Free Republic

This is relatively old news. There is a really interesting BBC documentary that can be watched at Stage6.com regarding this species “Homo Floresiensis” and the controversy over exactly what they were and from which evolutionary branch they originated from. It is a very fair documentary to each party in the controversy.

Found this online - sounds real quacky

---

The Principles of the Unitarian Universalist Association

We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote

* The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
* Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
* Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
* A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
* The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
* The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all;
* Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

The living tradition which we share draws from many sources:

* Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;
* Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion and the transforming power of love;
* Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;
* Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;
* Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit;
* Spiritual teachings of Earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.

Grateful for the religious pluralism which enriches and ennobles our faith, we are inspired to deepen our understanding and expand our vision. As free congregations we enter into this covenant, promising to one another our mutual trust and support.

The biggest problem with this issue from a political standpoint is the reaction of the Republicans in the face of the Democrats. Some might say that the Dems are overplaying their hand. I don't know if that is true. I've listened to FoxNews today and yesterday and all I hear are Democrat responses.

I don't think the Dems are overplaying the issue. I think the Republicans are confused in their response. The GOP seems to be bungling a response to the issue. They are claiming that they were broadsided by the news. But, they are not addressing why they didn't respond to the warning signs by Foley in the prior e-mails.

We should expect a clear and concise response from Hastert and the House Majority leadership. But, I don't hear it. Maybe my opinion is simply the result of the curtain that the media is placing around this issue. But, I don't' think so.

People will begin to wonder what kind of idiots are running the GOP in the House if they don't respond clearly to the accusations that they knew there was a problem but chose to ignore it.

I am especially annoyed with the attempt by Republicans to say that because Dems did this in the past that it shouldn't be blown up like this. I really don't care about how the Dems have reacted in the past or present on allegations like this. I am concerned with the GOP leadership's reaction. And feigning ignorance on Foley's past actions just isn't cutting it.

This would make a great episode of the Sopranos - Tony has a little talk with Mr. Menedez and his family and "suggests" he get out of the way. "Such a pretty wife and kids - it would really be horrible if......" One good point is that our friends in New Jersey have really helped Louisiana's political image.

Landrieu is in real trouble in this state now. Her brother's loss in the NO Mayor's race was a huge blow. My guess is that she has given up and is trying to solidify her future in Washington after her defeat.

This is the state controlled by the Democrats that just passed a very strong ban on almost all abortions in the state. And the Democratic governor is going to sign the bill. Not only is Landrieu distancing herself from the average Louisiana voter, she is even separating herself from her own party in the State.

The Democrats in Louisiana assisted the state in passing our own ban of same-sex marriage.

Puerto Rico has become like the relative's kid that's come to stay at your house for an indefinite time. Maybe he's here for good and maybe not. You're responsible for him as long as he stays. But, you would sure like to know what in the world his plans are for the future.

Issues such as this are indicative of the necessity in forming scriptural interpretation in the context of the Holy Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition. When Christians began reading the words contained in the scriptures outside of the Apostolic Traditions taught in the Catholic Church, they began generating thousands of interpretations that resulted in absolute confusion.

Brother Consolmagno had one idea correct at least, when it comes to understanding the Bible, there needs to be one boss. Otherwise, there are no limits to the variety of interpretations that can be created. And, as the number of interpretations increases, the amount of confusion increases.

As a Convert to Catholicism, I remember my days growing up in a country Protestant Church. One time a preacher got up in front of the congregation and stated that a person who has an artificial heart could not go to Heaven because God dwells in the heart. And, if a person had their heart removed, then God no longer dwelt within them.

This is insanity. But, without some guidelines (as provided by Sacred Tradition), why not have this guy out spewing all kinds of insanity.

This article is a clear example of how Creationism has become a tool for fundamentalists to try to create their own version of Sacred Tradition. They often equate evolution with evil. But, the Church has never said this.

"Americans are pretty ignorant about the history of Mexico"

How true - the Socialist regime (PRI) were, and still are, butchers. The evidence of their atrocities is available for all to see. They repressed and terrified the Mexican people for over 70 years. Their effects on the Mexican people are amazing. There is a lack of hope in those people and a general acceptance of corrupt and evil government. That's why it will be really hard to inact change there. The Mexicans have accepted corruption as inevitable in government. And, the government in Mexico is more than willing to oblige.

The Mexican government has a long and distinguished history of bloody massacres on its hands. Remember the Catholic bloodbaths in the 30's when the Socialists in the Mexican govt. outlawed the Church and snatched all its property. We were in Mexico last year and visited a cave where the Mexican Catholics would hide out waiting for a Priest to show up to have undergrounds Masses said.

Many Mexican Catholics were crucified on the telephone poles because the dared exercise their Faith. Priests were tortured and killed. The seminaries were closed. It was a time of amazing atrocities against the Catholic Church in Mexico.

But, brave men such as Blessed Miguel Pro stood up to the evil regime and received martyrdom as a reward. In fact, I don't think the Priests were even allowed to wear their vestments or Roman collars in public until the 80's. Even today, most Catholic Priests in Mexico go around in everyday clothes with no indications of their position.

I may be wrong - but doesn't the fossil record indicate that, if macroevolution is a reality, it occurs in sudden events? There still isn't a missing link explanation to tie separate species together.

Just curious. I don't know if we will ever live to witness "macroevolution". If you look at the fossil record, to the best of my knowledge, it appears to happen rather suddenly and infrequently. To think that it will be observed in our lifetimes (such a small period of time) is asking a lot. Even if it is a reality.

"Evolution is 150 years old. How old must it be before it is no longer "young"?"

In the grand scheme of science and mathematics, that's still young. The scientific revolution by the Greeks in the 16th and 17th centuries was following work by ancients such as Copernicus who were searching the universe for answers to questions of math and science. Work beyond this period is considered the Modern Era - 1700's to the present (Including Darwin).

Alright - Adam was one man. I completely agree. But, how did he get here? How did God do it? Could there have been thousands of creatures like Adam but he was the only one to receive a living soul? Would that have made him the only human being created in the likeness of God?

Not many of us have argued against the fact that God created man. But, how he did it is the biggest point of contention. I myself like the scientific views in intelligent design. I think that so much of creation is so well ordered and perfect that to think that God existed and didn't intervene is rediculous. But, I also think that anybody who thinks that the Book of Genesis is supposed to be taken literally is dead wrong also.

I think here is where we merge. There is a difference between the scientific movement related to intelligent design and the political movement.

But, in our society on both sides of most of these issues, there is a political and scientific contingent. Evolution is not without its political wing. This crowd is sitting with its fingers in its ears screaming at anybody who disagrees. We even see it on this Board.

This flies in the face of traditional science. Unless science and education are allowed to study empirically the evidence for and against Darwinian evolution, how can we ever get to the truth?

To paint all intelligent design into a corner and condemn the entire idea based upon a contingent of its believers is wrong.

Many people would also try to paint all evolutionists into a corner as Atheists. That's just as wrong. Regardless of how loud the anti-God voice is vs. the rest, the entire study of evolution should not be condemned as heretic. It goes both ways.

Our friends at IDEA (Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center have a nice definition of Intelligent Design in a nutshell.

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.

Intelligent design begins with observations about the types of information produced by intelligent agents. Even the atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins says that intuitively, "[b]iology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Darwinists believe natural selection did the "designing" but intelligent design theorist Stephen C. Meyer notes, "in all cases where we know the causal origin of 'high information content,' experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role."

Intelligent design implies that life is here as a result of the purposeful action of an intelligent designer, standing in contrast to Darwinian evolution, which postulates that life exists due to the chance, purposeless, blind forces of nature."

You quotes represent a Creationist view within Intelligent Design. But, where you miss the point is that Intelligent Design is a far broader term that you would allow us to believe.

Another nice explanation from IDEA:

FAQ: Does intelligent design completely reject Darwinian evolution?


The Short Answer: No. Some biological structures may have resulted from a combination of both design and evolution. Most intelligent design proponents accept microevolution but question if macroevolutionary changes are possible. Intelligent design theory questions if evolution can produce irreducibly complex structures. Thus, intelligent design holds that evolution is not capable of producing all aspects of life.


The Long Answer:

There are two fundamentally different possible causes for how humans have come to exist: blind natural processes (chance-law) or purposeful intelligent design. The two mechanisms are not wholly mutually exclusive over time, for some entities in the natural world may have come to their present forms due to some combination of chance-law and design. However, the two views stand in stark contrast to one-another as fundamentally different mechanisms for human origins. Some aspects of biology changes may very well be the result of Darwinan evolution (i.e. the mutation-natural selection mechanism), but some aspects of life may be due to design. Thus, in general, an organism life could be a combination of both forces at work on a species.

In particular, many proponents of intelligent design believe that microevolution is a strong force shaping life, but question if many macroevolutionary changes can be explained through the Darwinian mechanism. The term "evolution" simply means "change through time," but there are two types of evolution: macroevolution and microevolution. Microevolution is "slight, short-term evolutionary changes within species." (Futuyma, D., Evolutionary Biology, glossary, 1998) For example, within humans, there are different eye colors, hair colors, and skin colors. These are the result of microevolution. Macroevolution is "the origin and diversification of higher taxa" (Futuyma, D., Evolutionary Biology, pg. 447, 1998) or, "evolutionary change on a grand scale, encompassing [among other things] the origin of novel designs…" (Campbell, N. A., Reece, J. B., Mitchell, L. G., Biology 4th ed., pg. G-13, 1999). There is thus a fundamental difference in kind between microevolution and macroevolution.

What intelligent design does reject that the notion that mutation and natural selection (combined with any other natural mechanism) is sufficient to produce or explain all aspects of life. Rather than stifling scientific progress, intelligent design frees scientific explanations to being bound to purely naturalistic causes, which in many cases are proving impotent. In recognizing that intelligent design is a sufficient and acceptable cause for the origin of biological complexity, intelligent design adds a new valid dimension to potential explanatory causes for life.

It should be noted that although ID and evolution are compatible on the general level (i.e. life could be the result of both evolution AND Intelligent Design), on the specific case-by-case level, intelligent design is NOT compatible by evolution. A given nucleotide sequence either is the product of design or natural selection. That which is the product of design cannot be the product of natural selection, and visa versa. Thus, on the specific level, ID is not compatible with evolution. As William Dembski said during a talk at UCSD in 2001, "as far as the Darwinian mechanism goes, blessings to it." Dembski thinks its blessings stop at a certain point, and the information content at that point is so high, Dembski thinks it points to design.

"One of Intelligent Design's main tenants is that humans and animals have never evolved except for in minor ways. In other words, as long as there has been life on the planet it's essentially been what it is now. Humans and cats and dogs and horses. There were never any previous forms that we've evolved from. There is no common ancestry between any two animals or plants."

I have to disagree. The contention is not common that changes have not occurred in plants and animals. The issue is that the complexity of certain components of lifeforms and creation make it improbable (some would even say impossible) that there was not some kind of outside intelligence in the creation of these processes.

I have a problem with Darwinian evolution that states that the process of natural selection is the end-all explanation for the vast complexity in the zillions and zillions of processes in lifeforms on Earth.

In my opinion, God could have taken a less complex life form and altered their molecular makeup to create a new life form at any point in history. For that reason, I don't pretend to say that the only way that God could have created human beings is by picking up a wad of clay and molding two legs, some arms, and a cute face. But, he could have taken various other lifeforms through the ages and changed them in certain ways. Then those new lifeforms could be changed again and again until we are where we are today.

Would you say that this is not an example of intelligent design?

I haven't read a purely intelligent design article that stated what you are saying. I have read statements that promote the idea that the creation of life could not have happened by natural selection and Darwinian Evolution. Most of these statements say that the footprints of guided design are in the molecular structure. They are looking at the building blocks of life and saying that these are evidence that they were made and didn't just happen. There isn't a consensus that says that creatures just fell out of the sky one day. To say that the complexity of the system refutes the idea of creation by accident is not the same as saying that one at a time all creatures just came into being from nothing.

"Do you consider anyone who doesn't believe in Creation and ID a nonbeliever in God?"

Intelligent Design is not saying that the word-for-word description of Creation in Genesis is how we came to have this wonderful universe. What is says is that Creation is far too complex to have occurred without guidance from some intelligent source. Basically, it didn't happen by accident - but we don't know how it happened for sure.

If you believe that God guided evolution in the Creation. You are a believer in Intelligent Design.

Santorum's support is simply given to the idea that to only teach that all Creation simply happened by accident without studying the possibility that something or someone was behind the process, withholds information. Simply put, some in the science community have sought to censor information that does not agree with their viewpoint. This is not an attempt to censor information that is empirically false. It is an attempt to silence people that disagree with them in the marketplace of ideas.

Take global warming for a minute. When anybody states in the public forum that global warming MAY not exist, they are chased with clubs and pitch forks.

It's the same thing with Intelligent Design. If someone disagrees with the idea that Creation just happened out of chaos, they are labeled a loon.

I myself think that the Genesis account of creation cannot be taken literally. I believe that at some point in creation a single man and woman received a human soul that was in the image of God. To be in the image of God to me means eternal. Without the acceptance of a real Adam and Eve, I don't know how anyone can believe in the idea of Original Sin.

If there never was a specific act by our first known parents, Adam and Eve, of disobedience to God, then how was man ever separated from God. It doesn't jive.

But, up to that point, I have know opinion on how God created the human body and all of the beauty in the Universe. It may have been by Evolution. I really don't know for sure - because I'M NOT GOD - and I wasn't there when he did it.

But, to say that God exists and would have allowed creation to happen and never have any input is crazy. Intelligent Design simply says that some being used some method to the madness of Creation. It doesn't say that all life and existence in the Universe happened in 7 days.

I have to admit that the idea of Mitch Landrieu leaving the Lt. Gov. office is not a good idea right now. For those not familiar with Louisiana politics, the Louisiana Lt. Governor is in fact the head of tourism for the State. And, to be honest, Mitch Landrieu is very good at promoting tourism in the state. I don't agree with him politically. But, this is not a political position. This is a sales position. And he is a great salesman. If you listen to him promote the state in the wake of the hurricanes, you have to be impressed. He is a true believer in LA and what she has to offer tourists. For that reason, losing him at this point when we are trying to rebuild our tourist base and fight the image that so many State legislatures and the Governor have shown to the rest of the US, would be very bad for the State.

However, losing his sister would be wonderful. Mary Landrieu has been a black eye on this State from the day she stole her first Senate election to today.

For those who don't remember, she amazingly found just enough dead voters in Orleans Parish to throw her over the top in her election bid against Woody Jenkins.

The problem with the Conservatives right now is that they don't have a dynamic candidate with name recognition and star power to dominate the GOP primaries now. McCain and Giuliani both share strong name recognition.

In the past (as far as I can remember) the party in control of the White House had a "next-in-line" candidate ready at the end of the 8-year terms of the incumbent President. But, that is not so this year. The Bush Administration hasn't even hinted at a darling candidate that they would support and swing their bully pulpit behind. As a result, only the GOP candidates that are getting air time from the media are getting the name recognition necessary to garner support at the polls.

The Bush Administration must get behind somebody in this race. If that means they tick off McCain or some other RINO media darling, so be it. Otherwise, none of the current list of potential Conservative candidates has the moxy to generate the necessary attention to rise above the rest of the pack. At least that's my opinion. The leaders of the Conservative wing of the party need to consolidate their support and put the heat on the President to name an heir.

We have 2 years until the primaries start. That is plenty of time for an heir apparent to get involved in economic, foreign policy, and defense policy to a large enough degree to build a strong resume for a Presidential run and get the necessary name recognition to dominate the Primaries and win in Nov 08. The President has the bully pulpit to give his heir all the attention needed.

If this is how Luigi is going to act, I think somebody should tell Mario and Peach.

The problem with these Liberal groups is they have all these high ideals about negotiating and singing love songs with dictators in order to find common ground with butchers and barbarians.

This is insane. These people have abandoned reality to live in some sort of theoretical world. They sit and sip their cafe au lait and share love with each other making themselves feel good because they are peace lovers.

But, they are very dangerous because they only care about how they look and not the problems of which they speak. They could really care less about any sort of terrorist or nuclear threat. They don't understand it so it can't be all that important. But, rather than just stay out of the way so the rest of the world can deal with these problems, they stick their noses in and attempt to wreak havok with the process.

In the end they feel superior and proud of themselves for speaking out. But, they only make the problem worse because they give comfort and support to the enemies of mankind which make them more likely to act. These idiot Liberals make the evil men sense weakness. Often this weakness is all they need to give them reason to act.