Posted on 03/27/2009 6:23:20 AM PDT by laotzu
It allows for accurate explanation and prediction of natural phenomena involved in the changing of living organisms in response to environmental pressures.
Weakness of evolution?
It refuses to confirm the absolutist literal interpretation of those with weak religious faith.
I would challenge anyone that tries to hold this position to give me an example of a discovery that couldn’t have been made if approached from the mindset of “let’s try to figure out how & why God created this structure or system in this manner”
as opposed to “let’s see how/why natural selection produced this system or structure”.
I assume y'all never discussed the problems with Einstein's theory of relativity, nor talked about Nicolai Tesla's competing theories, nor the ..
I suppose since you had an impoverished education, you want everyone else to also.
Something you dogmatic Darwinists just don't get is ID is NOT antithetical to evolution; it merely states that Macro-evolution cannot happen by pure chance alone!!! It makes the proposition that some other, as yet undiscovered, natural law governs the process. (Yes, it also means that we have a CREATOR! Which is the main reason it is an anathema to the Darwinists.)
The implications of a Creator are... well... deadly.
Yes, Pope Benedict XVI said that evolution is a “fact” which enriches our understanding of life and being and such.
Absolute drivel!
Not a syllable of truth in that misguided utterance
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
No need to “seek” God, or to have “faith” in “evidence of things not seen”; if you have ironclad “proof” (in your own mind at least) that the natural world needs the supporting hand of God to exist.
The last chapter of Darwin's Origins book is about problems with his theory. That sounds like questioning to me.
The 'experts' agree. Much like global warming, evolution is not science.
So all those hours we spent in the biology lab doing experiments that demonstrated how gene pools change over time were not science? What were they? Home ec?
Forcing anyone to pay for that which is in opposition to their religious beliefs is supposed to be unconstitutional.
Whether you force them to pay for abortions, or for marketing societys scorn & ridicule is a definite setback.
You don't prove a theory by silencing dissent.
Maybe I’m still not awake, but your post is confusing.
Are you saying that my faith is weak, or that I’m trying to
“PROVE God in the laboratory”?
I am neither weak nor trying to prove anything; I am a rational man that examines evidence objectively. If I find a strange and very complex artifact while digging, I may not know anything about it or how it was made, but I can clearly see that it was MADE by something with enough intelligence to do so.
Oh yes, as a rational man, I also KNOW God exists.
The place for “dissent” of a highly useful theory utilized throughout the scientific subject under discussion is not in the High School class room.
In High School Biology class they are there to learn and understand the theories and techniques that Biologists use in their work. Not listen to the ravings of crackpot dissenters who think that the Flintstones was an accurate portrayal of man living contemporaneously with dinosaurs.
Ah, yes. The old 'flat-earthers', and 'the debate is over, no more debate' strategy.
Al Gore really has brought so many good things to the table.
Hard to “seek” God, or have faith in the “evidence of things not seen”; if you claim to have observed reproducible laboratory evidence that God exists.
I have faith that God exists.
Wow. Just....just...just, damn.
Einstein. What a moron, eh?
No problem, elect legislators who would do just that.
Just because Einsteins theory of relativity will never be “proven” doesn't make him a moron. His theory is highly useful in explaining and predicting physical phenomena and is more accurate than the theories it refined; Newton's theories of motion.
If something in science was determined to be “proven”, then when contradictory evidence arises, what is to be done with it?
Everything in science is accepted provisionally, awaiting conflicting or refining data.
That is simply how science works. Something that those who reject science and the scientific method are apparently unwilling to attempt to understand.
You don't disprove a theory by proclaiming it is not science.
1) We aren't talking about a free market system of the airwaves and forcing rejected ideas to have the same treatment as accepted, popular ideas. We're talking about a government funded monopoly that many children have no choice about attending. Such a system should be required to present alternative views.Actually you are2) We aren't talking about political commentary. We're talking about a scientific “theory” (In quotes because there's nothing scientific at all about evolution. In fact, it defies the scientific method.) that shouldn't have to be protected from its critics.
3) We aren't talking about liberals, who are all in a tizzy and fearful because they're ideas aren't popular and can't be sold to the American people no matter how they are packaged. We're talking about scientists who are in a tizzy and fearful..... Oh wait. Maybe there are some similarities.
1) Schools are to teach the state of scientific thought. What present day scientists are thinking, and that's not Creationism. Politicians pandering to the voters by requiring the presentation of "alternative views" is the Fairness Doctrine
2) Not talking about political commentary? Haven't you heard Creationists declaring Darwinism is "liberal" and accepting it would turn them into amoral animals.
3) It's not about making a scientific idea popular with the lumpen proletariat. Education there is to expose children to the current knowledge paradigm so that some of them will be inspired to learn and become scientists rather than lawyers
Gee. So many to choose from.
How about Einstein's theory that gravity/mass bends light?
It took several years, but that theory was absolutely proven.
No theory is ever proven
Har!!
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.