Here's some music while you're waiting... 
Posted on 02/23/2006 5:26:21 PM PST by gobucks
Believing it God hasn't slowed down scientists since, either. However, using God as a catchall for the as-yet-unexplained is not science.
If she can't behave herself, yes
Fair 'nuff...
Merely a generally held assumption that the universe is intelligently designed. You apparently believe it is inherently a bad idea to undertake science with this assumption in mind. So bad, in fact, that it ought to be prohibited from mention in public science classrooms. I'd like to know why. You say it is because it reduces curiousity. I don't see the connection. Finding an object that is known to be intelligently designed does not stifle curiosity just because the fact of intelligent design is known. In fact, it may cause even greater curiosity.
When deductions of a general nature are drawn from observations, are those deductions no longer science? What kind of science operates without shaping principles? Perhaps your kind of science. If so it is dead.
It is from an old thread I think ... long discussion about guy vs. man as a label.
Not bad, just meaningless. It leads nowhere. The ID hypothesis was fully and formally published in 1802, and in the past 200 years has led to no research whatsoever.
Calling this science is a falsehood. Science seeks natural causes. Any assumption that does not suggest natural causes, or suggenst possible research that might uncover natural causes, is not science.
"It makes no sense though, to argue the validity of science based on the moral behavior of people. "
Given that morals are now being inextricably tied to evolutionary psychology, via the pathway of 'science', it makes no sense you posted that.
The REAL argument is how is it that 'science' should be accepted, by faith, as trustworthy? Oh. Via Evangelism by Priests of the Secular Philosophy known as Scientific Materialism. Only we won't tell little kids that. We'll just slap on a white coat, and claim the mantle of 'objectivity' all the while preaching w/ a straight face.
Science, today, is about the winners, the rationalists, holding political power regarding how words, like science, are defined. Thus, the vested interest, the LAWYERS, are paying close attention, while their water boys, the SCIENTISTS, do the leg work.
All the while little kids, and hordes of divorced and substance addicted people who are hurting are seen as acceptable collateral damage.
If you are at heart a survivalist, it makes a GREAT DEAL of sense to keep a questioning attitude toward words, especially words like 'science' at a minimum.
But, if at heart you believe being grown up is about more than blind submission to white coats and black robes ... well, it doesn't make sense to argue against the validity of religion based upon the moral behavior of people....
A good scientist will have thirty new ideas before breakfast. ID wouldn't make it past the first piece of bacon. It doesn't matter if it's right or wrong. It doesn't suggest any line of research.
Here's some music while you're waiting...
Actually I believe they have a new research fellow, a Dr. Elk, who may have come up with something... 
Well, I think that baptism by desire and by Christ's gift is an idea that has grown over the centuries anyway.
Dante felt obliged to keep most of the virtuous pagans out of heaven, including Virgil. But even Dante puts Cato in heaven. And it became widely accepted that anyone who was truly virtuous by his lights and his available religion, who had no opportunity to know Christ, still could be extended the grace of salvation if Christ chose to.
So, you could easily have a limbo with nobody in it. The fate of any individual but a saint is always in doubt. We don't even know for certain if Judas is in Hell. He could have repented in the moments after he hanged himself. That's good enough for me, to leave it up to God.
What the hell are you talking about?
Eugenics is not Darwinian; it's artificial selection, not natural selection.
I wasn't talking about "corrupting" ideas. I'm talking about logical extension. If man isn't created equally in God's image, then it makes perfect, logical sense that some races of men are superior. How can it not be so?
Superior in what way? Be specific and provide evidence.
On the other hand, the Bible rather explicitly states that some races or nations are favored, some chosen, some worthy of genocide, some actually destroyed, some threatened with destruction.
Bump for later reading.
Marx was a Jew. So was Trotsky (aka Bronstein).
I think that the antichrist was Constantine, myself.
Okay, who's ready for a good scold?
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.