Knoxville Father Wants Biology Book Banned

foxnews.com ^ | April 7, 2010 | Elizabeth Prann

[kosciusko51]

I am saying [how life started] is irrelevant

Just saying that does not make it true. If someone said that a watchmaker god created life and allowed it to evolve, would that fit into your TToE?

It is not my job to teach you TToE. Educate yourself or not.

I was trying to learn by asking someone who knows these things. Can you at least point me to experimental results that answers my questions?

[kosciusko51]

So, you are a theistic evo guy. I didn’t catch that earlier. I sure Eugenie Scott and her ilk would welcome you at their TToE events.

[valkyry1]

Neo-Darwinists often engage in a frustrating tautology, using the course of evolution to "prove" natural selection--and vice versa. If evolution were merely a scientific theory that was open to evaluation based on the evidence, then its evidentiary failings would be freely acknowledged and additional theories could be considered as they are warranted.

But far from being a free marketplace of ideas where scientists consider themselves at liberty to pursue the evidence where it leads, the modern scientific establishment has bound itself to a single system of interpretation, with myriad variations but one bottom line: evolution is fact, and alternatives must be rejected out of hand. Thus the tenets of evolution have become a matter of faith, the foundation of a worldview where random chance is the organizing principle and survival of the fittest is the highest law.

And like other systems of belief, it has its clerics (those invested as scientific authorities), its adherents (e.g., the education system and the media), its mission (to apply its "truth" to every sphere of human endeavor through research in the fields of biology, geology, cosmology, psychology, etc.)--and, of course, its heretics. Enter the evangelists of evolution, troubleshooters who step in to defend the evolutionary community from "the ignorant, the stupid, or insane." This article will take a brief look at three prominent purveyors of the evolutionary creed.

[freedumb2003]

>>So, you are a theistic evo guy. I didn’t catch that earlier. I sure Eugenie Scott and her ilk would welcome you at their TToE events.<<

Are you talking about the old televangelist Gene Scott? If so, I wouldn’t know.

So I guess I am closer to that little tiny church which is also a theistic evo group: The Catholic Church.

[valkyry1]

Here’s the link

http://www.icr.org/article/evolutions-evangelists/

Evolution’s Evangelists

[freedumb2003]

>> Just saying that does not make it true. If someone said that a watchmaker god created life and allowed it to evolve, would that fit into your TToE?<<

Yes, since TToE deals with living organisms. There is an entire branch of science that deals with abiogenesis and it is related, but the point is that TToE is no more or less dependent on that than physics, chemistry or any other branch of natural science.

>>I was trying to learn by asking someone who knows these things. Can you at least point me to experimental results that answers my questions? <<

It feels more like moving the goalposts, but if you are interested, go to http://www.talkorigins.org/ — they have scientific answers to every single “objection” to TToE. It is a very large site with a vast database of information. Enjoy!

[kosciusko51]

freedumb2003

I think you are trying to tweak me, not claiming to know who Eugenie Scott is.

I thought every TToE expert knew, at least by name, the American guardian of TToE and fiercest critic of creationism and ID.

[kosciusko51]

It feels more like moving the goalposts

I thought this was a conversation: I say one thing, you respond, I respond back, and so on.

If you want to continue the conversation fine, if not, fine.

[freedumb2003]

>>I thought this was a conversation: I say one thing, you respond, I respond back, and so on. <<

I understand, but it is sort of a “well, what about THIS?” type of thing.

I meant no offense.

[kosciusko51]

None taken. It is just that your responses generated some additional questions to help me understand your position.

However, I must end my part of the discussion for now, as it is getting late for me.

[valkyry1]

The evolutionists facts and ‘data points’ amount to Cladograms and speculation based on evolution beliefs and circular reasoning.

[AmishDude]

No biologist can work without the theory of evolution.

How unimaginative and intellectually deficient. They can't even conceive of the notion of an ill-posed problem. It's quite astounding.

but [Darwin's] work turned the study of life into a science rather than a collection of unrelated anecdotes.

I'm not seeing much of a difference, really.

[OldNavyVet]

How unimaginative and intellectually deficient.

Would you, or would you not, say that you evolved from your parents?

And would you, or would you not, say that you are the product of a vast number of such evolutionary happenings?

[Tramonto]

Would you agree that dog breeds are intelligently designed?

Since we know that genetic engineering occurs and it is intelligent design, Intelligent Design is a FACT.

[AmishDude]

Would you, or would you not, say that you evolved from your parents?

Would you say that a Chevy evolved from a Ford because I put the Ford engine in the Chevy?

As I have said, "evolution" is little more than a paradigm, it's not a theory in any meaningful sense.

[OldNavyVet]

Would you agree that dog breeds are intelligently designed?

That is an interesting question because it goes beyond dictionary definitions for intelligence and assumes that human intelligence is God-like.

God is a supernatural being, and using the term “intelligent design” to describe a God induced Creation sanctifies humans and demeans God.

[AmishDude]

Why are you pinging me on this question?

Typical. If you can’t think of a better idea than the idea you have must be the absolute irrefutable truth. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,...