Now I get to post my Hitler picture:
Posted on 06/27/2007 11:55:52 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
You’ve got your chronology wrong.
Popper, who is probably the most influential 20th century philosopher of science, contributed to our understanding of quantum physics through his skepticism of the Copenhagen Interpretation and along with his great friend F.A. Hayek inspired Margaret Thatcher, was no ID theorist or creationist and made his famous criticisms of the “new synthesis” of Darwinism long before “Intelligent Design” became a buzzword.
In fact, Popper’s argument against materialism in cognitive science depended upon natural selection being the primary source of change in species-— that is, Popper was a stronger Darwinist in that sense than, say, Stephen Jay Gould, who along with many other paleontologists placed a bigger premium on mutation than the rest of the mainstream of evolutionary biology.
Popper’s criticism of Darwinism, then, was not of the idea of natural selection itself, but of the sloppy way that idea had tended to be formulated, revealing complacency where there should have been questioning. Thus Behe in his book “The Edge of Evolution” in examining what might be the limits of natural selection follows Popper, much as, in that sense, Stephen Jay Gould and Michael Polyani did.
Seems like this would make it less specific to any religion.
Should the courts overturn laws against murder if one successfully demonstrates they were simply a relabeling of one of the Ten Commandments?
Agreed!
The absurdity of your comment aside, do you think that referring to a scientist as a Church somehow belittles the scientist? If so, what does that say for all the non-scientific charlatans who create churches out of mythology?
Of course I disagree with you. I consider most of the chatter on evolution threads by creationists and ID advocates to be devoid of reason and content, and mainly comprised of ridicule and baseless ad hominem references to Hitler homosexuality and communism. Even the article that begins this thread is full of venom, implying that the majority of biologists are part of some militant anti-God cabal.
There are exceptions, but they are uncommon. As recently as yesterday I asked several posters -- people who are obviously educated and capable of reason -- to provide evidence or concrete examples backing up their assertions. They chose rather to stop posting to me.
==The absurdity of your comment aside, do you think that referring to a scientist as a Church somehow belittles the scientist? If so, what does that say for all the non-scientific charlatans who create churches out of mythology?
It’s enough for me that he admits that the Church of Darwin is in fact a religion. And thus, we must lump Darwinists in with the rest of the people you describe as charlatans. Am I correct to presume that you also include yourself in that description?
Would it be OK for the government to add a special tax to fund the provision of a government manufactured car to everyone?
Either way we are being forced to pay for a government product, and have to pay all over again if we want a good product.
Seems like this would make it less specific to any religion.
Should the courts overturn laws against murder if one successfully demonstrates they were simply a relabeling of one of the Ten Commandments?
Seems like you are deliberately missing the point.
The evidence shows that creation "science" evolved into ID because of the U.S. Supreme Court decision outlawing creation "science" in schools.
Read my post again with particular attention to the word changes in Pandas. If you want more evidence, read either the court decision, to which I linked, or you could read all of the court transcripts.
The evidence rebutts the claim that ID is science, and not related to the creation movement. That was the point of my post.
==Even the article that begins this thread is full of venom, implying that the majority of biologists are part of some militant anti-God cabal.
Hmmm...Don’t you guys claim that the majority of IDers are part of some militant pro-God cabal?
Indeed. The communication difficulties are awesome. You see what you see; I see what I see; and evidently we do not see the same things at all. Makes it tough....
The artifact remains, and that is a trace of the designer.
Archaeological artifacts are assumed to be the product of humans because we have observed humans making similar products and have never observed similar products made without human intervention.
The principle involved is best illustrated by seeing what happens when the difference isn't clear. It is possible to find sharp pieces of flint that are the result of natural processes, and when this happens, there is controversy. The critical issue here is that we know the capabilities, motives, limitations, and quite a bit of the history of humans. We infer design because we can directly study the behavior of the designer.
In the case of evolution, we also know a great deal about the capabilities and limitations of the designer. We have observed every action and every aspect of variation and selection, both in the wild and in the laboratory. We know how the algorithm behaves and we know its limits and capabilities.
We have, of course, not directly observed the entire history of life. But then we have not observed a redwood grow from a seed to a giant. We have seen snapshots in the life of a redwood, but no one has seen the entire process. It is reasonable to infer the process from the snapshots?
I fail to see how lying is pro God. The ID advocates at the Dover trial were admonished for lying under oath. Among other things they lied about was the history of the Pandas textbook. They denied it was originally written as a creationist textbook.
One of the school board members denied under oath that he knew who paid for fifty copies of this textbook. His signature was on the check that paid for the books.
Careful...
Now I get to post my Hitler picture:
And the funny thing is, naturalism is ONLY an assumption. There's no basis for it at all.
On the contrary, since we know that intelligence can produce both order and complexity, AND randomness, when necessary, randomness is no evidence for mindlessness.
I’m not familiar with your allegations. Feel free to post a link. However, I am familiar with the lies and outright falsehoods issued by the Church of Darwin at the Dover trial:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/07/ken_millers_random_and_undirec.html
More lies from the Church of Darwin:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/courts/idea-co-founder-disembowels-ken-millers-strawman/
OK. And you think this is the likely means by which this will be resolved, and you're sure it will be?
I have to admit, the idea of private sector nuclear weapons development is kind of interesting.
I agree there's some inequities in the current system. Heck, as a property owner who's kids are all grown, I'm being forced to pay for a "government product" I'm not even using.
==we are flogging ID now and if that fails we’ll come up with something else
Careful, you might wind up offending the Church of Darwin:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1856701/posts
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.