Posted on 03/09/2006 6:55:14 PM PST by Greg o the Navy
AN EXAMINATIONS board is including references to “creationism” in a new GCSE science course for schools.
Yes. It's a great example.
Except there is overwhelming proof that someone did design that car.
Furthermore, there is no proof that the car did evolve from lesser cars.
As opposed to people, in which case there is overwhelming proof that they have evolved from less organisms.
Define your point a little better please.
Do we really need to go into the overwhelming evidence that the origin of existing species were all evolved from previous species?
Or if your talking about the origin of life (abiogenesis, etc.), Evolution doesn't address that one way or the other.
He was refuting another statement that said TOE couldn't be true because of the random chances that needed to happen. So his statement is fine, leave him alone
So what's the purpose of living? We're just a whole bunch of animals. Why have morals? There is no after-life anyway. Why have marriage? There is no conscience. Let's all live the way we want without any restrictions.
I missed that about cold fusion--?
Wow. How un-random are these fortuitous chance processes?
They are rather Victorian, aren't they?
It is refreshing to see reasonable conjecture presented and discussed as such, rather than see reasonable conjecture presented as immutable, unquestionable dogma. The notion that life as we know it is the result of a progression over millions of years from simpler to more complex organisms is reasonable conjecture and little more. In our country the proponents of this notion prefer to keep it illegal (at least in any public, academic context) to suggest intelligent design might have something to do with organized matter that performs specific functions.
Are you actually equating ID with belief in God in general? If you don't buy ID then you must be an Atheist?
That's preposterous.
That is fine if that is what you want to believe... you can believe anything you want. My argument is it isn't Science. I know of no theories in physics, medicine, math, or chemistry whose answer has in it an intelligence working behind the scenes. If Science worked that way we probably would never have advanced enough to be having this conversation over the Internet.
Yuck... I think what might be more likely in the near term is that ID will allow religions like Scientologists to teach about their beliefs (Lord Xenu and junk like that). It isn't science at all but a religions but if ID gets in... they can start teaching whatever they want too.
I think this will lead to unintended consequences.
I would like to point out that Science does attempt to answer questions of nature without including God in the equation. You may think this is wrong of Science to do, but there are many examples of why this is the right thing to do. I have used quite often on other threads the example of Benjamin Franklin and the lightning rod. He was chastised by the Church because they taught that lightning was the wrath of God... and the lightning rod was an attempt to stop God from punishing those who deserve it.
And those lesser organisms came from where? You can keep going back to that first organism, and then what? At that point, most of the evolutionists on these threads state that that is biogenesis and evolution doesn't address that. I still fail to see why evlotution refuses to deal with where that life came from. I don't see that it's a different topic at all. Going from chemical whatever to the first functioning organism is a form of evolution. The first life had to come from somewhere. For many people one of the problems with the TOE is the refusal to address how it went from non-living to living.
The Theory Of Evolution: a scientific theory based on observed facts. It is the scientific theory that 99+% of scientists think best explains the evidence. There is no significant controversy among scientist about the Theory Of Evolution. There is no other competing scientific theory. There is no other theory claiming to be a scientific theory that is seriously considered by 99+% of scientists.
Biblical Creationism: a faith based religious idea based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. It is a revealed belief. The proponents believe that God personally told it to someone who told someone else who told someone else, etc….and that someone eventually wrote it down. There are many other ‘revealed’ beliefs that disagree with Biblical Creationism that are also based on the belief that a God (or Gods) personally told it to someone who told someone else who told someone else, etc…..who eventually wrote it down. There is a great deal of profound disagreement among the ‘revealed’ beliefs about creation.
This is an increasingly powerful movement. I'm happy to see that it's sucking air out of the liberal agenda in another country.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^66
Any government powerful enough to force creationism down the throats of resistant children is powerful enough to shove evolution down the throats of resistant children too.
If creationism wins conservatives will be happy only until the liberals gain a little more strength and win the tug of war over the government school curriculum. The winner's prize? The hearts and minds of the next generation of voters.
The solution is complete privatization of universal K-12 education.
It's not as though evolutionists have a single story to tell. They all have different ideas as to the manner and degree of evolution. They have no text to guide them other than their own observations, and no real authority other than their own opinions. As for myself, I prefer a single text that has stood the test of both time and technology, which lays out in basic terms where we came from and where we're going.
Waiting......
Waiting......
didn't think so
That being said, my friend my basis on the Bible, is used solely to explain for me what Science has failed to do.
And to answer your the question posed to JC, I do believe in young earth, as well as a global flood, and would love to hear your problem with these concepts.
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.