Posted on 07/18/2008 1:54:34 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
No one knows how life began, but so-called theories of evolution are continually being announced. This book, The Altenberg 16: Will the Real Theory of Evolution Please Stand Up? exposes the rivalry in science today surrounding attempts to discover that elusive mechanism of evolution, as rethinking evolution is pushed to the political front burner in hopes that "survival of the fittest" ideology can be replaced with a more humane explanation for our existence and stave off further wars, economic crises and destruction of the Earth.
Evolutionary science is as much about the posturing, salesmanship, stonewalling and bullying that goes on as it is about actual scientific theory. It is a social discourse involving hypotheses of staggering complexity with scientists, recipients of the biggest grants of any intellectuals, assuming the power of politicians while engaged in Animal House pie-throwing and name-calling: "ham-fisted", "looney Marxist hangover", "secular creationist", "philosopher" (a scientist who can’t get grants anymore), "quack", "crackpot". . .
Perhaps the most egregious display of commercial dishonesty is next year’s celebration of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species – the so-called theory of evolution by natural selection, i.e., survival of the fittest, that was foisted on us almost 150 years ago.
Some of the Altenberg 16 or A-16, as I like to call them, have hinted that they’re trying to steer science in a more honest direction, that is, by addressing non-centrality of the gene. They say that the "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis", also called neo-Darwinism – which cobbled together the budding field of population genetics and paleontology, etc., 70 years ago – also marginalized the inquiry into morphology. And that it is then – in the 1930s and 1940s – that the seeds of corruption were planted and an Evolution industry born.
(Excerpt) Read more at scoop.co.nz ...
It just keeps getting nuttier, doesn't it?
Read Later
And the very scientific ad hominem arguments begin in 5, 4, 3, 2....
“You must not have gone to a REAL school!”
“You probably don’t use electricity!”
“It’s been proven over and over again. Look it up for yourself, if you can read.”
One of these days, I’m going to start a thread that posits that Jefferson Davis was a better president than Abraham Lincoln because he would have euthanized Terri Schiavo in the name of natural selection and watch the fur fly.
Or, how about the celebration of the Birth of Christ?
A lot of the arguments could be used against the religion "industry".
'Fittest' does not mean physical strength in human societies; atleast not always. In the natural world, it may be so, but in the case with humans, the dominance of ideas has taken over all other avenues of displays of strength to attract mates, including physical strength, by a very, very acute degree.
Keep in mind that the “religion” industry doesn’t pay any taxes.
The CRSC calls its strategy the “Wedge,” because it wants to liberate science from “atheistic naturalism.”Johnson refers to the CRSC members and their strategy as the Wedge, analogous to a wedge that splits a log — meaning that intelligent design will liberate science from the grip of “atheistic naturalism.” Ten years of Wedge history reveal its most salient features: Wedge scientists have no empirical research program and, consequently, have published no data in peer-reviewed journals (or elsewhere) to support their intelligent-design claims. But they do have an aggressive public relations program, which includes conferences that they or their supporters organize, popular books and articles, recruitment of students through university lectures sponsored by campus ministries, and cultivation of alliances with conservative Christians and influential political figures.
Philip E. Johnson: “This isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science. It’s about religion and philosophy.”The Wedge aims to “renew” American culture by grounding society’s major institutions, especially education, in evangelical religion. In 1996, Johnson declared: “This isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science. It’s about religion and philosophy.” According to Dembski, intelligent design “is just the Logos of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.” Wedge strategists seek to unify Christians through a shared belief in “mere” creation, aiming — in Dembski’s words — “at defeating naturalism and its consequences.” This enables intelligent-design proponents to coexist in a big tent with other creationists who explicitly base their beliefs on a literal interpretation of Genesis.
At heart, ID proponents are not motivated to improve science but to transform it into a theistic enterprise.“As Christians,” writes Dembski, “we know naturalism is false. Nature is not self-sufficient. … Nonetheless neither theology nor philosophy can answer the evidential question whether God’s interaction with the world is empirically detectable. To answer this question we must look to science.” Jonathan Wells, a biologist, and Michael J. Behe, a biochemist, seem just the CRSC fellows to give intelligent design the ticket to credibility. Yet neither has actually done research to test the theory, much less produced data that challenges the massive evidence accumulated by biologists, geologists, and other evolutionary scientists. Wells, influenced in part by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon, earned Ph.D.’s in religious studies and biology specifically “to devote my life to destroying Darwinism.” Behe sees the relevant question as whether “science can make room for religion.” At heart, proponents of intelligent design are not motivated to improve science but to transform it into a theistic enterprise that supports religious faith.
The ID movement is advancing its strategy but its tactics are no substitute for real science. Wedge supporters are at present trying to insert intelligent design into Ohio public-school science standards through state legislation. Earlier the CRSC advertised its science education site by assuring teachers that its “Web curriculum can be appropriated without textbook adoption wars” — in effect encouraging teachers to do an end run around standard procedures. Anticipating a test case, the Wedge published in the Utah Law Review a legal strategy for winning judicial sanction. Recently the group almost succeeded in inserting into the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 a “sense of the Senate” that supported the teaching of intelligent design. So the movement is advancing, but its tactics are no substitute for real science. ----By Barbara Forrest
“No one knows how life began,”
No one knows how life began?
“And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.”
It was created by the spoken Word of God. Unlike men, God has never lied.
Seattle’s Discovery Institute scrambling to rebound after intelligent-design ruling
Seattle Times ^ | 26 April 2006 | David Postman
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1621709/posts
When a federal judge stopped intelligent design from being taught in a Pennsylvania school district in December, the concept’s chief advocates issued a quick and pointed response. ...
Leading conservative commentators including talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh and syndicated columnist Cal Thomas say the judge’s decision shows that intelligent design is a failed strategy in the effort to bring religion into the public schools.
“Let’s make no mistake,” Limbaugh said on his radio show. “The people pushing intelligent design believe in the biblical version of creation. Intelligent design is a way, I think, to sneak it into the curriculum and make it less offensive to the liberals.” [snip]
“Will the Real Theory of Evolution Please Stand Up? exposes the rivalry in science today surrounding attempts to discover that elusive mechanism of evolution, as rethinking evolution is pushed to the political front burner. ..” ~ Ethan Clive Osgoode
“...What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology.
A theory is a metascientific elaboration distinct from the results of observation, but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation.
A theory’s validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.
Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.
And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution.
On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. ...”
Excerpted from:
Theories of Evolution http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9703/articles/johnpaul.html
John Paul II
Copyright (c) 1997 First Things 71 (March 1997): 28-29.
Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1575742/posts?page=70#70
Thanks. I didn’t see this! In case you missed the smoking gun proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-tk7MkHKtI
In other words, they would be very happy with a theocracy--as long as their chosen brand of religion was in charge of things, eh?
And the very scientific ad hominem arguments begin in 5, 4, 3, 2....
***That’s one reason why I introduced the ecumenical tag system for crevo threads. If this topic interests me, I may open it as an ecumenical one.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2038869/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2044051/posts?page=#20
That’s the first I’ve seen the video. I had read a transcript of her testimony a couple of years ago, however.
12/20/05 Re: Intelligent Design case decided - Dover, Pennsylvania
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200512/0251.html
12/20/05 Judge Jones’ decision:
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200512/0259.html
12/28/05 Judge Jones did NOT side with Discovery Institute
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200512/0385.html
12/29/05 Judge Jones [decision]
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200512/0392.html
01/19/06 Re: “The Goal of ID is to establish a theocratic state” http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200601/0360.html
More:
Dec. 2005 http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200512/
Jan. 2006 http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200601/
Complete archive 2005 to date: http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/
Do you know how many IDers Ive shown that video to with No effect whatsoever?
We constantly read that evolution, or “Darwinism” as it is disparagingly called, has been debunked or is falling into disrepute.
That’s not true in the least, and if it’s not completely intellectually dishonest, it certainly is cheerleading for creationism without any evidence. Every time another transistional fossil species is found, it’s met with the response, “sure, but where’s the transistional fossil to and from that one.” Or, “that’s obviously a mutant.”
All the evidence in the world won’t convince someone who has made up their mind and doesn’t want to deal with any evidence to the contrary. OJ became an innocent man the moment the jury was sworn in. They should have just voted then and saved us the time and trouble.
Some would have us simply ignore the geologic column, the radiometric dating, the fossil and genetic record.
“My pastor said it, I believe it, and that settles it.”
Okay, fine, but that is not a scientific argument. That’s a philosophical choice to ignore science.
Of course, as long as it is based on their narrow theology.
“My pastor said it, I believe it, and that settles it.”
Okay, fine, but that is not a scientific argument. That’s a philosophical choice to ignore science.
Belief gets in the way of learning.Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
Serious scientists would do well to get better PR people out there as “the face” of science.
For instance, it makes no difference how right Eugenie Scott is - she is an admitted humanist/atheist and that is a non-starter with most lay Christians and many others who don’t trust the (conscious/unconscious) motives of those who hate God. And that goes double when they use science to promote a materialistic/naturalistic mechanism for the “origin” of the human intellect.
True. PZ Meyers with his desecrate a communion wafer silliness isn’t helping anyone. It is, however, very easy to lose your temper when people talk and won’t listen. I do it. I’m trying not to.
PZ Meyers and the other foul-mouthed moon-bats suffering from BDS who fly back and forth between posting on his blogs along with the Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, the DemocRAT Underground, and all the rest of the far-left loonie-bin sites, are a big turn-off.
At times, he can be kind of funny, but he routinely goes so far over the top that most sober-minded people will not be willing to give him the time of day. He’s his own worst enemy.
Evolutionary biology is a different discipline than abiogenesis.
If the author can’t, or refuses, to understand the topic, why read any further.
“Evolutionist” is a term used by creationists to include all scientists who disagree with them. Source
Funny stuff.
The alignment to the evolution versus ID debate is even closer -- why? Because many if not most of the major blogs and pundits taking the line that questions about the certificate and birth legend are nutso, are also those same blogs that deride intelligent design.
I just mention this as a curiosity at this point. That is, if people are still allowed to be curious or skeptical about ideas held by force and inquisitions against heresies.
Oh yes, theocracy is bad, bad, bad. Better repeal the laws against murder and theft. What good is pulling emblems of the Ten Commandments down if we're going to be legislating the primitive superstitions?
Of course, even without G-d the jails are full, people are murdered or executed, and armies are on the march doing what armies do. But at least there's no fascist Ultimate Meaning behind it all and it's all for the sake of low, vulgar social utility. I'm sure if I were about to be fried to death in an electric chair that thought would make it aaaalllll better! [/sarcasm]
There were laws around about murder and theft many many years before Moses and the ten commandments
Indeed. G-d gave Adam seven laws which are binding on all non-Jews to this day--Sheva` Mitzvot Benei Noach (the Seven Laws of the Sons of Noah). But the source of these laws was Divine Revelation, not "human reason."
My whole point is that since the exact same stuff is going to happen whether or not there is a G-d (despite the atheist superstition that a rejection of G-d would create some sort of utopia), why is the concept of a Creator and Lawgiver so much more onerous than the same laws when imposed in the name of "human reason" and "social utility."
I'll take the one "fascist dictator" in Heaven (Who at least created the world) instead of the six billion potential fascist dictators down here any day of the week.
I'll take the form of government we have had (if we can keep it).
A theocracy is the last thing we need. You want to see the Dark Ages again?
Because if you start letting religious zealots tell everyone what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, that's just where we are headed.
(I'll take the Inquisition for $1000, Alex.)
I notice that you avoid my point and instead engage in bringing up the boogyman of the "Spanish Inquisition" (which, I suppose, makes you an anti-Catholic bigot).
You want laws, you want "order;" you just want it to be rooted in nothing but the shallowest part of reality--social utility.
This makes you a bigger fascist than any Inquisitor who ever lived because the "law and order" you covet is nothing more than the imposition of your own will. And your will is more preferable than that of a theoretical Creator of the Universe . . . why???
Come now. You must have something snarky to say that will completely eviscerate my argument. Don't you???
Nope.
I find I spend less and less time here. You theocons are doing your best to drive the rest of us cons away.
And what ever for? What is it about "theocracy" you dread so much? Because it's going to have laws and penalties for violating them??? We have that already!!! At least in a theocracy there is a legitimate excuse for laws and penalties, unlike your silly "social contract" and "spontaneous order" myths. Only a fascist would consider either one of those as an excuse to have laws!
And since the whole point of conservatism is G-d, people like you belong on a Communist forum anyway.
In your post you refer to me as a fascist and a communist. What's next, if your type ever assumes control of the government? A quiet visit from the Inquisition? The stake?
What is it about "theocracy" you dread so much?
Theocrats!
Save us, dear Lord, from those who would save us.Art Hoppe, On the Death of Robert Kennedy
San Francisco Chronicle, 1968
No. The whole point of conservatism is to uphold the God-given rights and freedom fought for by the founding fathers and enshrined in the Constitution.
As those rights are God-given, to block them with a theocracy is not only un-American, but in defiance of God.
You need to take another shot at seminary. You picked up some totally off the wall notions.
People who object to "theocracy" because of its alleged totalitarian legalism but who then defend law and morality (including the death penalty) on the pathetic grounds that "ve must haff order" are hypocrites. If you don't see it that way that's your business.
Belief gets in the way of learning....hmmmm: hot air cult algore created the internet...and the global warming debate is over...
yes, I see your point!
The Founding Fathers did not create the universe. Furthermore, there are atheist "conservatives" who deny that our rights come from G-d.
As those rights are God-given, to block them with a theocracy is not only un-American, but in defiance of God.
The right to do what? To murder? Isn't that illegal already? So what's the big deal? Or how about to steal? No? We've already got a law against that? And you aren't complaining about how tyrannical it is? Or maybe the right to be "gay" or have abortions for convenience?
So what is it about a theocracy that is so scary? The laws are already in force. But nothing less than the Will of the Creator can justify such laws!
As to whether or not "all mankind" has the "right" to worship any other "gxd" than the Jealous G-d of Israel, I think His instructions on the matter carry more wait than the opinions of Jefferson, Paine, Voltaire, or anyone else (however "un-American" that makes me).
Very simple. One does not have the right to murder, because it denies a person the right to live. We do not have rights to violate the rights of others. (And in the many cases where it's hard to tell what the respective rights are, we have courts.)
So what is it about a theocracy that is so scary? The laws are already in force. But nothing less than the Will of the Creator can justify such laws!
A theocracy is scary because people are imperfect. As such they may well imperfectly interpret what God wants us to do. In their misinterpretation, they may compel others to act against God.
Obedience to and worship of God must be a free act. To compel it with a theocracy is to make such obedience and worship worthless. As such, a theocracy is an insult to God. Likewise, your call for a theocracy is an insult to God.
Ummmm religious zealots like 7th century Islam sure, look what maddrasses have “achieved” in the middle east so far!I’d agree...but when Christ centered teachings were all across this land, it made this nation what it is today...the best country and civilization known in the history of earth!
It’s only been since open hositilty against Christianity that we’ve been dumbed down and children have been socialized by godless liberals in our schools that the U.S. has lagged behind other “civilized” countries.
Does that make it false? Polling is truth?
Fascinating to me how godless liberals think they’re somehow conservative.
I was telling my brother today that this world boils down to the ideology of liberalism vs. that of conservatism can be literally traced to a hatred of God vs. a Love for Him, respectively.
If you don't like living under the US Constitution, there are alternatives.
However, because people recognize God in all walks of life be it education, law, or even having IGWT on our coins doesn’t mean we’re somehow doomed to a “theorcracy”. In other words, if a president places his hand on the Bible when he’s sworn in...we’re all not doomed!
Which if Obama gets elected will SURELY make alot of godless libs squirm!
We’re FAR closer to a socialist state dictating that people can not have any shred of Christianity in public places and is to be kept behind closed doors on Sundays than we are to have proselytization patrols in the hallways of schools!
Simply no contest!
I was telling my brother today that this world boils down to the ideology of liberalism vs. that of conservatism can be literally traced to a hatred of God vs. a Love for Him, respectively.
Preach it, brother!
Unfortunately FR is infested with "rationalist" Ayn Rand types who think the argument is about taxes ("rationalists" seem to think money is the purpose of life).
Our struggle is with non-Theistically based morality. All non-Theistically-based morality, whether left or right, cruel or gentle, is basically the same thing. It denies the right of the Creator to make laws (because they are "tyrannical") while defending the right of human beings to make laws based on a "mutual agreement" to act as if a meaningless universe had meaning. I notice no one ever seems to object to laws made by "rational" human beings as being arbitrary or tyrannical. Apparently only G-d A-mighty doesn't have the right to tell people how to behave.
These people are hypocrites, pure and simple.
If you don’t like the idea of living in a self governing nation, nobody is making you stay here.
Same thing, really. Both theocracy and socialism are governments based on compelled morality. Both are flawed by mankind's imperfect understanding. Both would end up most likely run, not by believers, but by hypocrites who can mouth the right words, while not believing them in their hearts. Both are equally odious.
G-d A-mighty has the right. You don't. When you call for a theocracy, you are usurping God's place.
And you are a theocrat, pure and simple.
What if some of us don't choose to live under your interpretation of a deity and the resultant laws? What happens to us blasphemers?
Speaking of "crimes:"
Of all the strange "crimes" that human beings have legislated out of nothing, "blasphemy" is the most amazing -- with "obscenity" and "indecent exposure" fighting it out for second and third place.Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
Not true: The invisible pink unicorn hasn't this right, neither...
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.