Posted on 05/09/2002 3:18:41 PM PDT by laureldrive
The arrogance of evolutionists thinking they know better than God! You folk cannot even give proof of your stupid theory and yet presume to know more than God.
You fail to grasp the situation. The libertarians here reject tradtional morality. They embrace evolution because they like the doctrine of social darwinism. Libertarians are not conservatives. In fact, I find them to be potentially more corruptive than liberals.
And to correct a mistatement of yours. Christian and Jewish theology does not claim that man was made in the physical image of God.
Maybe you should seek to understand the Judeo-Christian tradition before you attack it.
There are no facts of evolution, there is only a philosophy in search of evidence - for 150 years. As to conservatives being able to be evolutionists, don't think so. We are against the 'evolutionism' of the Constitution and of morals. We are also against materialism and believe there are more important things than 'bread alone'. So no, only the deluded can think themselves both conservatives and evolutionists. Only the deluded can think themselves both religious and evolutionists.
Which tradition is that? The Roman Catholic tradition (of which I am a member) which accepts evolution as the means that man came into the world and that man is in God's spiritual image, or the fundamentalist Christian tradition that says evolution is evil and man was created in God's physical image? As many denominations as there are, there is no one "Judeo-Christian Tradition."
Evolution doesn't strive for something or have some goal in mind (unlike the claims of the ID supporters). Evolution is a description of what happens. The simple observation that traits are inherited, new traits occur, and these traits influence the survival rates of their carriers is the core of evolutionary theory.
In answer to your question, if we lived lives that 'punished' small birth canals more severely (in other words, we eschewed our technology and modern conveniences to help mother/child survival), we'd see an increase in the size of birth canals. Eventually. Under ID, the increase in brain size and the increase in birth canal size would've happened at the same time which is contrary to observation.
And like all theories, it is subject to review, unlike 98% of creationism out there. The theory has been proven a very good explainer of phenomena and is open to debate and revision. Creationism is a hand-waving that is immune to scientific inquiry. Creationism is not a theory, it is a belief and therefore has no place in public education.
ID is an interesting attempt to juxtapose the two. And, as a theory (whatever its ultimate merits), it has been exposed to critical inquiry. Interestingly, with each new challenge and modification of theory, it becomes closer and closer to the generally accepted theory of evolution. At this point, some hard-liners have abandoned the scientific process, which throws them in with the 'creationist-belief' crowd again, while others struggle gamely on and re-modify the ID theory to fit new facts and discoveries.
Indeed the theory of evolution does save the phenomena. And without question many creationists have abandoned science or used very, very sloppy science to defend their belief. I must say I have also seen quite a lot of evolutionist use sloppy science and hoaxes to promulgate their belief (although the percentage is better than creationist)
I don't mind evolution being taught in school, I just wish it would be taught as a theory. The theory will have "evolved" shall we say, so much one hundred years from now as to be unrecognizable, because of new discoveries and techniques. People who defend evolution passionately today will be similiar to those scientists who defended phlogoston as the source of fire, in the future. cheers
Too bad. According to the fundies, Catholics go straight to hell! And I am not joking. (I was a raised a Catholic, but am now an atheist -- so I'll still meet all my old Catholic friends in hell. heh heh.)
I hope you don't believe that. Mathematics requires physics to keep it in the realm of reality. Whatever your physical world parameters, you can derive mathematical relationships. If your physics parameters are wrong, your math will lead to wrong conclusion.
Nothing in math can prove or disprove macroevolution.
Indeed, you authoritarians and socialists should FEAR Libertarian ideas. They are like an acid eating away at your claims of authority over your fellow man.
It can and has. When the odds against something are so steep that the history of the universe isn't long enough for it to happen, you rule it out. When an ideological doctrine (evolution) requires billions of such zero-likelihood events to have happened, rational people go back to the drawing board and try to come up with a new ideological doctrine.
It can and has. When the odds against something are so steep
Nonsense. A complete lack of understanding.
When you compute the odds of a simple coin flip, you have to take is tri-modal minimum energy states into account -- its three dimensional plate shape in a gravity well.
Without an understanding of physics, you can't even describe the simplest probability behavior of the coin flip.
A Creationist who waves around "probability" without an accurate model of the underlying phenomena -- is just converting oxygen to carbon dioxide when he speaks -- his words have no particular meaning in reality.
"Probabibilities" devoid of an excruciatingly accurate model are worthless exercises. You haven't the first clue how to construct those models, so your math is futile.
It was Adam and Eve's fault that the whole difficulty in child birth thing came about, duh!
The best mathematicians in the world appear to agree with me on this one.
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.