Posted on 08/18/2008 9:35:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
There is no evidence for the naturalistic philosophy they espouse.
Order and complexity are indicators of intelligence.
Apparent randomness can be built into a system when necessary and is also a product of intelligence.
So in both cases, intelligence is behind it. There is simply no known case of order and complexity arising without intelligence nor of randomness arising without intelligence.
The best they can say is that they don’t know whether there was intelligence behind it or not and where they got that idea, that randomness indicates no intelligence is beyond me since there’s no precedent for it.
There is a God.
There is not a God.
We don't know if there's a God -- yet.
We don't know and cannot know if there's a God.
That's four "sides," without even getting into the infinite variety of views about the nature of God.
Life uses randomness all the time. The first time each of our unique genetic code was assembled was when our parents sex cells performed a random shuffling of our grandparents chromosomes together. This is apparently God's plan.
If someone wins at dice...is that not God's will?
If someone loses at dice...is that not also God's will?
Why do some people suppose that randomness is somehow beyond the power and purview of God?
I didn't say verbatim. I said almost verbatim.
==Do you concede that Thomas Jefferson influenced James Madison to include a Bill of Rights?
I never denied Jefferson convinced Madison it's better to get “half a loaf” than no loaf at all.
==Do you concede that James Madison is “the Father of the Constitution” and the AUTHOR of the Bill of Rights?
I have never denied that Madison is the father of the constitution. But please explain what you mean by author of the Bill of Rights? Madison got a bunch of proposed amendments from the various state conventions (mostly based on Mason's “master draft”) which he distilled down into amendment proposals. The Congress debated, deliberated, made changes to, and ultimately rejected Madison's version, that would have incorporated the changes into the body of the Constitution itself. So, as you can see, even calling Madison the “author” (as opposed to Mason, who is the true father of the Bill of Rights) is problematic. Given the above, I think "editor" would be a much better word describe Madison's role re: the Bill of Rights.
#496 is my post, asking you a question. It's the central question relevant to the title of this thread.
If you were in Louisiana, where all the bullying by naughty atheists has been stripped away by law, and you were guaranteed the right to teach scientific alternatives to evolution, what would you teach?
The reason why I brought this all up is because of your claim that Madison's “reading (and writing)of the 1st Amendment is exactly as I understand it to be meant.” Well, both his and your understanding of what the First Amendment ought to mean are not in-line with what the founders intended. In fact, the founders so disagreed with Madison on this point, that they threw out the very amendment he proposed that comports with yours (and his) vision of the same.
It’s amazing to me how much energy they put into convincing us of something for which there is no evidence....Yet more proof that Darwinism has become a religion.
George Mason played a key role in opposing Patrick Henry's 1785 Bill for the Support of the Teachers of the Christian Religion. In response to Henry's bill, Mason encouraged James Madison to author his famous Memorial and Remonstrance, then circulated copies of the Memorial throughout Virginia at his own expense.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions43.html
“That Religion, or the Duty which we owe to our Creator, and the Manner of discharging it, can be directed only by Reason and Conviction, not by Force or Violence, and therefore all Men have an equal natural and unalienable Right to the free Exercise of Religion, according to the Dictates of Conscience, and that no particular religious Sect or Society ought to be favored or established by Law, in Preference to others” George Mason's proposed amendment to the Constitution.
That was a Virginia matter, what the heck does that have to do with the Bill of Rights?
Interesting...so if you don’t care to know, how is it then that you are so insecure as to DISallow people to discuss their viewpoints that DO want to know?
I know all I need to know about people that insist others “keep their views to themselves”, “behind closed doors”, “in church” where “it belongs”, “out of science class”, “because that’s not science”...ad nauseum.
in far too many cases, it’s the kind of insecure godless liberal marxist fascism that simply has no place in this country.
The quoted amendment he proposed seems to be precisely what the 1st is presently interpreted to mean.
I don't think George Mason supports your view of the 1st, but instead supported the view of Madison and Jefferson.
==I don’t think George Mason supports your view of the 1st, but instead supported the view of Madison and Jefferson.
It doesn’t matter who he agreed with. It has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights or the First Amendment.
Just out of curiosity, how would you have a biology teacher answer that question? How many other theological questions would you train teachers to handle? And then how would you handle the inevitable controversy when the answer conflicts with this or that theology?
What would a lesson plan look like that expresses exploration of origins that are structured, purposeful, ordered...?
Intelligent being supernatural in nature, as we’re capable of understanding such a concept...
Otherwise I suppose it depends on alot of things, the age group, their grade level, comprehension level, interest, exposure and so on.
So the opinion of the guy who wrote the First Amendment doesn’t matter to you. (James Madison)
The opinion of the guy who insisted a Bill of Rights be included doesn’t matter to you. (Thomas Jefferson)
And now the opinion of the guy wrote what Madison based his own writings on doesn’t matter to you. (George Mason)
Do you claim to respect the Conservative Constitutional principle of original intent?
Keep going. Louisiana has stripped away all you complaints and excuses and has authorized teaching scientific alternatives to evolution. My question to you, for the umptheenth time is, now that you have the law on your side, what is it you teach? What is your lesson plan?
That's precisely what I am claiming. And let me reiterate that neither the opinions of you, me, Mason, Madison, Jefferson, Washington, or any other person commenting on Virginia law matter one wit when it comes to the Bill of Rights/First Amendment.
Let me make this easy for you, Allmendream. According to the ORIGINAL INTENT of the founders, the Bill of Rights was never, ever supposed to apply to the states. They were supposed to ONLY APPLY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Do you get it now? The federal courts have no business telling the states what they can and can’t do with respect to the teaching of creation, evolution, state support of churches, or anything else.
How can you claim to respect original intent and then ignore the obvious intent of the writer of the Amendment, the intent of the writer of the Virginia law the Amendment was based upon, and the intent of the founder who insisted that there BE a Bill of Rights?
And you still have not answered my questions about God and dice, after claiming I never asked it in the first place. I have now asked it of you twice. Why no answer?
You also cannot tell me how you propose that epigenetic mechanisms can derive genetic variation rather than phenotypic variation. It seems your source confirmed that genetic variation is due to mutation and that epigenetics changes phenotype. Can you address this discrepancy between what you claim and what your source said?
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.