Posted on 11/15/2007 5:26:11 AM PST by js1138
In other words, you can't handle it. Science is too hard and too unfair to Christians so you give up. That's the exact rational behind creationism. Real science hurts your head.
No, That's just what you say. ID science has more and will continue to accumulate more testable predictions as time moves forward whereas evolution theory continues to have more and more of it's predictions fall into the falsifiable category.
Good grief, TXnMA -- would you define ID this way? (I wouldn't.) I never understood ID to argue that God tinkers with creation on a constant basis. I figure the original design (i.e., the singularity, which I think of as a sort of "algorithm from inception" that I identify with the Logos) is so good He doesn't have to. So I think ID is an attempt to elucidate the fundamental mathematics that constitute the order of the universe, and how creatures access/are shaped by it. FWIW
I think this author has been hanging out in Cambridge too long. It's made his brain go soft.
To give you an idea of wacky Cambridge, last week the city elections were held. So a local Boy Scout troop decided they'd go to the polling places to hand out "Support Our Troops" flyers and collect items for "care packages" to send to our troops overseas. Twice they got permission from the city to do that. So, they set up -- and very quickly an "offended person" in Birkenstocks and pony tail got upset that this project of the Boy Scouts was "too pro-war," and demanded that the Scouts get booted from all Cambridge polling places. And so they were. Now the mantra in Cambridge is "I don't support the war, but I support our troops." Turns out they don't even do that: To support the troops is pro-war, you see.... If this reasoning weren't so appalling it would be risible. But that's how people think in Cambridge, if you can call it thinking.
Plus the other thing about this author's piece that I dislike is his association of science with politics. This to me is an "unholy connection." But then, in Cambridge, everything's political....
But you've "done time" in Massachusetts before TXnMA; so probably you will not find this story at all surprising. :^)
If ID has more testable predictions than evolution, would you kindly list the top three and an example of test that may disprove ID?
B.S. to you. It can and does regularly, while evolution theory continuously falls on it's face. There are thousands of them(predictions) now swept under the rug in embarrassment by evolutionists.
You are correct for once. It is very unholy to inject religion into science. It is toxic to both.
No, in other words, I don't waste time reading nonsensical screeds from people who have their panties in a bunch.
Have a nice day.
Hello Betty. Here we go again. Origins and Logic need to be examined, only I have to haul a load of cattle to the sale barn this morning. Take doc to origin and have him explain how all of the evidence of the created universe. We have been over this time and again and they cannot explain scientifically, without the universe suddenly coming into existence....well, you know the logic and science.
When it comes to spouting bullsh*t I'll defer to you because in point of fact both Connie Morris and Brad Petzer were defeated in the August 2006 Republican primary for Kansas School Board seats. Ms. Morris is an avowed creationist and opponent of the teaching of evolution who was trying for re-election. Mr. Petzer is also an avowed creationist and opponent of the teaching of evolution who was trying for the nomination to the seat held by mother-in-law Iris Van Meter, who held similar beliefs. Both candidates called themselves conservatives and neither had ever been associated with the Democrat party. And both were beaten by Republicans who supported the teaching of evolution.
For example?
Why is it stupid?
If you truly believe Scripture, you cannot believe in evolution. It really is "either-or."
If you haven't studied Genesis closely, though, I can see how one might believe evolution is compatible with Scripture.
Check out this blog written by a friend for a good summary of why they're not compatible.
Is keeping people going on endless and pointless questions a hobby with you?
You know me well enough to know that, neither do I "have a problem with this"..
Read the quotation in the context of the article.
The next line is:
To believe in Intelligent Design is something less than the marvel of marvels –quite a bit less.
I took it to mean that to be able to scientifically observe, understand and marvel at the workings of His creative majesty -- AND to be able to reverently give Him all the credit -- is more numinious (and, enjoyable, IMHO) than to dishonestly cloak one's limited religious beliefs in a phony costume of "scientificity" in an attempt to pass belief off as "science".
And, yes, I do observe the hand of our Creator still at work in His creation -- and in my own life!
In what way does this statement have anything to do with what I said? I was referring to politics, not religion. Also I am not trying to insert "religion" into science. In fact if you follow my posts, you'd already know that I would like to take "religion" OUT of science.... (I regard atheism as a religion.)
I've got a busy day ahead too, TS. But hope to have an opportunity to reply tonight.
Thanks so much for your post! Good luck with your cattle at sale!
So do I, TXnMA. Yet I think God mostly works with souls, though very occasionally (it seems) He intervenes in physical nature for His purposes. We call such interventions "miracles."
Amen.
Only when people refuse to answer legitimate questions.
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.