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

Skip to comments.

Academia's Assault on Intelligent Design
Townhall ^ | May 27,2007 | Ken Connor

Posted on 05/28/2007 5:44:20 PM PDT by SirLinksalot

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 451-497 next last
To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
The problem is that the "original version" and not a perversion of it, is what led to eugenics.

So you say. Prove it.

The eugenics movement is a gross perversion of Darwin.

151 posted on 05/29/2007 4:38:23 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: keats5

At this point in time ID will have to establish itself-—not by discussion-—by hard data, and hard data alone, if it is to enter the realm of science.


152 posted on 05/29/2007 4:42:51 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
WHO or WHAT introduces the sequence in a DNA chain?

Repeated effectiveness in surviving.

153 posted on 05/29/2007 4:45:04 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: keats5
How exactly does one ensure pure randomness in a clinically controlled setting?

In the assignment of subjects or the assignment of various treatments, a table of random numbers is often used as one of many approaches.

154 posted on 05/29/2007 4:50:43 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: HereInTheHeartland
"So Christians should be excluded from tenured public university positions?"

No, not in general. But if a person, in the scholarly writings they put down on their CV/resume, includes publications which argue for unphysical or supernatural explanations for natural phenomena, or, say, a literalist interpretation of creation myths such as those in Genesis, as an explanation for the natural world we find around us, they would clearly be unqualified for tenured positions in departments such as geology, astronomy, biology, etc. The department would face losing accreditation for their program, for one thing. The students seeking legitimate teaching in their chosen field would not put up with it, for another. (Complaint from student to Dean: "I want to get into a grad school and specialize in quasars that are 12 billion years old, but my senior thesis advisor is telling me nothing is more than 6000 years old." No Dean is going to put himself in that position.) They may well be qualified for a tenured position in a religion department at a Bible college, I wouldn't know.

A lot of departments have been imploding for decades due to political influences. Literature and other humanities, for instance, which are collapsing under things like postmodernism, critical theory, all manner of politically driven race/class/gender theories. Departments of literature discarded their scholarly standards and embraced their "critics," and look what happened, they turned into laughingstocks of nonsense. Nobody in the sciences wants to see that happen by letting in politically motivated "critics" of science. Which the Discovery Institute clearly is.
155 posted on 05/29/2007 4:59:29 PM PDT by omnivore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
The anthropic principle most explicitly does not say the universe was made to suit us. We just happen to be living at a time a place where it does.

I guess that settles that.

So, from now on, if asked why there's life on earth, my answer can be a truthful, "just because." While this could well be true, we really don't know if it is. More scientific research is needed.

But yet, those of the ID persuasion use the anthropic principle as strong evidence of there being an Intelligent Creator and, at the same time, argue that their postulates are scientifically-derived.

Back to the old saw for me: show me some data.

156 posted on 05/29/2007 5:09:46 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

” More scientific research is needed.”

The only way to test the theory is to find universes besides ours with different properties and see if there is life there. Good luck with that. I’d say there’s life in the universe because it there weren’t we wouldn’t be here to miss it.


157 posted on 05/29/2007 5:18:03 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
"Does belief in Panspermia ... count as intelligent design ?"

Using the same term, in this case "intelligent design," to mean two or more different things, is to cause confusion deliberately. Panspermia theory is clearly not what the Discovery Institute means by "Intelligent Design," so I wouldn't include it in this discussion.

There are at least two versions of Panspermia. One just pushes the abiogenic origin of life off earth and puts is somewhere else. Such a simple change of location for an event would not affect whether it was a purely physical event or there was supernatural intervention needed, so it would hardly matter to the present debate. Another also makes the same change of location for abiogenic origin of life, but also adds the twist of "space aliens" (little green men, etc.) going around deliberately seeding planets with life, like farmers seeding soil. But those green guys would have had to come from somewhere, etc., again, it just pushes the same questions off to another locale and circumstance, it doesn't change the fundamental dynamics of the question of whether or not there are links between the natural and supernatural world.

The panspermia meme comes up again and again on these threads wherever evolution comes up for a bashing. Is it on some Talking Points being handed out by one of the Creationist outfits? I don't get the big interest in it.

Hard to imagine what difference panspermia would make. If life is ubiquitous in the universe, it would still evolve the same way it does here on earth. Same universe, same rules. Methane has the same properties on Neptune as on earth, helium has the same properties on Arcturus as it does on our sun. I don't see what a change of venue buys.
158 posted on 05/29/2007 5:26:29 PM PDT by omnivore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: mjolnir
Darwin’s dangerous idea gives us every reason to think that science, perhaps on the part of you or one of your fellow neuroscientists, will show that purpose to have been merely epiphenomenal i.e. an illusion.

If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, is there a sound? No.

As perceivers we are all constrained by phenomenology.

Where is the totality of the universe? Between our ears.

159 posted on 05/29/2007 5:29:22 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
I’d say there’s life in the universe because it there weren’t we wouldn’t be here to miss it.

Rewrite. I can't comprehend.

160 posted on 05/29/2007 5:40:35 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
Oh I get it:

Cogito Ergo Sum

161 posted on 05/29/2007 5:42:27 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

If there was no life, you wouldn’t know it.
There has to be life for the universe to contemplate itself.
Otherwise, ‘just because.’ LOL


162 posted on 05/29/2007 5:44:08 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Rudder; metmom; Aetius; Alamo-Girl; AndrewC; Asphalt; Aussie Dasher; AnalogReigns; banalblues; ...
"There isn't any scientific evidence supportive of ID."

There isn't a shred of scientific evidence that fails to support an intelligent designer.

163 posted on 05/29/2007 6:02:36 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
There isn't a shred of scientific evidence that fails to support an intelligent designer.

When anything means everything meaning is lost.

If you take the blues skies, the dead ducks, the turds on the grass, my gas bill...when all of perceived reality is used to justify ID, then you're right---in your own mind.

But science is not moved.

164 posted on 05/29/2007 6:18:06 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

I see; your thought process is simply a bowel movement in a sea of darwinian bowel movements.

When you wake up to the vast complexity that you are denying in order to deny an inconvenient God, let’s hope it isn’t too late.


165 posted on 05/29/2007 6:29:33 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
I see; your thought process is simply a bowel movement in a sea of darwinian bowel movements.

Until quite recently, I had never realized the degree of sophistication your prose demonstrates. What can I say?

What more can you say?

166 posted on 05/29/2007 6:36:30 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

When the example requires no sophistication, only a fool attempts to obfuscate through irrelevent sophistry.


167 posted on 05/29/2007 6:40:18 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science]

Therefore, truth is a word best avoided entirely in Darwinism. Many would agree with you. Congratulations!

168 posted on 05/29/2007 6:42:08 PM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
If there was no life, you wouldn’t know it.

I live in a deep forest and can't get tv reliably. But this looks like a line from the Simpsons' (not OJ) that yields an inevitiable, "Duh!."

169 posted on 05/29/2007 6:42:29 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Hey! When did FR get a thesaurus option for posts? Is it in beta or something?


170 posted on 05/29/2007 6:49:27 PM PDT by jonathanmo (No tag available at this time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

“I believe in God and that Jesus Christ is the son and the way to the father, however, any assertions that of a Supreme Being created the universe must backed up with scientific fact. It is not, it is religion not science.”

Why must it be backed up with science? There are many things that science cannot explain. For example we don’t know why gravity really works. We know it works though. Using your theory if you can’t explain why gravity works then its a religion.

Religion is higher than science.


171 posted on 05/29/2007 7:03:05 PM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: omnivore
A few thoughts come to mind.

Was the purpose of the article to act as a trial balloon to see how prof. G would fare in a lawsuit?

Is the purpose of any media-action by Discovery Institute related personnel simply an attempt to fire up discussions like this, as a strategy of "creating controversy," so that they can then turn around and use these very discussions as excuses in another attempt to push Creationism/ID into public school biology classes, under the guise of "teach the controversy?" I admit that's kind of paranoid to think, but I'm starting to wonder due to the repetitiveness of many of the arguments made every time this comes up.

The notion that the whole evolution/creationism thing neatly fits into liberal/conservative categories: It doesn't. William Jennings Bryan (noted Creationist) was a "progressive" Democrat, he was practically the Dennis Kucinich of his day on economic issues. Any such alignment is only incidental and temporary. Likewise, the labeling of academia with a broad brush. It is true that many academic fields have been ideologically "captured" by leftists. But this is least true in the sciences and other technical fields. Yes, there's PC everywhere, but the technical fields are still the most ideologically free. So it's simply inaccurate to try to make a "science professors are PC" argument out of this.

Blaming things some people do, on other people, who are dead: For example, blaming Darwin, by some "chain of ideas" for the Holocaust. Darwin was dead before Hitler was born, let alone before he became Chancellor of Germany. As Thomas Jefferson said, "the earth belongs to the living, not the dead." He meant that humans present in a time must be responsible for what they do and how they live. There is no "Darwin defense" for a genocidal maniac who ruled long after Darwin was gone. You might as well blame Peter the Great for what Stalin did. Sorry, that meme is nonsense.

There was an earlier reference to Lord Kelvin (William Thomson). Wikipedia offers this FWIW:

Thomson believed in an instant of Creation but he was no creationist in the modern sense.[27] He contended that the laws of thermodynamics operated from the birth of the universe and envisaged a dynamic process that saw the organisation and evolution of the solar system and other structures, followed by a gradual "heat death". He developed the view that the Earth had once been too hot to support life and contrasted this view with that of uniformitarianism, that conditions had remained constant since the indefinite past. He contended that "This earth, certainly a moderate number of millions of years ago, was a red-hot globe ... ."[28]

After the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859, Thomson saw evidence of the relatively short habitable age of the Earth as tending to contradict an evolutionary explanation of biological diversity. He noted that the sun could not have possibly existed long enough to allow the slow incremental development by evolution — unless some energy source beyond what he or any other Victorian era person knew of was found. He was soon drawn into public disagreement with Darwin's supporters John Tyndall and T.H. Huxley. In his response to Huxley’s address to the Geological Society of London (1868) he presented his address "Of Geological Dynamics", (1869)[29] which, among his other writings, set back the scientific acceptance that the earth must be of very great age.

Thomson ultimately settled on an estimate that the Earth was 20-40 million years old. Shortly before his death however, Becquerel's discovery of radioactivity and Marie Curie's studies with uranium ores provided the insight into the 'energy source beyond' that would power the sun for the long time-span required by the theory of evolution. Though Thomson continued to defend his estimates, privately he admitted that they were most probably wrong.[citation needed]

So he favored a "middle-aged earth" (meaning, between a Biblical "young earth" and a modern geologically "old earth") because his understanding of the sources of heat for the sun were limited to things like coal and natural gas, because he lived most of his life before the discovery of radioactive decay.

Not enough coal to power the sun for long enough to support a 4.5 billion year old earth, is now still being brought up in 2007, as some sort of reason to hold up Thomson as a "Darwin critic"?? AFTER we know how nuclear fusion works? The mind reels.

Quotes attributed to Thomson Lord Kelvin:

Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.

Radio has no future.

So apparently Thomson Lord Kelvin got some things right and some wrong.

But my own favorite quote attributed to Thomson is this:

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of Science, whatever the matter may be.

This is an essential aspect of science: measurement and quantification. Lacking those, whatever good works you may be doing, it ain't science.

Where is the instrument that measures the supposed interaction between the supernatural and the natural?

Divining rod? Ouija board? Perhaps something made by Perkin-Elmer or Hewlett-Packard? Fluke meter? (Pun, sorry, and with apology to Daniel Dennett.) How do we measure and quantify the continuing influence of the supernatural in the natural world without such an instrument? Or, what statistical algorithm do we use, when analyzing DNA sequences, to find the parts that "couldn't have happened by evolution," and therefore had to have been added in by supernatural forces? What statistical test to we apply, to show which sequences are due to natural evolution and which are due to supernatural intervention?

sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thomson%2C_1st_Baron_Kelvin
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_Thomson%2C_1st_Baron_Kelvin
172 posted on 05/29/2007 7:04:08 PM PDT by omnivore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
"vast complexity that you are denying "

Nobody denies vast complexity.
173 posted on 05/29/2007 7:10:19 PM PDT by omnivore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: omnivore
Is the purpose of any media-action by Discovery Institute related personnel simply an attempt to fire up discussions like this, as a strategy of "creating controversy," so that they can then turn around and use these very discussions as excuses in another attempt to push Creationism/ID into public school biology classes, under the guise of "teach the controversy?" I admit that's kind of paranoid to think, but I'm starting to wonder due to the repetitiveness of many of the arguments made every time this comes up.

Son, you're smarter than you look.

174 posted on 05/29/2007 7:25:32 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot; gobucks; mikeus_maximus; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; Elsie; LiteKeeper; ...


You have been pinged because of your interest regarding news, debate and editorials pertaining to the Creation vs. Evolution debate - from the young-earth creationist perspective.
To to get on or off this list (currently the premier list for creation/evolution news!), freep-mail me:
Add me / Remove me



Sorry I'm a little slow getting this story out to everyone, but this is a pretty good summary. Very little surprise; this fellow joins Dr. Raymond Damadian, Dr. Richard von Sternberg and Francis Beckwith as victims of the tolerance train of evolution.

Some other links I've had waiting to pass along.

Intelligent Design Scientist Denied Tenure at Iowa State (what you can do to help!)

Iowa State Promotes Atheist Professor Who Equates Bible with Mein Kampf

Faculty Admits Intelligent Design was a Factor in Denying Tenure

World’s Premiere Scientific Journal Reports on Iowa State’s Denial of Tenure to Guillermo Gonzalez
175 posted on 05/29/2007 8:16:18 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Don't go see Pirates 3! www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1839498/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

Well, when you think about it, the anthropic principle itself is, “duh.” It shouldn’t even be necessary to come up with it, but there you go. The alternative, that man is the be all and the center of the universe, is too arrogant. Copernicus should have disabused us of that.


176 posted on 05/29/2007 8:20:31 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Rudder; sirchtruth

I believe sirch was more focusing on the “introduces” not “perpetuates” part of the question.

My evidence for this is a lack of the words “perpetuate” “communicate” or “repeat” in the quote.

DNA sequences are echos. Effective “echos” reach our ears (survive, multiply, etc.) Now, where did the introduced noise come from?


177 posted on 05/29/2007 8:33:57 PM PDT by MacDorcha (Peace is not the highest goal - freedom is. -LachlanMinnesota)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Science today is like a horse with blinders on. It’s been so restricted to such a narrow part of existence, that it gives a warped view of reality.

While the conclusions reached within that framework may work within that framework, they’re totally useless when brought into an undistorted wider reality. And they’re incapable of answering the questions that mean the most to humanity, yet science is being treated like the end all and be all of existence. The greatest insult that can be bestowed on it’s opponents is that of ignorance. If science is all that there is and all that has any validity, then what a purposeless existence.

How pathetic to be trapped into such a mindset.


178 posted on 05/29/2007 8:37:28 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: metmom

” If science is all that there is and all that has any validity, then what a purposeless existence.’

You’re getting warmer.


179 posted on 05/29/2007 8:40:06 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: omnivore
Where is the instrument that measures the supposed interaction between the supernatural and the natural?

So what IS the dividing line between the natural and the supernatural? Who makes that decision and on what basis?

At one time much of what we take for granted would be considered supernatural. If the modern philosophy of ignoring what is labeled *supernatural* were applied in those days, much of scientific research would not have happened.

Choosing to ignore something or not research it because it's too difficult or can't be explained NOW is foolishness and the the height of arrogance and an impediment to science. How can progress be made by arbitrarily choosing to write something off simply because it's labeled supernatural?

180 posted on 05/29/2007 8:43:42 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Science today is like a horse with blinders on. It’s been so restricted to such a narrow part of existence, that it gives a warped view of reality.

While the conclusions reached within that framework may work within that framework, they’re totally useless when brought into an undistorted wider reality. And they’re incapable of answering the questions that mean the most to humanity, yet science is being treated like the end all and be all of existence. The greatest insult that can be bestowed on it’s opponents is that of ignorance. If science is all that there is and all that has any validity, then what a purposeless existence.

How pathetic to be trapped into such a mindset.

Pathetic?

You can have magic, superstition, wishful thinking, divine revelation, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, ouija boards, anecdotes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, black cats, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, "miracles," palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo, and the rest of the other un-natural phenomena.

I'll take science any day.

181 posted on 05/29/2007 8:44:56 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

So, from now on, if asked why there’s life on earth, my answer can be a truthful, “just because.” While this could well be true, we really don’t know if it is. More scientific research is needed.


No amount of science will ever even attempt to answer “why.”

Yet “why” we still ask. Perhaps science isn’t the way to truth? (Just a simple suggestion)


182 posted on 05/29/2007 8:54:53 PM PDT by MacDorcha (Peace is not the highest goal - freedom is. -LachlanMinnesota)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Choosing to ignore something or not research it because it's too difficult or can't be explained NOW is foolishness and the the height of arrogance and an impediment to science.

Best synopsis of creationism/ID I've heard yet. I bet you didn't mean what you said.

The problem you have is that EVERY thing that has previously been labeled supernatural that has been studied to a reasonably complete understanding (rain, thunder, seasons etc etc) has been found to have a natural explanation. The fruits of this research is generally good.

The point is that saying 'god did it' is not a decent explanation. From a scientific point of view it's just a cop out.

Things held on faith (sans evidence) should be kept private. Otherwise intractable arguments in sue. For example there are three versions of the 10 commandments, which do you want in your courthouse? (Protestant, Catholic or Hebrew versions?)

183 posted on 05/29/2007 8:56:48 PM PDT by Dinsdale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Take science all you wish.

Just be sure to ask “why” along the way. It’ll reset your focus when you get stuck.


184 posted on 05/29/2007 8:58:01 PM PDT by MacDorcha (Peace is not the highest goal - freedom is. -LachlanMinnesota)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: omnivore

“Well, you’ve been working on it half the night and I still haven’t seen any evidence for “ID.” All you’ve got is random quotes, vague blarney. You haven’t shown a mechanism that connects the supernatural to the natural, much less how such a mechanism would work. This isn’t about “PC,” its about evidence in the physical world, or lack thereof.”

Wow! Can someone really be that ignorant — and advertise it proudly on FR?

Let me start with a quote:

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. —Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA and Nobel Laureate

And that is actually quite an understatement. We have no idea how life could have originated without ID. The simplest known living cell rivals the complexity of all man’s technology. Proteins are very complex and very precise, yet the apparatus that produces them is itself made of protein. How those proteins that build other proteins were made is a complete enigma.

Yes, I know that you can speculate until the cows come home about how the protein synthetic apparatus in the cell could have been built up gradually, but there is no evidence whatsoever that that happened. It’s all just wild speculation. Yet fools like you will take even the slightest hint of plausibility of such speculation as “proof” that it happened without ID as sure as proof that gravity exists or 1+1=2.

If you are in the mood to educate yourself on the basics, I suggest you also read up on how fine tuned the basic physical parameters of the universe are. It’s truly amazing. If any of several fundamental physical constants were different by miniscule amounts, the universe and life as we know it would not exist. Fools like you wouldn’t be pulling idiotic assertions out of their rear end — well, that would be the plus side.


185 posted on 05/29/2007 8:58:20 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

You are avoiding her point, which is that the claims of — not science actually but of scientists— are to be accepted uncritically. Is it not ironical that the things you list are flourishing in this world just as much if not more than they were in the 18th Century. Scientists are regarded as great magicians who are expected to pull rabbits out of the hat. In the 14th Century, religion suffered a great loss of reputation after the Black Death brought the high Middle Ages down to earth and seemed to install the devil as master of the house. What happens to science if the magician reaches into the habit and suddenly the hat is empty? Most people are unaware of how close death was to ordinary people in the 1930s and how antibiotics have transformed the world. Now we have signs that that vein may have played out. AIDS stubbonly resists and now we see the return of tuberbulosis to the West. Consumption was a better description of that. In any case, the Greeks with their cyclic notions of history remain to remind us that any theory of progress must include the undeniable fact that what goes up must come down. Easier to grasp in 1942 than now, I grant you.


186 posted on 05/29/2007 9:04:04 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
In any case, the Greeks with their cyclic notions of history remain to remind us that any theory of progress must include the undeniable fact that what goes up must come down. Easier to grasp in 1942 than now, I grant you.

I agree.

But the way to combat that-which-drags-us-down is not magic and superstition. That has been tried before, and did not work.

187 posted on 05/29/2007 9:07:40 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Thanks for the ping. Bump for later reading.


188 posted on 05/29/2007 9:18:48 PM PDT by Kevmo (Duncan Hunter just needs one Rudy G Campaign Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBtPIrEleM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

The Romans did quite well without “modern science.” and did the Chinese, and, for that matter, the Europeans of the 13th Century. Europe at that time had many more machines than either Rome or China at their respective heights. This includes the mechanical clock without which no science. But, the problem is not science which has made the world infinitely more comfortable but the insistence of some that life has no meaning other than that which they say it has. The ancients knew that they literally were in the hands of forces—malevalent or begnign that were beyond their control. So do we. That is why the average Londoner today is as superstititious as the
average Roman of the first Century. The ancient gods were totally indifferent to the fates of mankind. So, people understand, are the “gods” of science. Add a pound here to this fund, a penny there, and maybe,maybe miracles will occur.


189 posted on 05/29/2007 9:25:17 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

Anthropogenic Global Warming is to Revelations as Evolution is to Genesis. You defy the powers that be, and you pay the price in the scientific world. What matters more and more isn’t whether something is truly scientific; what matters is who’s going to fund the work. He who pays the piper...


190 posted on 05/29/2007 9:59:40 PM PDT by TenthAmendmentChampion (Pray for our President and for our heroes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and around the world!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Popocatapetl
So intelligent design can't be science (and can't be true), because science must explain everything, and the only God that's allowed is a God is One Who isn't involved in anything, because that would "break the rules."

That's how it works, folks. That's why evolutionists regard believers in Intelligent Design as "unscientific." They've jiggered the rules.

191 posted on 05/29/2007 10:08:38 PM PDT by TenthAmendmentChampion (Pray for our President and for our heroes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and around the world!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: TenthAmendmentChampion

You nailed it.

But the “rules” of science have not always rules out ID a priori. That’s a relatively new phenomenon. You can call it “politically correct” science.

And PC scientists all seem to use the same tactics, whether it be in support of hard-core purely naturalistic evolution or global warming. Rather than debate honestly, they simply dismiss the dissenters as fringe lunatics and cranks. Al Gore has nothing on Richard Dawkins in this regard.


192 posted on 05/29/2007 10:20:05 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Thanks for the ping!


193 posted on 05/29/2007 10:41:06 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

“I’ll take science any day.”

Science is good for the most part but its not the end all.


194 posted on 05/30/2007 5:01:12 AM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
So we should just ignore folklore , old wives tales, etc?

Well then, I suppose since at one time people believed illness was a result of spells, scientists should have ignored that, because, after all, everyone knew what caused illness. Or we shouldn't investigate folklore and medicines? Things like foxglove being good for dropsy? Axe that and don't find digitalis.

The problem with your thinking is that you won't find out a lot of things. There are things that are occurring in the world that defy explanation and yet they are happening and they are real. But sure, go ahead, write them off. Close your eyes, stick our fingers in your ears and sing, "La, la la, la la, la laaaaa.... I can't hear you. It's not real."

I'm not saying that all of those things you listed are real, but without investigating them you never find out if they are. Ignoring them because simply because they've been labeled by scientists as *supernatural* does a disservice to humanity. If science is all it's cracked up to be, it behooves it to investigate even things that seems strange because you never know what you're going to discover. If it's disproved, fine. Write it off and don't bother with it any more. If it's inconclusive, wait and look again later as new information and technology become available.

But go ahead, pretend that anything you can't see or touch or measure isn't real, if you want. That'll kill science and progress faster than anything I can think of.

195 posted on 05/30/2007 5:08:45 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha
Yet “why” we still ask. Perhaps science isn’t the way to truth? (Just a simple suggestion)

Heretic. sheesh

196 posted on 05/30/2007 5:10:27 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Dinsdale
So you agree that science shouldn't investigate anything that some scientist somewhere has written off as supernatural? Nice way to avoid any inconvenient subjects that just might throw a monkey wrench in science's naturalistic belief system.

The problem you have is that EVERY thing that has previously been labeled supernatural that has been studied to a reasonably complete understanding (rain, thunder, seasons etc etc) has been found to have a natural explanation.

Exactly the reason that science shouldn't blow off anything it doesn't understand.

Yet, here we have scientists with the attitude of "Oh, it's *supernautral*. How stupid." Not the best way to make progress.

197 posted on 05/30/2007 5:18:46 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Dinsdale
Choosing to ignore something or not research it because it's too difficult or can't be explained NOW is foolishness and the the height of arrogance and an impediment to science.

On the contrary, it's science/scientists who are putting the limits on what qualifies to be investigated.

The creationists/IDers want science to look at it and all we get is the mantra, "But it's noooot sciiiieeeeence."

Creationists/IDers aren't the ones fighting it. They think the evidence is there. Scientists have written it off for no good reason that I've ever heard.

198 posted on 05/30/2007 6:00:18 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: TenthAmendmentChampion

No, Intelligent Design can’t be science, because it doesn’t play by the rules of science. And using my previous analogy, ID cannot be a game of chess, because it doesn’t follow the rules of a game of chess.

That is, apples and oranges. Science is a limited, closed system. The error comes when trying to interpolate or extrapolate it to reality outside of its parameters. That is, it is sloppy thinking to assume that because it can be done in a scientific experiment, that it performs the same way in the world at large.

People are confused because it *seems* that science can be readily interpolated or extrapolated. But that is no longer scientific, even if the two things seem to behave the same.

There is no way that Intelligent Design can be integrated into a scientific experiment, because it is irreproducible, invisible and unmanageable. I cannot add it to the experiment, or take it away, observe it in action or modify that action. Therefore by the rules of science, I have to ignore it in my experiment.

This does NOT mean it does not exist, just that it transcends the experiment, and cannot be made part of the limited, closed system.

Importantly, ID is not alone in this capacity. Lots of very valid other things are excluded from scientific experiments. For example, anecdotal evidence can be very real, but is not admissible. Neither is luck or accident. Even if the experiment doesn’t come out as predicted, it may invalidate the experiment; and only a second experiment, with the unexpected result as a new possible outcome can be used.

But all of this goes to the heart of science education. If you are educating for science, then non-scientific information is excluded, no matter how valid. Just as much as when you are teaching chess, you do not incorporate rules from other games. You only teach chess rules.

This means that ID can never be taught as science, but it *can* be taught as ID. No real conflict there.


199 posted on 05/30/2007 6:05:30 AM PDT by Popocatapetl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]


Darwins Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side Is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate Science and Its Limits: The Natural Sciences in Christian Perspective
Darwin's Black Box:
The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution

by Michael J. Behe
hardcover
Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference
The Battle of Beginnings:
Why Neither Side Is Winning
the Creation-Evolution Debate

by Delvin Lee "Del" Ratzsch
Science and Its Limits:
The Natural Sciences in Christian Perspective

Del Ratzsch


200 posted on 05/30/2007 9:03:54 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Time heals all wounds, particularly when they're not yours. Profile updated May 26, 2007.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 451-497 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