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 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 1,151-1,188 next last
To: MineralMan

Actually the common yeast falls into this category also. There are very few microbes that don't have some sort of sexual cycle and acquiring it or losing it happens all the time.


251 posted on 01/31/2006 11:23:58 AM PST by furball4paws (Awful Offal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Sweetjustusnow

Good article. Thanks for posting it. I'd like to get my hands on the piece in the February issue of Commentary.


252 posted on 01/31/2006 11:24:20 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
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.

Then you unequivocally reject much of modern science. Given that, why should we take seriously any scientific arguments you might make?

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.

But then, you reject the ordinary, demonstrable-in-a-laboratory processes of radioactive decay. Why would we argue something as complex as sexual reprodcution with you, when you don't accept well defined, well understood, basic physics?

253 posted on 01/31/2006 11:26:21 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: frgoff; Ichneumon
Nice disinformation article.

How so? IMO it addresses Wells' disinformation piece rather nicely.

The initial charge stands, even though the article tries to dance around it. Exposed bark is key to the study.

Which initial charge? That peppered moths never rest on tree trunks?
Well, that's not true. They do rest (occasionally) on tree trunks. They also rest (more often) on branches or twigs which are also covered with bark that in turn has also been darkened with a layer of sooth. And they don't have to rest on exposed bark in order to be seen by birds. If birds were that bad at detecting prey they'd have died out a long time ago.
However, it's also true that they can spot the light moths better than the dark ones which means that on average they eat more light moths than dark ones.

Those staged photos were only taken to illustrate the detectability of lighter and darker moths. The fact that those photos were staged doesn't change the fact that the lighter moths are better to spot than their darker brethren no matter where they rest.

254 posted on 01/31/2006 11:26:55 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 233 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws

I just chose the paramecium because there was such a nice web page explaining how it works.

Wait until someone brings up parthenogenesis and we get to discuss lizards that sometimes mate the two sexes, but mostly the female lizards reproduce with no need of males. Now that one often creates a real problem of understanding among people ignorant of the variety of animal reproductives strategies.


255 posted on 01/31/2006 11:30:32 AM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
Are you actually trying to tell me that the TOE assumes there is a God? It's one or the other.

No, it's not. This is basic logic. The equation F=ma does not assume a god. It does not assume there is no god. The question of the existence of god is irrelevant to the truth of F=ma.

256 posted on 01/31/2006 11:30:47 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: balch3; gobucks; mikeus_maximus; MeanWestTexan; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; bondserv; ...
(((Creationist Ping)))



You have been pinged because of your interest regarding matters of Creation vs. Evolution - from the Creationist perspective. Freep-mail me if you want on/off this list.

Colossians 1:16 "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him."



It IS puzzling how vicious and dogmatic people like Krauthammer and Will get on the subject.

Dr. Berlinski’s stance on evolution isn’t new; he is already on record in Commentary as saying:
“The facts in favor of evolution are often held to be incontrovertible; prominent biologists shake their heads at the obduracy of those who would dispute them. Those facts however, have been rather less forthcoming than evolutionary biologists might have hoped.”

“Biologists often affirm that as members of the scientific community they positively welcome criticism. Nonsense. Like everyone else, biologists loathe criticism and arrange their lives so as to avoid it. Criticism has nonetheless seeped into their souls, the process of doubt a curiously Darwinian one in which individual biologists entertain minor reservations about their theory without ever recognizing the degree to which these doubts mount up to a substantial deficit. Creationism, so often the target of their indignation is the least of their worries.”

“Unable to say WHAT evolution has accomplished, biologists now find themselves unable to say WHETHER evolution has accomplished it. This leaves evolutionary theory in the doubly d*amend position of having compromised the concepts needed to make sense of life – complexity, adaptation, design – while simultaneously conceding tha the theory does little to explain them.”

Berlinski, David, “The Deniable Darwin,” Commentary, vol. 101 (June 1996), pp. 19-29)
By the way, our new word for the week is “lacunae”!

1 entry found for lacunae.

la·cu·na   Audio pronunciation of "lacunae" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (l-kyn)
n. pl. la·cu·nae (-n) or la·cu·nas
  1. An empty space or a missing part; a gap: “self-centered in opinion, with curious lacunae of astounding ignorance” (Frank Norris).
  2. Anatomy. A cavity, space, or depression, especially in a bone, containing cartilage or bone cells.

257 posted on 01/31/2006 11:32:54 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger ("We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." SCOTUS, Zorach v. Clauson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Why single out evolution?

Yes, indeed, that's a good question. As far as I know the first who said: "Sire, je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse." was Laplace, an astronomer ;-)

258 posted on 01/31/2006 11:34:12 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 248 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Then you unequivocally reject much of modern science.

No, I don't. I may interpret it differently than you do, though.

But then, you reject the ordinary, demonstrable-in-a-laboratory processes of radioactive decay.

See above.

259 posted on 01/31/2006 11:35:00 AM PST by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
No, I don't. I may interpret it differently than you do, though.

Yes, you do. Science is not art or literature, where matters of opinion and interpretation count.

260 posted on 01/31/2006 11:36:22 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan; furball4paws

Hermaphrodites are also a good example of procreation before the male/female specialization.


261 posted on 01/31/2006 11:40:17 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 255 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
You are starting with the assumption that there is a God,...

Yes, I am. However, starting with the assumption that there is no God is just as wrong. Is it possible to restate the TOE without either assumption?

The theory of evolution starts with neither assumption, but, consistent with the fact that it is science, with a methodology that looks to natural phenomena and facts in the natural world. Since no natural phenomena or facts in the natural world establish the existence of a god or gods (or anything else supernatural), the theory of evolution does not contemplate them. It simply looks at the facts established in nature and the natural world, and draws the conclusions that are consistent with those facts.

262 posted on 01/31/2006 11:41:42 AM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon


No thanks, just had some. Besides, this is leftovers.
263 posted on 01/31/2006 11:42:20 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger ("We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." SCOTUS, Zorach v. Clauson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: BMCDA

Well, hermaphroditism developed, perhaps, after sexual reproduction, but it's still interesting.

The most common example of it is the common Garden Snail. Each snail has both male and female sexual organs. Two snails mate, and both end up laying eggs. Very nice.

Another interesting variation is in some fish, which begin their adult lives as males, then become females later in their lives.

Life's fascinating.


264 posted on 01/31/2006 11:45:18 AM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Re: Spam.

Thank you for effectively saying, "I refuse to learn anything that may contradict my religious beliefs. As a result, I will not be taken the least bit seriously when I yelp, 'Evolution is dumb!'"


265 posted on 01/31/2006 11:50:04 AM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke; Ichneumon
Re: Spam

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION IS SPAM

266 posted on 01/31/2006 11:56:41 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Content? Error 404.

267 posted on 01/31/2006 11:58:54 AM PST by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash
The theory of evolution starts with neither assumption, but, consistent with the fact that it is science, with a methodology that looks to natural phenomena and facts in the natural world.

What you are doing here is denying any assumptions while making a major one in the same sentence. Methodolgies cannot be employed without subjective, philosophical underpinnings. Undertaking science with the assumption that only natural phenomena can be considered or observed is undertaking science with a particular philosophical point of view. It is a choice you and other observers have made from your own experiences. It is a stance incapable of objective, emprical testing in and of itself.

268 posted on 01/31/2006 11:59:41 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
The equation F=ma does not assume a god.

The equation F=ma does not postulate random mutations and natural selection as sole causes for the speciation observed today, either.

269 posted on 01/31/2006 12:02:45 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: balrog666; PatrickHenry; whattajoke; Ichneumon

Hey, Prof, that's my mask, where did you get that? ;-)

PatrickHenry, science is not spam. I'm sure you're aware that the term "spam" involves heavy or excessive posting of articles or links not composed on your own, but rather as part of an effort to overwhelm or inundate the opposition, knowing full well that they do not have time to refute all the links which merely make points already contradicted by Creationists.


270 posted on 01/31/2006 12:03:19 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger ("We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." SCOTUS, Zorach v. Clauson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
Thank you for effectively saying, "I refuse to learn anything that may contradict my religious beliefs."

That is essentially what certain folks are saying when they refuse to consider organizer matter as potetially indicative of intelligent design. What kind of belief would refuse to consider or address how intelligent humans are capable of discerning and commenting upon intelligible data in terms of intelligent design?

271 posted on 01/31/2006 12:06:00 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: BMCDA; frgoff

Could you tell me where the evidence of mutation can be found in the peppered moth? If the dark moths were already in the population then the slection was simply environmentally directed. The birds liked white meat ans since white meat shows up better against dark trees, the light moths got the horns, no?


272 posted on 01/31/2006 12:15:06 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
What you are doing here is denying any assumptions while making a major one in the same sentence. Methodolgies cannot be employed without subjective, philosophical underpinnings. Undertaking science with the assumption that only natural phenomena can be considered or observed is undertaking science with a particular philosophical point of view. It is a choice you and other observers have made from your own experiences. It is a stance incapable of objective, emprical testing in and of itself.

You are mistaking the definition of science with its methodology. Reaching conclusions based only on natural phenomena and the facts of the natural world is what science does; it's what science is. It is oxymoronic to say that one can do "science" but consider supernatural elements.

You can reach conclusions by including supernatural elements in your reasoning process, but you are not doing science. You are doing something else; theology, probably.

The methodology of science has been, over the last 500 years or so, so effective in producing tangible results that it has developed a cache of a type that it appears that any statement of fact must at least attempt to disguise itself as science or risk losing credibility with the public. But calling non-science "science" doesn't make it science. (You can call a "tail" a "leg", but that doesn't mean that dogs have five legs.)

273 posted on 01/31/2006 12:17:21 PM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

It is not uncommon for the devotees of non-theistic science to confuse or change the arguments under consideration. For whatever reason, they feel inclined to paint proponents of intelligent design as religious boobs rather than 1.) address the nature of organized matter that performs specific functions and 2.) admit they bring as much subjective baggage into science as anyone else. This is unfortunate, because there are some benefits in the details uncovered through non-theistic science that are lost when proclaimed as dogmatic support for a shaping principle that has little or nothing to do with the details themselves.


274 posted on 01/31/2006 12:18:06 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: GLDNGUN

My understanding, learned in mmy diving days, was that goosebumps are not vestigial but simply an effect of the body removing blood supply from the body surface to minimize heat exchange with the surroundings.


275 posted on 01/31/2006 12:18:13 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
That is essentially what certain folks are saying when they refuse to consider organizer matter as potetially indicative of intelligent design.

Gay Jeans!!

276 posted on 01/31/2006 12:19:36 PM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

DEFINITION OF SPAM placemarker


277 posted on 01/31/2006 12:24:10 PM PST by Quark2005 (Creationism is to science what the 1967 production of 'Casino Royale' is to the James Bond series.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

Not that it has anything to with the post, but I think Newton actually said that F=d(M*V). It was just reduced because it was assumed that mass was constant.


278 posted on 01/31/2006 12:25:52 PM PST by DX10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: RussP
He also claims to have studied the Bible and other major holy books in depth and came to the conclusion that the Bible really is literally true -- so long as it is interepreted correctly ("long" creation days, for example).
Um, I've read many works of fiction in depth, and haven't decreed them to be true. So an astrophysicist reads the bible, says it's all true, and THAT'S supporting evidence?
279 posted on 01/31/2006 12:28:18 PM PST by BritExPatInFla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash
You are mistaking the definition of science with its methodology.

No. You are assuming a philosophical definition for science that science cannot methodologically validate. You are free to proceed with your assumption as to what defines science. In most cases your methodology and conclusions will not suffer. But when you argue from the details of your methodology into the bigger scheme of things your philosophical stance, for better or for worse, will guide the explanation.

280 posted on 01/31/2006 12:29:30 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: Sweetjustusnow; DaveLoneRanger
"It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science. It was only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence." -- Allan Sandage, Ph.D. astronomer. With a degree from Cal Tech, Sandage is one of America's greatest cosmologists. A protege of Edwin Hubble, Sandage has won many honors for his work, including the Craaford Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, astronomy's equivalent of the Nobel Prize.

Sandage told a 1985 conference on science and religion that the Big Bang was a supernatural event that cannot be explained within the realm of physics as we know it, and that science had taken us to the First Event, but it cannot take us further to the First Cause. The sudden emergence of matter, space, time, and energy pointed, Sandage said, to the need for some kind of transcendence.

281 posted on 01/31/2006 12:35:44 PM PST by My2Cents (In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. -- George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
For whatever reason, they feel inclined to paint proponents of intelligent design as religious boobs

Um, Fester, you may want to read the Dover decision. ID's "creator" Behe? Yeah, he admitted ID proponents were universally religious boobs. And that wedge document written by ID proponents? Same thing.
282 posted on 01/31/2006 12:38:56 PM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
The equation F=ma does not postulate random mutations and natural selection as sole causes for the speciation observed today, either.

What has either got to do with the existence of a deity?

283 posted on 01/31/2006 12:39:55 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Re: Ichneumon's lengthy and informative posts:

points already contradicted by Creationists.

Name one. And it would be nice if, for once, you provided a list of sources, studies, and facts to back it up. But then again, we wouldn't want you to post any "spam" would we?
284 posted on 01/31/2006 12:41:22 PM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
But then our screen names would become very redundant:

ReligousBoob1, ReligiousBoob2, ReligiousBoob3, NewReligougBoob, ReligiousBooblurkin', SeniorReligiousBoob...

285 posted on 01/31/2006 12:42:32 PM PST by ThomasNast (2350)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger; Ichneumon
I'm sure you're aware that the term "spam" involves heavy or excessive posting of articles or links not composed on your own, but rather as part of an effort to overwhelm or inundate the opposition, knowing full well that they do not have time to refute all the links which merely make points already contradicted by Creationists.

If you have some evidence the articles he posts are not of Ichneumon's authoring, please present it.

286 posted on 01/31/2006 12:42:48 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

You couldn't resist, could you. You had to end your post with an insult.


287 posted on 01/31/2006 12:44:01 PM PST by My2Cents (In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. -- George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MedicalMess
Actually we all come from bacteria. About 2.5 billion years got us to primate stage

Your proof?

288 posted on 01/31/2006 12:44:43 PM PST by My2Cents (In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. -- George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke; DaveLoneRanger
And it would be nice if, for once, you provided a list of sources, studies, and facts to back it up

Good luck. When I challenged him to produce page numbers for the usual quote-mined extracts from Feduccia he was posting, he couldn't.

289 posted on 01/31/2006 12:45:19 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: phelanw; USFRIENDINVICTORIA; Bubbatuck
Education is always a dialogue between opposing viewpoints.

Loosey-Goosey Intellectual Relativism alert!

As another freeper asked, do you really think we should "always" dialog in "opposing viewpoints" in curricula (for example when presenting the historical reality of the holocaust)? Or is this just antievolutionary special pleading falsely disguised as a general principle?

Education certainly can, and often should, at least in some number of illustrative cases, include "a dialogue between opposing viewpoints;" but only when genuinely contending viewpoints, each with some measure of objective viability and merit in the relevant domain of scholarship, actually exist.

Of course this is not the case with creationism or ID. Whatever you may personally believe about their truth value, it is a simple fact that neither has (at least yet) achieved substantive standing in the market place of scientific ideas. Certainly neither has achieved a standing remotely comparable to evolutionary theory. This is an objective fact confirmable by consulting the professional literature of science. To present creationism or ID on one hand, and evolution on the other, as comparable "opposing viewpoints" is to flat out lie to students.

Your rhetoric simply attempts to deny or avoid this uncomfortable FACT. This is the usual role of intellectual relativism and intellectual affirmative action, but it's unseemly for a conservative. Let the liberal-left engage in word magic: pretending that saying something is so makes it so.

Any good conservative should be willing to let ideas compete -- ACTUALLY COMPETE -- in the intellectual marketplace, where they can succeed or fail on their demonstrated merit or lack thereof. Conservatives should sneer at calls for the sham, non consequential psuedo-competition of contrived "balance" in textbooks and curricula, failure-free and carefully measured to appease identity groups and salvage their delicate self-esteem.

After all, creationists in these threads regularly inform us that evolution is teetering on the brink of collapse. I happen to think that's B.S. and bravado which even the claimants don't believe (not deep down). But if it's so then LET evolution collapse, and if it's genuinely surpassed and replaced by some superior scientific theory then let evolution be removed from science textbooks and curricula. Why do those who (supposedly) consider their ideas on the verge of victory wish to establish the precedent that substandard ideas -- ideas that can't cut the mustard in PRACTICE -- should be dishonestly presented as competitive in curricula? I think the answer is obvious.

290 posted on 01/31/2006 12:49:04 PM PST by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

Behe may be emotional about the subject, but he does not paint his opponents as idiots.


291 posted on 01/31/2006 12:49:14 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
No. You are assuming a philosophical definition for science that science cannot methodologically validate. You are free to proceed with your assumption as to what defines science. In most cases your methodology and conclusions will not suffer. But when you argue from the details of your methodology into the bigger scheme of things your philosophical stance, for better or for worse, will guide the explanation.

The philosophical definition of science doesn't have to be methodologically validated. The definition of science is the definition of science. Philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism are not the same.

A desire to consider the supernatural within the rubric of science in now way changes the definition of "science" any more than the homosexuals' desire to marry each other changes the definition of "marriage."

I believe that you are proceeding from the misconception that "science" is something more than it is, or that a scientific statement or conclusion is more than it is. A scientific truth, for lack of a better word, is merely a conclusion reached through the scientific method; i.e., it makes a statement about the natural word, as informed by natural phenomena and facts of nature. By definition, it cannot say anything about the supernatural.

Science is not a search for ultimate Truth, or the meaning of life, or some such. It is just the application of the idea of the scientific method to the natural world. That's it. If I were to conclude that this means that there is no God, or that there is a God, or anything like that, then that conclusion is as unscientific a statement as they come. Once you add anything supernatural in there, it ceases being science. Maybe you are doing a scientific-theology, if such a beast is even cognizable, but it is not science.

292 posted on 01/31/2006 12:52:41 PM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: december12
To say that the theory of evolution has lacunae is one thing, but that doesn't justify ID. Many other theories are conceivable. I don't mind teaching the uncertainties within the theory of evolution, but I do object to teaching ID in science classes.

Why not remove all of the uncertainties of the evolutionary theory. It is not needed in any form to study biology, chemistry, physics, philosophy. Most of the theory of evolution is based upon lies proved wrong many years ago and yet is still in the text books.

I am a believer in the creation of the Bible it is as much of a theory to you as evolution is to me. So lets not teach either or lets teach both.

It takes faith to believe those uncertainties, that in my belief makes it a religion an should not be funded by tax dollars. Seperation of church and state.
293 posted on 01/31/2006 12:56:43 PM PST by Creationist (If the earth is old show me your proof. Salvation from the judgment of your sins is free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GLDNGUN
KNOWS FOR A FACT that this function is completely useless in humans

There's no requirement that "vestigial organs" be "completely useless". They may merely represent a "vestige" (and/or a shift of function) with respect to their former function.

For example the known functions of the human appendix (AFAIK releasing a few useful enzymes, which might btw be released by any handy bit of mucous membrane along the intestinal tract) is clearly vestigial with respect to the function of the organ in, say, gorillas: holding large amounts of course vegetable matter that requires additional time to be digested.

294 posted on 01/31/2006 1:02:16 PM PST by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: Creationist
So lets not teach either or lets teach both.

Even though I promised myself I was done with you... Dude, it's not a "let's teach both" proposition. You've set up a false dichotomy. There is no "both." There is the scientifically accepted theory of evolution and then there are - get ready for this - HUNDREDS of other creation myths. Yours is but one, I'm afraid. Surely you must, at some point, come to understand this.
295 posted on 01/31/2006 1:03:39 PM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

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

Please, enough of claiming to 'know' the truth. Guys like you have been wrong time and time and time again, and yet that doesn't stop you from spouting some new cockamamie theory as gospel truth, and doing it with a straight face. Some of us are smart enough to understand how much we really dont know.

For example... It was thought up until very recently that a person could not grow brain cells. BZZZ- WRONG! Now we know that is not true. "The appendix serves no purpose". BZZZ- WRONG! "Tonsils serves no purpose". BZZZ- WRONG! And on and on.

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?

Some believe that goosebumps in humans act as an aid to amplify the sense of touch. This of course would makes perfect sense, as an additional 'fight or flight' mechanism.

296 posted on 01/31/2006 1:04:36 PM PST by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

The former is a mathematical expression denoting an understanding of physical forces. The latter by default postulates a sole cause that omits intelligent design. This is due to a philosophical stance that defines science as incapable of, or disinterested in, anything beyond what is physically observed.

The omission of intelligent design on the part of devotees to materialism is not due to a lack of evidence so much as an aversion to religious implications, which implications may or may not be necessitated by the presence of intelligent design. If it is objectively true that an intelligent being designed the DNA molecule, for example, science will blind itself to this truth not because there is lack of evidence or possibility, but for other reasons with which you are intimately familiar. Emotional, philosophical reasons, not empirical ones.


297 posted on 01/31/2006 1:04:59 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
My understanding, learned in mmy diving days, was that goosebumps are not vestigial but simply an effect of the body removing blood supply from the body surface to minimize heat exchange with the surroundings.

Very well could be, and as an added benefit, your fur (if you are an animal with fur) stands up straight as a result of the muscles tightening around the hair folicles which also minimizes the heat exchange you refer to. Sounds like pretty effecient design work to me.

298 posted on 01/31/2006 1:07:31 PM PST by GLDNGUN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
Are you suggesing that modern science/medicine knows all there will ever be known about the appendix?

When an evolutionist testified in the famous 1925 Tennessee Scopes Trial that are "no less than 180 vestigal structures" in the human body, was he correct?

299 posted on 01/31/2006 1:14:08 PM PST by GLDNGUN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
The thought of you in command of Darwin Central is as ludicrous as putting Cindy Sheehan in charge of the Pentagon.

I would not say such things if I were you.

The more you tighten your grip, PatrickHenry, the more primes will slip through your fingers.

300 posted on 01/31/2006 1:14:54 PM PST by Hoplite (Prime!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 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