-01-27 Morality on the Brain
  14. 2006-01-27 Mountain ranges rise dramatically faster than expected (Earth not as old as evolutionists say)
  15. 2006-01-27 Screwtape's 'Age of Darwinian Scientism'
  16. 2006-01-26 BBC: Most Brits Don't Believe in Evolution
  17. 2006-01-26 Fossil Yields Surprise Kin of Crocodiles
  18. 2006-01-26 Making Darwin Right
  19. 2006-01-26 Pitt Professor's Theory of Evolution Gets Boost From Cell Research [Sudden Origins]
  20. 2006-01-26 What Are Creationists Afraid Of?
  21. 2006-01-26 Why do you not understand what I say?(Understanding non-Christians)
  22. 2006-01-25 Evolution Sunday!
  23. 2006-01-25 Is ID science or religion?
  24. 2006-01-25 Moon Is Dragging Continents West, Scientist Says
  25. 2006-01-25 Movement hopes to bridge the gap between evolution and creationism
  26. 2006-01-25 Nothing New under the Sun: Another Failed Attempt to Explain God Away
  27. 2006-01-25 Studies examine withholding of scientific data among researchers, trainees
  28. 2006-01-25 Time Changes Modern Human's Face

On this Date in CrevoSci History

  1. 01/31/2005 'Birdbrain' Gets Some Smart Backers (Humans and Birds now originate from common Evolutionary branch)
  2. 01/31/2005 Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-design article
  3. 01/31/2005 STATEMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON (ON THE MEYER ID PAPER)
  4. 01/31/2004 JIMMY MONKEYS WITH EVOLUTION FOE
  5. 01/31/2003 Genome Evolution | First, a Bang Then, a Shuffle
  6. 01/31/2003 Is Randomness Really Random?
  7. 01/31/2003 Polonium Radiohalos and the Age of the Earth - Update
  8. 01/31/2003 Symmetry in Evolution

Deleted, Locked, or Pulled Threads

  1. 11/15/2005 'Perception' gene tracked humanity's evolution, scientists say [Locked]
  2. 04/27/2004 Stop Teaching Our Kids this Evolution Claptrap! [Pulled]
  3. 10/29/2003 The Mystery of the Missing Links (Intelligent Design vs. Evolution) [Pulled]
  4. 10/27/2003 Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution [Pulled]
  5. 10/23/2003 Gene Found for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder [Pulled]
  6. 10/21/2003 Artificial Proteins Assembled from Scratch [Pulled]
  7. 09/23/2003 Solar System Formation Questions [Pulled]
  8. 09/17/2003 Agreement of the Willing - Free Republic Science Threads [Pulled]
  9. 08/20/2003 Lice offer clues to origin of clothing [Locked]
  10. 07/19/2003 Darwin in a Box [Pulled]
  11. 07/18/2003 Unlikely Group May Revive Darwin Debate [Evolution v. Creationism] [Pulled]
  12. 07/02/2003 Unlocking the Mystery of 'Unlocking the Mystery of Life' [Pulled]
  13. 06/26/2003 Darwin Faces a New Rival [Pulled]
  14. 06/06/2003 Amazing Creatures [Pulled]
  15. 05/30/2003 NUCLEAR DECAY: EVIDENCE FOR A YOUNG WORLD [Pulled]
  16. 09/14/2002 Geological Theory Explains Origin of Ocean, Continents [Pulled]
  17. 09/13/2002 Oldest Known Penis Is 100 Million Years Old [Pulled]
  18. 04/13/2002 To Creationists: Is There a Global Conspiracy to Promote Evolution? [Pulled]
  19. 04/10/2002 (Creationists) CRSC Correction [Pulled]
  20. 04/04/2002 Evolution: What is it? (long article) [Locked]
  21. 03/22/2002 Evolution is designed for science classes [Pulled]
  22. 03/05/2002 Life found 'on margin of existence' [Pulled]
  23. 11/10/2001 Alabama to continue biology textbook warning sticker [Pulled]
  24. 11/06/2001 Warming makes mosquito evolve, University of Oregon scientists find [Pulled]
  25. 09/18/2001 CHEERED BY BIGOTS, SCIENTIFIC INDIA TAKES 'GIANT LEAP BACKWARDS' [Pulled]
  26. 08/29/2001 How Not to Defend Evolution [Deleted]
  27. 08/28/2001 The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [6th Revision] [Deleted]
  28. 08/27/2001 Top Ten Problems with the Big Bang [Deleted]
  29. 08/26/2001 A Scientific Account of the Origin of Life on Earth [Thread I] [Deleted]
  30. 08/24/2001 Satellites Search for Noah’s Ark [Deleted]
  31. 07/19/2001 The Effect of Darwinism on Morality and Christianity [Deleted]
  32. 07/19/2001 The Scientific Case Against Evolution: A Summary Part I [Deleted]
  33. 07/19/2001 The Scientific Case Against Evolution: A Summary Part II [Deleted]
  34. 07/19/2001 Evolution is Religion — Not Science [Deleted]
  35. 07/07/2001 Evolution Fraud in Current Biology Textbooks [Deleted]
  36. 03/31/2001 Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator [No Such File]
  37. 01/13/2001 A Christian Understanding of Intelligent Design [Deleted]
  38. 11/15/2000 Evolutionism Receives Another Hard Blow [Deleted]
  39. 10/10/2000 Another Lost Generation? [Deleted]
  40. 10/02/2000 God and the Academy [Deleted]
  41. 09/18/2000 The World of Design [Deleted]
  42. 08/30/2000 Evil-Ution [Deleted]
  43. 11/14/1999 Creationism's Success Past 5 Years: (Gallup: 1 in 10 hold secular evolutionist perspective) [No Such File]

The Wall
"In death, all men are equal"

  1. 1LongTimeLurker
  2. 2Trievers
  3. Ada Coddington
  4. Ahab Brigade
  5. Ahriman
  6. akdonn
  7. ALS
  8. angelo
  9. Area Freeper
  10. Aric2000
  11. Askel5
  12. Asphalt
  13. biblewonk
  14. bluepistolero
  15. Boot Hill
  16. broberts
  17. churchillbuff
  18. claptrap
  19. Clinton's a liar
  20. codebreaker
  21. Con X-Poser
  22. D. Skippy
  23. dbbeebs
  24. Destro
  25. DittoJed2
  26. dob
  27. Ed Current
  28. Exnihilo
  29. f.Christian
  30. Far Gone
  31. farmfriend
  32. followerofchrist
  33. freeparella
  34. general_re
  35. geros
  36. Good Tidings Of Great Joy
  37. goodseedhomeschool
  38. gopwinsin04
  39. gore3000
  40. H.R. Gross
  41. Happy2BMe
  42. Helms
  43. Ignatius J Reilly
  44. IllumiNOTi
  45. JediGirl
  46. JesseShurun
  47. JethroHathaway
  48. JFK_Lib
  49. jlogajan
  50. JoeSchem
  51. john_baldacci_is_a_commie
  52. Justice Avenger
  53. Kerberos
  54. Kevin Curry
  55. kharaku
  56. knowquest
  57. Land of the Irish
  58. LarryLied
  59. Le-Roy
  60. malakhi
  61. Marathon
  62. masked face doom
  63. medved
  64. Merdoug
  65. metacognative
  66. mikeharris65
  67. missyme
  68. Modernman
  69. Morris Hattrick
  70. mrustow
  71. n4sir
  72. neoconsareright
  73. newsperson999
  74. NoKinToMonkeys
  75. nuda_veritas
  76. Ogmios
  77. OnlyinAmerica
  78. peg the prophet
  79. Pern
  80. Phaedrus
  81. Phoroneus
  82. pickemuphere
  83. RCW2001
  84. ReasonedThought
  85. ret_medic
  86. RickyJ
  87. RJCogburn
  88. Sabertooth
  89. ScotchBible
  90. SeaLion
  91. Selkie
  92. Shubi
  93. spiker
  94. SplashDog
  95. Stingy Dog
  96. StupidQuestions
  97. That Subliminal Kid
  98. The Loan Arranger
  99. the lone rider
  100. Tomax
  101. tpaine
  102. Truth666
  103. Turan
  104. twittle
  105. Unalienable
  106. USA2000
  107. WaveThatFlag
  108. What about Bob?
  109. winner45
  110. xm177e2


163 posted on 01/31/2006 9:18:12 AM PST by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
There is no mention of God, because the TOE assumes His non-existance.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

164 posted on 01/31/2006 9:20:24 AM PST by Ol' Dan Tucker (Karen Ryan reporting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Everything Ichy posts is propaganda and opinion, no evidence.

Ah, the plaintive bleat of the militantly and self-righteously ignorant.

165 posted on 01/31/2006 9:20:41 AM PST by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
why make mention of a supernatural entity in a context that cannot, in any way, address the supernatural?

That is exactly my point. Science is not the only begetter of Truth, and all these threads deriding creationists just make me shake my head in disbelief of the hypocrisy going on.

What I see are evolutionists mocking Christians because the Christians' faith doesn't match up to your naturalistic world view.

You choose to limit yourself and your beliefs to what you can touch, see, smell, and measure. There is more to life than the physical world. When you limit yourself to believing that science is the only begetter of truth, then you are making initial assumptions that should not be made.

The reason I connected the TOE and no mention of God and no other scientific theory, is that the TOE directly contradicts the Christian creation story. Relativity, gravity, etc. are merely theories observing how the universe works. The TOE attempts to explain our origins, creation (yes, I know, but the TOE relies on the Big Bang, etc. theories), and tries to discredit the Creator.

166 posted on 01/31/2006 9:26:17 AM PST by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
Some bacteria reproduce by budding or fragmentation.", I would say that they reproduce asexually.

Sexuality in bacteria is not tied to reproduction; bacteria transfer genes via plasmids. Do you have any problem with the idea that single-celled organisms can exchange genetic material by comparatively simple means?

167 posted on 01/31/2006 9:27:27 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
The reason I connected the TOE and no mention of God and no other scientific theory, is that the TOE directly contradicts the Christian creation story.

So, if you read that story literally, does physics, astronomy, geology, chemistry, and virtually every other scientific field.

168 posted on 01/31/2006 9:28:47 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
There is no mention of God, because the TOE assumes His non-existance.

You've said this once, and were challenged to corroborate it. Now you've merely restated it without corroboration.

169 posted on 01/31/2006 9:31:08 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: metmom

bump


170 posted on 01/31/2006 9:32:16 AM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce; Right Wing Professor; Dimensio
OK, then lay out the TOE, and point out the possibility that God may have created everything we see.

I'm sorry to disappoint you but that is not a scientific approach. That an omnipotent being (should it exist) could have created everything we see and that even five minutes ago, is trivially true and therefore useless from a scientific point of view. There is no empirical way to either demonstrate the truth of that claim nor to refute it since every observation is compatible with Goddidit.

There is no mention of God, because the TOE assumes His non-existance.

And there is no mention of God or any other deity in other scientific theories either but somehow I never see creationists/IDers complain about that. So the Theory of Evolution no more assumes the nonexistence of your god than any other theory.
Also, not assuming the existence of a god is not the same as assuming his nonexistence. So science in general doesn't say that God could not have done this or that. At most one can say that science only claims that he need not have done it.

171 posted on 01/31/2006 9:32:32 AM PST by BMCDA (If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it,we would be so simple that we couldn't)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
LOL.............. OK, if you say so. Of course you saying so and anyone else saying the same thing does not make it so. It is sort of like a 'theory'.

theory (n) Synonyms: philosophy, model, concept, system, scheme, idea, notion, principle, belief, rule, technique
Synonyms: hypothesis, conjecture, speculation, assumption, premise, presumption, supposition, guess.
Synonyms: hypothesize, conjecture, imagine, conceive, posit, put forward, speculate.

It would take many more solid facts before a theory is no longer a theory.

Yep I am a 'creationist' but not the 6,000 year theory, I believe GOD created it all and that to him a million years is probably equal to a minute to us.

172 posted on 01/31/2006 9:34:39 AM PST by Dustbunny (Can we build it - Yes we can - Bob the Builder - Can we win it - Yes we can - Geo. W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Baldur
THe same goes for Darwin. Nothing he said has ever been truly contradicted

Until now.

173 posted on 01/31/2006 9:38:11 AM PST by Dustbunny (Can we build it - Yes we can - Bob the Builder - Can we win it - Yes we can - Geo. W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Sweetjustusnow
"Charles Krauthammer and George Will" are not folks I'd label conservatives. They've got more in common with godless LIBERALtarians.

Isn't is amazing how the name of Christ is being erased. Prayer hasn't been allowed in school since the 60's. And look at society. It's a mess, morally and any way you wish to categorize it. The word "Intelligent Design" was even used to take the edge off of acknowledging God. God is the "Intelligent Designer". Even there they beat around the bush in giving Him the credit He deserves.

To believe in evolution is insane. The evidence is all around you and it defies chance and evolving. It's moronic to buy into evolution.

Flame away!
174 posted on 01/31/2006 9:42:37 AM PST by nmh (Intelligent people believe in Intelligent Design (God))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
I am not impressed with George Will. He's an egotistical blow hard.
175 posted on 01/31/2006 9:44:12 AM PST by nmh (Intelligent people believe in Intelligent Design (God))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sweetjustusnow
Literally hundreds of geneticists, biologists, paleontologists, chemists, mathematicians and other scientists—whose religious views vary from agnostic to evangelical—say the theory is not a fact.

Hmmm...

I would have thought that ALL scientist would have said that.

Theory is THEORY!!! By definition, theory is NOT fact.

The theory may be based on fact, but it is still a theory.

I don't see anyone referring to the Laws of Evolution.

176 posted on 01/31/2006 9:44:41 AM PST by Dr._Joseph_Warren
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke; Coyoteman
I seem to be stuck to the tar baby again. This is a very strange thing -- we're actually on the same side of the debate -- i.e. I'm an adherent of the ToE. I've also been an educator and think it is a huge mistake to try to keep opposing views out of the classroom -- no matter how lacking they may be. Scientists cannot be trained by memorization of approved "truths" and indoctrination into certain world views -- they have to have to learn how to "do" science.

Also, if you're going to slag your opponents for being "unscientific" -- then you had better actually be using scientific language, and following the scientific method.

With respect -- the definition of theory that Coyoteman posted is bogus. It's worse than a "layman definition" -- it's wrong. Theories can be based either on deductive or inductive reasoning. Here's a definition from Answers.com (just the parts that pertain to this discussion)

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

A lot of science is done through the inductive approach -- simply making a bunch of observations; then creating a tentative theory (conjecture) that seems to explain the observations. Makes sense doesn't it? You have to start somewhere. The value of such a theory lies in the number of testable hypothesis that it can generate. These hypothesis are tested -- and, the theory changed, if necessary.

Please note that this is exactly how the Theory of Evolution was created. Darwin collected samples and made observations -- then he proposed a tentative theory. The theory generated many testable hypothesis and has so far survived all the tests.

If the theory survives the testing, we can say that it "has not yet been disproven". This is no trifling matter -- it is the very essence of the scientific method. If you're going to try to convince people of the superiority of the ToE on the basis of "science"; then you had better actually be using the scientific method or you will not have any credibility. There are a lot of good sites about the philosophy of science on the Web -- here's a brief introductory one: http://www.philosopher.org.uk/sci.htm BTW, do not go to Wikipedia for this -- a lot of what they have on the subject is crap.

Please take this in the spirit in which I offered it -- we agree on the main point; I'm just trying to make your arguments better. l
177 posted on 01/31/2006 9:46:43 AM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
You've said this once, and were challenged to corroborate it.

Are you actually trying to tell me that the TOE assumes there is a God? It's one or the other. Since the whole point of the TOE is to try to explain our history and, by extension, our origins, I'd say it's trying to discredit the whole idea of God.

178 posted on 01/31/2006 9:47:00 AM PST by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

Then you are badly misinformed.


179 posted on 01/31/2006 9:49:50 AM PST by furball4paws (Awful Offal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
There are creatures that can reproduce asexually or by sharing genetic material with another of the same species. Why do you think that it was a one-and-then-the-other event?

Let's get our tense straight. According to the TOE, we all started from one thing--some kind of goo, which became cells, bacteria, etc. By simple logic, at some point it was a one-and-then-the-other event.

180 posted on 01/31/2006 9:50:02 AM PST by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Are these threads evolving in any discernible way? :-)
181 posted on 01/31/2006 9:51:16 AM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited; Siena Dreaming
Unless you have INCREDIBLE FAITH!!! Me, I just don't have the INCREDIBLE FAITH it takes to BELIEVE in EVOLUTION....

It doesn't take "FAITH" at all, it takes knowledge, understanding of the relevant processes, and familiarity with the evidence. For any part of evolutionary biology, the tenets can be personally verified and double-checked. No "FAITH" necessary in the least. "FAITH" is for things which *can't* be checked for validation. Evolutionary biology can.

182 posted on 01/31/2006 9:52:52 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
There is no mention of God, because the TOE assumes His non-existance.

There's no mention of God in the theory of gravitational attraction either. I guess Newton was assuming the nonexistance of God as well...

183 posted on 01/31/2006 9:53:01 AM PST by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
Are you actually trying to tell me that the TOE assumes there is a God?

RWP will answer you better than I, but I must interject... the TOE and ALL of science does not assume there is or isn't a God. God operates in the realm of the supernatural which, by definition, is outside the realm of science. When dopes like Deepak Chopra, faith healers, homeopaths, touch therapists, chiropractors, shamans, witch doctors, and creationists/IDers try to marry the two, people like me get mad.

It's one or the other.

Again, no it's not. I'm quite certain the bulk of scientists and those who accept evolution believe in a deity. Heck, the majority of the "evo" Freepers certainly believe in God. The two realms are wholly separate.

Since the whole point of the TOE is to try to explain our history and, by extension, our origins, I'd say it's trying to discredit the whole idea of God.

No, that's not what the TOE is "trying" to explain. The theory "just is." It's the creationists who attach all sorts of bizarre and unfair anthropomorphisms on the theory who have built up this strange fear of it.
184 posted on 01/31/2006 9:54:24 AM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

Does the hypothesis of Abiogenesis say only one thing wriggled up out of the ooze?

Why don't you explain Abiogenesis to me so that I can understand it?


185 posted on 01/31/2006 9:54:45 AM PST by furball4paws (Awful Offal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Sweetjustusnow
"Should some impressionable teenager ever hear those words from a public school teacher, we are led to believe, that student may embrace a secular heresy: that some intelligent force or energy, maybe even a god, rather than Darwinian blind chance, has been responsible for the gazillions of magnificently designed life forms that populate our privileged planet."

It's amazing to see supposedly religious people denying the existence of God via this Intelligent Design crap.

"A god"?

Lower case?

An intelligent force or energy?

Evolution does not deny the existence of the God of The Bible, and while some "evolutionists" may be atheists, most are not. ID however, denies God by suggesting that something (or someone) other than the God of Abraham may be the Creator.

It even open up the possibility that we are the creation of an alien intelligence...a creation of the created rather than a creation of the Creation.

Intelligent Design is a false God being promoted by Christians for political reasons.

If you are a Christian, you believe that the God of Abraham is the Creator, and you sure as hell don't promote some other unknown force as being behind Creation.

186 posted on 01/31/2006 9:55:39 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sweetjustusnow

Won't be much discussion when the article leads off by calling one side ideologues.


187 posted on 01/31/2006 9:56:00 AM PST by RightWhale (pas de lieu, Rhone que nous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
You should send your links to this guy since he obviously hasn't gotten the word that transitional fossils are everywhere. Oh, and follow up with the cellular researchers that say his theory has merit because they obviously are ignorant, too.
188 posted on 01/31/2006 9:58:53 AM PST by frgoff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
For pete's sake, that was debunked over half a century ago. And it hasn't been taught since then either.

True enough. How long will it take for the fabricated Peppered Moth experiments to get expunged?

189 posted on 01/31/2006 10:03:12 AM PST by frgoff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
[Darwin himself wrote that unless and until the missing linking fossils and transitional forms are uncovered his theory is dead in the water?]

Oh how inconvenient is that...

How inconvenient is it that TheCrusader is lying about what Darwin actually said? Well...

190 posted on 01/31/2006 10:05:09 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Sweetjustusnow

I seem to recall that toward the end of his life, perhaps trying to cover his ass with God JUST IN THE LIKELY EVENT HE -- DARWIN -- GOT IT WRONG!) even Darwin himself had serious doubts about his earlier theories.

And I really LOVE those periodic TV shows which wind back the imaginary "Big Bang" clock to the event. And (with apologies to Andy Rooney) j'ever notice how they ALWAYS stop that clock at 1 second BEFORE midnight. The reason: These double-domed doubters can't explain what -- or, horrors -- WHO LIT THE FUSE!!!

But we know, don't we?

And someday THEY will, too as they catch a glimpse of HIM waving them buh-bye as they head for the express down car..


191 posted on 01/31/2006 10:07:39 AM PST by Dick Bachert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MedicalMess

One day Man stood before God and said:

I can do anything you can, I don't need you anymore, so get out of my life and leave me alone.

To which God replied:

Fine, create life.

Man grinned and reached down to grab a handful of dirt.

God raised his finger and said:

Use your own dirt.


192 posted on 01/31/2006 10:09:39 AM PST by frgoff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: All
Help for new visitors to the evolution debate
Another service of Darwin Central, the conspiracy that cares.

If you're interested in learning about evolution, visit The List-O-Links.
If you'd like to understand the concept of speciation, visit Micro-evolution, Macro-evolution, and Speciation.
If you're serious about debating this issue, see How to argue against a scientific theory.
If you're permanently stuck on stupid, but determined to post anyway, use the Evolution Troll's Toolkit.

193 posted on 01/31/2006 10:09:50 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke; Right Wing Professor; Dimensio
God operates in the realm of the supernatural which, by definition, is outside the realm of science.

In some cases, yes. In other cases, not necessarily. I agree that He is outside the realm of science.

When dopes like Deepak Chopra, faith healers, homeopaths, touch therapists, chiropractors, shamans, witch doctors, and creationists/IDers try to marry the two, people like me get mad.

I do as well. However, I also get mad when people start denigrating others based on beliefs and different interpretations of the evidence. I have no problem identifying the TOE as a theory. I do have a problem identifying it as fact. It has not been proven, though many here see the evidence as proof. Evidence is not proof. Evidence points to proof.

I happen to be a creationist (surprise, surprise!). I also believe in the Bible. The original Hebrew that was used for the word "day" in Genesis indicates a normal, 24-hour day. Given this, and the evidence I see around me, and the evidence others present, I reject the TOE.

I may be wrong in some of the arguments I present. For all I know it is possible for the very beginning asexually-reproducing creatures to produce a sexually-reproducing creature. I wouldn't bet on it, though.

At the very least, given the possible consequences of a wrong choice, wouldn't you rather err on the positive side? This is not a plea for spiritual matters, but a plea to recognize that science is not the only begetter of truth in this universe. There are quite a few things that science does not attempt to explain, nor can explain.

194 posted on 01/31/2006 10:10:07 AM PST by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
[Quick, why do you get goosebumps when you're cold or scared? Hint: It was functional back when our distant ancesters had fur.]

Oh boy... That is just down right laughable!

If you find the truth laughable, well, there are medications for that kind of thing.

These same idiots who claim that is why we get goosebumbs,

Okay, I'll bite -- *you* tell me why we get goosebumps. What functional purpose do they serve? Why did an alleged "designer" give us the exact same mechanism that furred animals use to erect their fur for heat-retention and threat displays, despite the fact that due to our sparse body hair, it serves neither of those functions for us? For what "design purpose" do we get goosebumps? Now's your chance to add more to the discussion than simply braying like a mule. Anyone can ridicule, especially if they don't even bother to explain their giggling as is the case with your post. So come on, put your own analysis into the ring and let us see if you have any clue what you're talking about. We'll wait.

are also the ones that said things like "the appendix is useless, serves no function, leftover from our earlier days", and other equally PROFOUNDLY, IGNORANT MUTTERINGS.

Here, learn something before you get hysterical again: The vestigiality of the human vermiform appendix.

195 posted on 01/31/2006 10:12:06 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: frgoff; Ichneumon
True enough. How long will it take for the fabricated Peppered Moth experiments to get expunged?

What the heck are you talking about?
That most certainly wasn't an experiment and the moths were glued to a tree for illustrative purposes only.

196 posted on 01/31/2006 10:14:31 AM PST by BMCDA (If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it,we would be so simple that we couldn't)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Eclectica

"If one gets as far as a "pre-Med" curriculum in college, you'll realize what elegant thinking this was for the late 19th century."

I guess you've never heard of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweiss.

Doctors are the most closed-minded people on the planet.


197 posted on 01/31/2006 10:15:49 AM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
We CAN however, so you science that proves creation, a young earth, how gravity works in space.

Okay, I'm calling your bluff. Go for it.

All these probes we send into space come back with dissapointing results for evolutionists, but great news for ID'ers. sucks huh?

Yes, it *does* suck that you can make such goofy claims. Conservatives are supposed to be smarter than that. Clue for the clueless: Evolution deals with life -- "space probes" are out studying areas where there isn't any, and thus obviously isn't going to produce any results releavnt to evolutionary biology for or against. Your comment is as goofy as saying, "studies of deserts come back with disappointing results for oceanographers."

198 posted on 01/31/2006 10:16:08 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert
I seem to recall that toward the end of his life, perhaps trying to cover his ass with God JUST IN THE LIKELY EVENT HE -- DARWIN -- GOT IT WRONG!) even Darwin himself had serious doubts about his earlier theories.

You seem to recall incorrectly. In fact, your recall is so poor, even the leading creationist group (Answers in Genesis) have an article explaining why your recall is very most likely wrong.

They also have a cute list of arguments creationists shouldn't use because even liars like creationists have a limit. Your little Darwin recanting fabrication shows up on this list of arguments NOT to use as well.

Of course, you were simply misled by the pamphlets or websites you visit. However, now that you know better, I won't expect you to use this lie again to further your agenda.
199 posted on 01/31/2006 10:16:36 AM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; AmericaUnited
...despite the fact that due to our sparse body hair,...

as an aside--can you explain why our body hair grows thickest in the warmest parts of our body? (Exception being the head, but that's not body hair).

Why do we acquire pubic hair only at sexual maturity? Why does our hear grow thickest between the legs and under the arms--the two warmest places on the human body?

Obviously our body hair has nothing to do with protection from the elements, and it never did.

200 posted on 01/31/2006 10:16:45 AM PST by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 1,151-1,188 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