no i will not login.... Silver will copy and paste ala N8.
So he's arguing for ID. What's new?
No, he's arguing for straight out creationism. ID proponents leave wiggle room by stating that the designer could be like an alien or something, man.
No, he is essentially stating what a wise man once said before:
Do you think Einstein ever got laid?
Considering he was married, and regarded as a bit of a party animal, yes, I do think he got laid.
Wow, that is one wildly hopeful interpretation of Brownstain's statements.
My bad.
IMO, it holds little weight to start with a conclusion and pick-and-chose which evidence will be used to support the argument. Lame.
First off, you may want to check the background on that Einstein quote. What he means by religion is certainly not what Brownback means.
What?!?
Not necessarily logical, just mutations that were beneficial for survival and reproduction.
What I meant was that the mutations that stuck around were logical in terms of their role advancing the species. There are tons of random mutations which obviously dont get expressed down the line because they arent advantagious. Some creationists miss out on that concept altogether and I dont see how. They think we believe a monkey just shat a human out its womb and we took off from there. They dont grasp speciation.
No it's an after-the-fact observation of mechanisms and patterns (no different than many other theories). While the inputs may be random, that doesn't mean that at a high level there is not an observable order to the system.
I very well do know what Einstein thought of when he was talking of religion. It may not have been the personal God, pray and worship ivory tower religion, but it was a faith based in something not rational. An overarching power of "Mother Nature", which he most certainly did believe in.
So, Einstein was at best a loose Deist,which, like I pointed out, is nothing compatible to what Brownback believes, and it still leaves another unanswered question: Who created the Deity? (Another side note: Picking Einstein is odd. I wouldn't hold up the fact that E.O. Wilson has referred to himself very loosely as a deist to prove my point in a discussion about black holes. Why you would throw a brief quote from Einstein into a discussion of evolutionary theory is a little curious.)
Religiosity vs. intelligence is deserving of its own thread.
And I give the same answer that scientists give for the question "What about the time before the big bang?"
Scientific explanations (and we're not speaking of evolutionary theory at this point, we are talking about the origin of the cosmos. You keep trying to conflate the two issues, but they are NOT the same) make it pretty clear that we aren't 100% sure, but we're working on it. (What we are sure about is that God didn't create the Universe on Day 1 and wrap it up on Day 6. There is simply no evidence for that.) It's also possible we may never be able to figure it out, or at least explain it in a way that makes intuitive sense to us.
I didn't say intelligence. I said education.
To be fair, scientists and academics are vulnerable to the same thing. And there are religious people who say "I'm not sure" to a variety of topics.
Gawd damn that drives me crazy when there's some dipsh1t "mathmatics expert" who uses the success of the 'language' to verify the existence of the baby jeebus. Also heard on NPR was one of those freaks who's too stupid to realize what you've just described and takes the intricate functionalities of mathmatics as evidence of perfection....and therefore teh gawd.......completely disregarding the fact that mathmatics exist as an after effect of trying to describe already functional systems in nature.
I capitalize on that daily in my new job at the FDA.
Very true, but at the end of the day what makes the scientific method powerful is that it self repairs. All it takes it one reproducible experiment to shatter a paradigm. The confirmation of light bending in 1919 by Eddington is a good example of that.
Okay, fine, whatever.
The second.
But darwin said monkeys turned into people!!
Bill Hicks had the proper reply to that one
You haven't been reading enough Umberto Eco.
So you hate some of the people who are unarguably the most educated people in all of history? Like René_Descartes or Godel?
How can we be 100% unsure of how, yet be completely sure that it wasn't God? And be very careful, the absence of evidence for is not proof against, it merely means we may not have the tools to measure the evidence yet.Silver said:
