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

Skip to comments.

Science and Democracy: What Scientists Canít Tell Us
Breakpoint with Chuck Colson ^ | 5/15/2006 | Chuck Colson

Posted on 05/15/2006 5:29:05 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback

When a U.S. district court ruled last December that the Dover, Pennsylvania, school district could not require the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, opponents of intelligent design thought the issue had been settled—not just in Pennsylvania, but also across the entire country. Well, their celebrations may have been premature, unless school policies are somehow exempted from the requirements of democracy.

Virginia Commonwealth University recently released the results of its “Life Sciences Survey,” which measures public attitudes toward scientific issues. Among the issues asked about was the “origin of biological life.”

By nearly a 5-1 margin, people believe that God, either “directly” or by guiding the process, was responsible for the “origin of biological life.” Only 15 percent agreed with teaching a strictly materialistic explanation.

Most Americans, you see, favor a “pluralistic approach to teaching about origin of life in public schools.” In this “pluralistic approach,” sometimes called “teaching the controversy,” students would be exposed to various explanations.

These polling results cause weeping and gnashing of teeth among doctrinaire Darwinists, who see it as evidence of irrationality or superstition among ordinary Americans. Some even suggest that America’s leadership in science and technology is threatened by these “unscientific” attitudes.

Nonsense! What’s on display is not irrationality or disdain for science: It’s simply a reflection of the innate human understanding of God—what theologians call the imago Dei. Years of propaganda by scientists and teachers can’t erase it, and it’s also a recognition of the limits of science.

Father Richard Neuhaus captured this in the March issue of First Things. The “controversy,” he wrote, “is composed of a complex mixture of science, religion, culture, and politics.” This “complex mixture,” which involves every aspect of human life, cannot be settled by a single judge’s opinion or by the Darwinists’ propaganda. People simply know better, and they want to have a say in how their children are educated.

This is true not only of intelligent design. The same dynamic is at work in the embryonic stem-cell research debate. The scientific establishment insists that it must operate without interference from those it deems “irrational,” like Christians it considers enemies of progress.

Yet 56 percent in the same survey agreed that “scientific research doesn’t pay enough attention to the moral values of society.” Fifty-two percent agreed that this research creates as many problems as solutions. For a group aspiring to god-like status, like scientists, this is bad news.

But it cannot be otherwise. Science does not operate independently of the larger culture. Scientists are not exempt from, as Neuhaus puts it, paying their respects to democracy. Thinking otherwise is not science: It is scientism, the ideology that regards science as the only way to the truth. And if this survey is any indication, Americans don’t buy it.

That’s why debates over science and culture will continue. They will continue until the scientific establishment—and the courts—acknowledge the limits of what science can and cannot tell us, and when it begins to give a say to the people on how they want their children educated.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: Pennsylvania; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: breakpoint; crevolist; pavlovian
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-106 next last
There are links to further information at the source document.

If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

1 posted on 05/15/2006 5:29:09 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 05 Mustang GT Rocks; 351 Cleveland; AFPhys; agenda_express; almcbean; ambrose; Amos the Prophet; ...

BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

2 posted on 05/15/2006 5:30:21 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (TRY JESUS. If you don't like Him, the devil will always take you back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
opponents of intelligent design thought the issue had been settled—not just in Pennsylvania, but also across the entire country.

Geez, tell me about it. They post about 20 threads a week to tell people the issue has been settled. Doesn't seem to be, though, judging by the frequency and hysteria level of said threads. Expect the "you need to take a science course" responses.

3 posted on 05/15/2006 5:32:31 AM PDT by Hacksaw (Deport illegals the same way they came here - one at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
>>>It is scientism, the ideology that regards science as the only way to the truth.

I blame a lot of this on the current myth abroad in America that math and science are "hard". Mathematicians and scientists by into this pernicious myth because it boosts their egos. They therefore think they are something they are not, and that's how scientism gets started.
4 posted on 05/15/2006 5:34:43 AM PDT by .cnI redruM (Watching the Left turn on Senator McCain amuses me somehow....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
Mathematicians and scientists by into this pernicious myth because it boosts their egos. They therefore think they are something they are not, and that's how scientism gets started.

Mathematics is "hard" because it takes discipline. It's not a subject where you can "baffle 'em with BS". I always did bad in math until I got to college and realized I actually had to study and work example problems. Once I got the basics down, I started getting A's and made it all the way through Calc 3. If someone told me when I was in high school that I could take (let alone understand) higher math I would have thought they were nuts.

5 posted on 05/15/2006 5:41:10 AM PDT by Hacksaw (Deport illegals the same way they came here - one at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw

I am glad to read that you're beyond your need for 'science courses', though I believe it a way of life. Instead I'll suggest engaging in the Science Wars and reading the genre of literature epitomized by Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt's works, including Higher Superstition: The Academic Left's Quarrels with Science (JHU, Baltimore, 1998, ISBN 0-8018-5707-4) and The Flight From Science and Reason (NYAS, NY, 1997, ISBN 0-8018-5676-0). The bibliographies will suggest titles to appeal to your particular bent. Also Alan Sokal's seminal essay and foreign literature. Maybe The Bell Curve too? Tagline


6 posted on 05/15/2006 6:16:32 AM PDT by dhuffman@awod.com (The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw

It's like hitting a curve ball. I used to teach high school algebra and used this as an analogy. I compared doing your homework to taking your daily batting practice if you played baseball.


7 posted on 05/15/2006 6:21:32 AM PDT by .cnI redruM (Watching the Left turn on Senator McCain amuses me somehow....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw

Same here for math. I never took Trig because I had such rotten math teachers for Algebra and Geometry. It was a college prof that finally explained it in a way that made sense. I also passed 3 semsters of Calc. Never would have dreamed it in a million years.


8 posted on 05/15/2006 6:34:36 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback; PatrickHenry
Most Americans, you see, favor a “pluralistic approach to teaching about origin of life in public schools.” In this “pluralistic approach,” sometimes called “teaching the controversy,” students would be exposed to various explanations.

That's the problem. Most Americans are so scientifically illiterate that what they think is scientific controversy is really scientific ignorance against current scientific understanding. To teach the controversies in evolution, or in any branch of science (because they all have controversies in their repsective frontiers) would require a graduate-level background in the respective subject. With respect to evolution, ther are no rational explanations that fit all of the observed facts.

Science is not a democracy. You can't vote or mandate by law a scientific result. Science is morally neutral. To inject morality into science means taking science and turning it into something that it isn't. Science deals with the material universe and is hence, materialistic. Science is not equipped to deal with questions of morality. On that basis, these anti-evolution attacks really are undermining the future scientific capabilities of the United States. We are already graduating more foreigners than Americans with advanced degrees in science and engineering and this type of anti-science hyperbole isn't helping.

9 posted on 05/15/2006 6:36:14 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
I blame a lot of this on the current myth abroad in America that math and science are "hard".

I disagree, but to a point. The "hard" sceinces aren't "hard" becasue they are a challenging discipline to study. THey are difficult to learn compared to other college subjects. But they are "hard" because, in any given problem, the answer is either right or wrong. There is no opinion, nothing subjective, or guess work involved. Either you know the material or you don't. Verbal arguements don't work unless you have facts to back you up or can conduct research to illustrate your answer. There are no opinion/essay questions in science.

10 posted on 05/15/2006 6:40:35 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
That’s why debates over science and culture will continue. They will continue until the scientific establishment—and the courts—acknowledge the limits of what science can and cannot tell us, and when it begins to give a say to the people on how they want their children educated.

Imagine that. Parents having a say in how their tax money is used to educate their children. What a novel concept.

11 posted on 05/15/2006 6:43:38 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past; ohioWfan; Tribune7; Tolkien; GrandEagle; Right in Wisconsin; Dataman; ..
Science does not operate independently of the larger culture. Scientists are not exempt from, as Neuhaus puts it, paying their respects to democracy. Thinking otherwise is not science: It is scientism, the ideology that regards science as the only way to the truth. And if this survey is any indication, Americans don’t buy it.


Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
Constantly searching for objectivity in the evolution debate...
See my profile for info


12 posted on 05/15/2006 6:45:16 AM PDT by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback; metmom

good article...put me on......


13 posted on 05/15/2006 6:45:36 AM PDT by tgambill (I would like to comment.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw
When referring to science and math as "hard", the meaning above was not that they are "difficult to learn", but that they are normative.

The opposite of being "hard" in this sense would be "relative": the hogwash notion that something might be "true for you" but not "true for me."

Don't get me started on THAT one.

14 posted on 05/15/2006 6:53:18 AM PDT by thulldud ("Muslim Community Leaders Warn of Backlash from Tomorrow's Terrorist Attack")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Now, now, you know the experts know best. That's why they've declared themselves to be the experts.

Nope, Dover didn't "settle" this issue. Not even close.

I feel sorry for Christian evolutionists should this issue ever be "settled" on behalf of the hardcore evolution political lobby. Right now, the Dawkins types grudgingly accept people within their ranks who believe evolution was "God's method of creation", but that's because they need them. If the issue is ever "settled" the way Judge Jones thought he was "settling" it, those Christian evolutionists will get unceremoniously shown the way to the door. And if you think there's a lot of mocking of Christianity now during evo-debates, wait'll you see the fury unleashed on believers once Christians are no longer needed to keep evolution politically viable.


15 posted on 05/15/2006 6:54:41 AM PDT by puroresu (Conservatism is an observation; Liberalism is an ideology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: doc30
"That's the problem. Most Americans are so scientifically illiterate that what they think is scientific controversy is really scientific ignorance against current scientific understanding. To teach the controversies in evolution, or in any branch of science (because they all have controversies in their repsective frontiers) would require a graduate-level background in the respective subject. With respect to evolution, ther are no rational explanations that fit all of the observed facts. Science is not a democracy. You can't vote or mandate by law a scientific result. Science is morally neutral. To inject morality into science means taking science and turning it into something that it isn't. Science deals with the material universe and is hence, materialistic. Science is not equipped to deal with questions of morality. On that basis, these anti-evolution attacks really are undermining the future scientific capabilities of the United States. We are already graduating more foreigners than Americans with advanced degrees in science and engineering and this type of anti-science hyperbole isn't helping."

I was going to edit out the superfluous parts of your post, but found that each and every word was critical to pointing out the elitism and disdain for 'those not like one's self' that it represents.

Sadly, I've known all too many who believed themselves to be scientists who shared that attitude.

So far I've been content to assign it to people who have so much invested in a single bit of knowledge that they must give it special status over the efforts of lesser beings.

16 posted on 05/15/2006 7:03:24 AM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: puroresu

Interesting point of view. I think you're right.


17 posted on 05/15/2006 7:03:45 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: thulldud
The opposite of being "hard" in this sense would be "relative": the hogwash notion that something might be "true for you" but not "true for me."

Relativism is okay if it's about science. It's only when we venture into morality or ethics that there are absolutes. See how it works?

SW

18 posted on 05/15/2006 7:05:47 AM PDT by Snidely Whiplash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: doc30
Rejecting the ToE is not a blanket rejection of science in general. Evolution is a branch of science; not all science is evolution.

So is it better for a special interest group to decide what is and isn't to be taught in public schools using the power of the judiciary to force on unwilling parents and students that philosophy?

As far a creationists undermining science, I guess the great strides made in science for the hundreds of years before Darwin's theory was published were just coincidental. Someone probably forgot to tell Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Copernicus, Pasteur, etc. that science couldn't be *properly* established all the while believing that everything was created by a God of order. My understanding is that if they had not had that concept, they would not have started looking of patterns of regularity and orderliness in the world around them.

Somewhere along the line, science got divorced from philosophy and morality and it shouldn't have been. It needs both to moderate it and keep it from being abused by man. Besides, if science has nothing to do with philosophy, then perhaps there should be some change made in giving scientists who highly specialize in their fields a . Perhaps they could rename it.

19 posted on 05/15/2006 7:21:39 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: doc30
We are already graduating more foreigners than Americans with advanced degrees in science and engineering and this type of anti-science hyperbole isn't helping.

That's probably because foreigners are weaker and will take the abuse dished out by arrogant priests of the church of Darwin better than strong minded, independent thinking Americans.

20 posted on 05/15/2006 7:21:39 AM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Junior

archive


21 posted on 05/15/2006 7:31:11 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: doc30

"Science deals with the material universe and is hence, materialistic. Science is not equipped to deal with questions of morality'

Then the science types had better shut up about morality then! I get tired of the science types who decry the the moral history of given religions, the wars...ect. blah blah blah! For a science type to decry a belief as "superstition" is actually a moral judgment and not a scientific statement.


22 posted on 05/15/2006 7:31:54 AM PDT by mdmathis6 (Proof against evolution:"Man is the only creature that blushes, or needs to" M.Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: puroresu

I think you're right, too. Just like the ACLU and others are using evolution in their efforts to force religion out of the schools under the guise of *keeping science pure*. The Scopes trials were supposedly just to make the teaching of evolution allowed alongside creation. Look what's happened now. We've come a long way; from allowing it to be taught together, to an outright ban on teaching creation. That had to be their agenda all along. When the ACLU is done with them, they'll be the next targets.


23 posted on 05/15/2006 7:53:39 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback; et al
Intelligent Design?

If this material existence is an example of intelligent design, I would hate to see it with unintelligent design. Why would an intelligent designer create people, too many of whom freely choose to commit murder, genocide, theft; adultery; sexual perversions; etc. If you were all powerful and all knowing would you create people who would choose to do those things and say that they were created in your image? How does that indicate "Intelligent design"? It does not make sense.

What makes sense to me is that the true Creation and Its Creator are Spiritual, not material. This Spiritual Creation is perfect and an example of Intelligent Design. The human experience in this material world is mortal; the result of Intelligent Design is immortal. When we perceive reality as material and imperfect we are exhibiting the "flat world" consciousness of believing appearances and not being aware of or understanding the reality of existence. That is what I want children to be taught - but not in public school - that is for Sunday School. Just a wild guess here, but I would imagine there are a few literal Bible readers who would not agree with my beliefs. That's why it is not good to mix personal religious beliefs with the requirement to educate children from all religious backgrounds.

24 posted on 05/15/2006 7:55:17 AM PDT by Semper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Snidely Whiplash
Relativism is okay if it's about science. It's only when we venture into morality or ethics that there are absolutes. See how it works?

No, I don't.

I would be interested to see a specimen of a consistent relativist, though. I don't think they can exist in real life, but DNA's "Man in the Shack" is a fictional approximation.

25 posted on 05/15/2006 7:55:17 AM PDT by thulldud ("Muslim Community Leaders Warn of Backlash from Tomorrow's Terrorist Attack")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: norton
I was going to edit out the superfluous parts of your post, but found that each and every word was critical to pointing out the elitism and disdain for 'those not like one's self' that it represents.

The problem is that if you want to argue science, you need to become versed in the subject. When non-scientists try to attack science, they often fall short because they do not know what they are talking about. Yes, it does sound arrogant and scientists need to be more eloquent, but it does not change the facts on the ground. In order to argue against evolution, you need to study and understand the current state of evolution and biological sciences. There are a lot of people who try to 'arm-caheir quarterback' science, but that does not mean they know what they are doing.

I work in industrial R&D, where knowing science makes or breaks the company. If you don't know what you are talking about and cannot perform basic science, you will be chewed up and spat out in the unforgiving business world where results matter.

26 posted on 05/15/2006 8:02:18 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Semper
If this material existence is an example of intelligent design, I would hate to see it with unintelligent design.

It's good that we have someone here that is soooo intelligent that they can sit in judgment of God, or whatever designer they happen to believe in, that is powerful enough to create the universe and something as complex as life. And you could do a better job, I suppose?

27 posted on 05/15/2006 8:17:01 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: doc30

Perfoming science properly reqires an ability to properly understand and apply the scientific method not to understand and accept the ToE. *Science* and *evolution* are not interchangable terms.


28 posted on 05/15/2006 8:20:42 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: tgambill

You're added! See you tomorrow.


29 posted on 05/15/2006 8:37:47 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (TRY JESUS. If you don't like Him, the devil will always take you back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: doc30
To teach the controversies in evolution, or in any branch of science (because they all have controversies in their repsective frontiers) would require a graduate-level background in the respective subject.

I actually had two or three graduate-level seminars on problems in evolution. There were plenty of controversies too!

(They weren't the ones pushed as "controversies" on these threads.)

30 posted on 05/15/2006 8:39:40 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death--Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: All

New tagline...until tomorrow at least...:-)


31 posted on 05/15/2006 8:40:42 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (If God "created" the world through evolution, then Al Gore really did invent the Internet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback

What scientific facts are known concerning the origin of life?


32 posted on 05/15/2006 8:48:20 AM PDT by Conservative Texan Mom (Some people say I'm stubborn, when it's usually just that I'm right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

I'm reposting this question to all to get as many answers as possible.

What scientific facts are known concerning the origns of life?


33 posted on 05/15/2006 8:51:24 AM PDT by Conservative Texan Mom (Some people say I'm stubborn, when it's usually just that I'm right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Evolution conforms to the scientific method. It is liekly the most tested scientific theory in exsitence at this time.


34 posted on 05/15/2006 8:58:53 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6
Then the science types had better shut up about morality then! I get tired of the science types who decry the the moral history of given religions, the wars...ect. blah blah blah! For a science type to decry a belief as "superstition" is actually a moral judgment and not a scientific statement.

Well, scientists are entitled to their political opinions, must like anyone else. However, what you describe, moral history of religions, wars, etc., falls outside science as you pointed out. unless such opinions are based upon the impact of scientific and technological issues of the time. However, scientists are right to point out when something advocated as science by the lay public isn't science.

35 posted on 05/15/2006 9:02:04 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: doc30

Darn, I should have bought that Tshirt which explained why God was a bad scientist.

I think one was that gods experiment, creation of the universe, was not duplicable by other scientist..

I forgot the rest.


36 posted on 05/15/2006 9:06:25 AM PDT by art_rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: art_rocks

LOL! Well, God can't be a scientist. Any Christian should know why, too.


37 posted on 05/15/2006 9:18:32 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: metmom

I have misgivings about completely divorcing science from philosophy. I think it is neccessary as a guide to why we research what we do. It obviously should have no impact on the evidence, or results. However, it does serve as a guide for applying science to our lives, and formulating the questions for science to answer. The questions from a religious person, may be very different from one who is not. The science will be the same, but the person's interpretation of the results may not, and someone has to interpret. This would vary according to the field of science since there are different sets of codes that influence each. Medical research has different questions, and implications than does research regarding ToE. How did we develop these codes if it weren't for philosophy? How do we have any direction from which to pursue science? And, whose direction is correct? Can we answer that in complete absolutes? Further more, without philosophy, why do we even care to pursue science anyway? Didn't ToE start with a philosophical curiousity on Darwin's part?


38 posted on 05/15/2006 9:24:30 AM PDT by Conservative Texan Mom (Some people say I'm stubborn, when it's usually just that I'm right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: metmom
It's good that we have someone here that is soooo intelligent that they can sit in judgment of God

You might try reading my entire post and then think about it a little more. I am not judging God, I am evaluating a human perception of God and pointing out that there are many beliefs regarding our Spiritual Source and that education belongs in Churches and Sunday Schools, NOT in public schools.

39 posted on 05/15/2006 10:36:51 AM PDT by Semper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: metmom
It's good that we have someone here that is soooo intelligent that they can sit in judgment of God, or whatever designer they happen to believe in, that is powerful enough to create the universe and something as complex as life. And you could do a better job, I suppose?

Not helpful at all.

40 posted on 05/15/2006 11:09:53 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (If God "created" the world through evolution, then Al Gore really did invent the Internet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Texan Mom
I'm going to predict the most common answer to your question:

"Evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life and never has."

Of course, anybody older than 20 knows that's 100% hogwash, but the FR pro-evolution brigade keeps saying it (and believing it!) anyway.

41 posted on 05/15/2006 11:16:15 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (If God "created" the world through evolution, then Al Gore really did invent the Internet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback

bump for publicity


42 posted on 05/15/2006 11:17:14 AM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw; Mr. Silverback
Expect the "you need to take a science course" responses.

That would help, yeah. The attacks on science by the "intelligent design" folks are almost without exception based on their own failure to understand the subject to a minimum degree of competence, and not on any actual flaws in the science they're attempting to "question".

43 posted on 05/15/2006 11:20:34 AM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback; Conservative Texan Mom
[What scientific facts are known concerning the origns of life?]

I'm going to predict the most common answer to your question: "Evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life and never has."

Wrong. It would help if you understood *when* that answer is appropriately given, and *why*. You've obviously heard it before, but failed to understand the context. It's an inappropriate answer to the question that was asked *here*, and thus no one with an actual understanding of the topic is likely to give it.

It *is* an appropriate answer to *other* questions, when the question mistakenly attempts to link biogenesis with evolutionary processes.

Please, if you can't keep up with the discussion, don't attempt to "provide" answers.

Of course, anybody older than 20 knows that's 100% hogwash,

No, it isn't "hogwash", it's an accurate statement, but do feel free to "enlighten" us by explaining your reasons for making such an incorrect claim.

but the FR pro-evolution brigade keeps saying it (and believing it!) anyway.

Because it's true. Biogenesis and evolution necessarily work via different processes (ask for an explanation if you don't understand why), and thus are independent subjects -- one does not stand or fall depending on the success or failure of the other, just as the science of meteorology does not become invalid if various explanations of the origin of the atmosphere are true or not.

Please, try to learn about a topic before you attempt to "lecture' us on it.

44 posted on 05/15/2006 11:32:46 AM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback

When you are unable to correctly formulate what evolutionary theory says, do not be surprised that views on the subject are discounted.


45 posted on 05/15/2006 11:36:22 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw; Mr. Silverback
[opponents of intelligent design thought the issue had been settled—not just in Pennsylvania, but also across the entire country.]

Geez, tell me about it. They post about 20 threads a week to tell people the issue has been settled.

No, that's not why we post the threads, nor do we claim that the public debate has been settled, but thanks for sharing your misunderstanding with us.

46 posted on 05/15/2006 11:51:54 AM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw
Geez, tell me about it. They post about 20 threads a week to tell people the issue has been settled.

Only 20? Add a zero to that you will be closer. Politics has almost become a sideshow on the CrevoRepublic forum.

47 posted on 05/15/2006 11:54:43 AM PDT by Skooz (Chastity prays for me, piety sings...Modesty hides my thighs in her wings...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback; All
New tagline...until tomorrow at least..

Your tagline reads, "If God "created" the world through evolution, then Al Gore really did invent the Internet."

Please explain the "reasoning" you used to conclude that the consequent logically follows from the antecedent. We'll wait.

Until then, your tagline appears to be both illogical and false.

48 posted on 05/15/2006 11:56:56 AM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Skooz; Hacksaw
[Geez, tell me about it. They post about 20 threads a week to tell people the issue has been settled.]

Only 20? Add a zero to that you will be closer. Politics has almost become a sideshow on the CrevoRepublic forum.

Well, we'll make you a deal -- if the anti-evolution folks promise to stop spreading lies about science and its proponents, we'll promise to stop telling the truth about them.

49 posted on 05/15/2006 11:58:19 AM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Really? You mean it? The forum will revert to the task for which its founder intended if everyone will agree with your side?

Deal. OK. We all agree with you.


50 posted on 05/15/2006 12:00:08 PM PDT by Skooz (Chastity prays for me, piety sings...Modesty hides my thighs in her wings...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-106 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