Posted on 05/13/2007 11:07:52 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
“Sorry, this is not science. This is apologetics (defense of religion).”
That’s true, but completely irrelevant. Selling atheistic materialism is not science either, but it goes on daily. The truth should get equal time.
Then your problem is solved. Reduce the time spent pushing atheistic materialism in the class to zero, and equal time also becomes zero. Any intelligent design proponent would be happy with that.
An intelligent post. Thanks. The best anyone can do, at present, is to state his case as ‘theory.’ What develops and becomes provable is for the future to decide.
‘Do a google search on Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design. Once you understand the difference, feel free to retract your “question.”’
I asked the question because my limited understanding of the subject leads me to believe there is a dichotomy present. I suppose it is too much to expect a question to be answered on this forum, when it is simpler to patronise the questioner.
‘Well, sir, I would imagine that an intelligent poster to FR would be aware of the difference between young-earth creationism and intelligent design.’
It is not well-discussed this side of the pond, hence my question. Should I expect US posters here to necessarily understand morris dancing? I suppose I should google many pages before any reply, but I simply can’t be arsed.
Then your problem is solved. Reduce the time spent pushing atheistic materialism in the class to zero, and equal time also becomes zero. Any intelligent design proponent would be happy with that.
So we have to get rid of "atheistic materialism" because some religious beliefs are contradicted?
Well, why stop with the theory of evolution, because that's what this is really all about? Just think of all the other sciences that could be reduced to zero" under such an anti-enlightenment approach:
‘Your logic is flawed in that it includes a false either-or limitation: “either there is no intelligent design in the universe, or the universe is 6000 years old.”’
My logic is flawed because I am not fully familiar with one of the concepts, hence my question. This is not an easy place to get a simple answer on a subject most Brits have never heard of.
‘I don’t think that it was mentioned in the article that he promotes that or adheres to that belief.’
Thank you. You are the first person who chose to try to answer my question instead of sneering.
“So we have to get rid of “atheistic materialism” because some religious beliefs are contradicted?”
Well, you’re saying we have to get rid of intelligent design because your religious beliefs are contradicted. And don’t try to tell me you’re only trying to keep religion out of the science class, because science classes are the seminaries for the religion of atheistic materialism.
Besides, I wasn’t saying you have to “get rid” of it; just that if you want to stop the injection of religion into science classes, you have to stop the injection of your own religion as well. If you want to teach your own religion in science classes, then you must allow other religions in as well.
“Well, why stop with the theory of evolution, because that’s what this is really all about?”
No it’s not. That’s just a falsehood asserted for the purpose of discrediting ID. ID does not exclude evolution.
“Just think of all the other sciences that could be reduced to zero” under such an anti-enlightenment approach:”
Here you’ve just hurtled off into complete irrationality. ID doesn’t seek to suppress theorizing based on the fossil record. However, if you’re going to tell students that the existence of the fossil record proves that there is no God, ID proponents want the opportunity to say, “No, it doesn’t.”
And it seems that the prospect of someone saying, “No, it doesn’t,” drives atheistic materialists into paroxyms of hysterical rage. Demonstrating, of course, their committment to intellectual freedom.
“Where does it all end?”
I don’t know. Certainly, there seems to be no end to your capacity to assert falsehoods about ID.
“When we reach the Dark Ages again?”
The next dark age will commence when people who think like you are in complete charge.
The Discovery Institute did not release the Wedge Document. It was leaked somehow.
It is probably in numerous places on the web, but I doubt it is on the Discovery Institute website.
No, the articles says he submitted 68 papers, NOT that they were published.
This article says that he has submitted 68 and that 25 of his published articles have have been written since he came to Iowa State University. I don’t think they are saying that the other articles weren’t published just that they were submitted before he came to Iowa State. However, I actually got my numbers from a different article. Check out this link. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/iowa_state_professor_who_was_d.html
So, in essence, he was denied tenure because of the church he attends on Sundays.
The argument you are making here is that his extracurricular activities are sufficient to deny him tenure. Maybe they are (and I notice that "science" treats fraudulence-riddled fields much more gently) but this is a slippery slope. Very slippery.
Any one.
I agree.
In this case, the Department DID decide he qualified for tenure.
The college president overturned that decision.
No, he simply only submitted 25 of them to the department on this particular occasion for their perusal-— Gonzales has in fact published 68 papers in peer reviewed journals, including the cover article in Scientific American.
I note my misspelling.
Experimental error.
Why not have a Department of Astrology?
Of course, I'm a mathematician, so I resent any field that uses the language of metaphysical certainty but don't blink an eye when they discover they've been wrong for a few hundred years.
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.