it's a white out:
so much for diversity.
so much for diversity.
Bush backs Intelligent Design
- Thread starter MudGrrl
- Start date
from one of their abstracts:
"While many questions regarding the human brain still remain, its origin cannot be explained by current evolutionary theory. The ability of the human brain to interact with the human mind clearly points to an Almighty Creator."
QED.
"While many questions regarding the human brain still remain, its origin cannot be explained by current evolutionary theory. The ability of the human brain to interact with the human mind clearly points to an Almighty Creator."
QED.
That's great.
Throw some speculation on a page and follow it with QED, and suddenly it looks almost like science. Try this:While many questions regarding the human nose hair still remain, its origin cannot be explained by current evolutionary theory. The ability of the human nose to interact with the human nose clearly points to an Almighty Creator
QED.
Now that's crunchy good science!
How about this:
While many questions regarding the thermonuclear weapon still remain, its origin is not enumerated in current biblical translations. The ability of the theromnuclear weapon human to interact with humanity and destroy it in the blink of a eye clearly disproves the existance of God. What sane, rational and all knowing being would give it's children the ability to destroy all of creation.
QED.
While many questions regarding the thermonuclear weapon still remain, its origin is not enumerated in current biblical translations. The ability of the theromnuclear weapon human to interact with humanity and destroy it in the blink of a eye clearly disproves the existance of God. What sane, rational and all knowing being would give it's children the ability to destroy all of creation.
QED.
Toshi said:
Sorry.
My mistake.However, the comments about bad science are still applicable. Their whole theory is BS.
Great editorial! To quote the last paragraph:$tinkle said:
"To teach faith as science is to undermine the very idea of science, which is the acquisition of new knowledge through hypothesis, experimentation and evidence. To teach it as science is to encourage the supercilious caricature of America as a nation in the thrall of religious authority. To teach it as science is to discredit the welcome recent advances in permitting the public expression of religion. Faith can and should be proclaimed from every mountaintop and city square. But it has no place in science class. To impose it on the teaching of evolution is not just to invite ridicule but to earn it."
i wonder if they pronouce it NEW-KYOO-LERReactor said:
are you straddling the fence now, or did you fall off it?$tinkle said:
when silver wrote "Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. There is no way to test it.", i took issue w/ that, as my translation of ID is not equal to creationism (which inserts god in the gaps), but rather an approach scrubbed of all religious references; end result invites investigation into the possibility of a designer & purposeful sentient being with his hand influencing events.narlus said:
the problem i have with "gap theory" (i think it's called that), is the claim that anything not known or agreeably explained has to be relegated to god, but not what is known. seems blithely dismissive & conflicting to me.
as i first posted, evolution is worthy of testing; i never dismissed it nor offered to replace it w/ ID. i merely was asserting that ID - like evolution - can be tested (using the scientific method). unfortunately, this is currently unsupported by the facts.
comes down to a-priori vs. a-posteriori knowledge & observability/repeatability.
quoting john kerry: "you win some, you lose some"
I am glad you admit this is the case.$tinkle said:
If you look at the background of ID theory, a large portion of it's support has come directly from those who previously espoused creationism. There was an excellent article in New Scientist recently about this, and how ID is essentially a repackaging of creationism, as you say, with the word God scrubbed out.
The basic problem still exists however, that they start with a premis and view their 'evidence' in light of that premis, often discounting swathes of vast interelated science whilst doing so (See the ridiculous Grand Canyon theories).
The need to do things in this way also talks alot about the irrationality and blind faith of those who propse it. Regular science has not ruled out the possiblity of a universal creator. It just seems with the evidence availible to us today that if someone/thing did create the universe, they have made no attempt to manipulate it's development post creation.
How? It isn't falsifiable. You show counter evidence to an ID claim, and they can always fall back on the God card.$tinkle said:
For example:
Geologist: Fossils date back millions of years. Therefore the world isn't 6000 years old.
Creationist: Yes it is! Jesus put the fossils there and misleads our dating methods to test our faith!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176050,00.html
Edit:
Especially when your boss says
Anyone wanna guess that he's getting in trouble.
Edit:
Especially when your boss says
Remind me why I should care what the Nazi pope says about science again? 
[TAPPING FOOT]Waiting for Opie to answer.... [/TAPPING FOOT]Silver said:Remind me why I should care what the Nazi pope says about science again?
Oh, right...sorry.$tinkle said:
Actually bro, their is more scientific fact backing the Intelligent design "theory" than evolution. It should be allowed at least to be disputed just as evolution is. Allowed is different than ignored or even supported. It just means that we would be able to make up our own mind and not have them made up for us...isn't that the American way? Isn't that what freedom means? to be free to make our own decisions and learn with all of the choices put in front of us? Or should we just oppress the poor Christians and their "foolish beliefs" like loving thier neighbors and loving their enemies. Keep them in the closet. it's safer. Talk about Hypocrisy. Double standards and all that.Silver said:
The Shadow proves the Sunshine. When will you heathens get it right? God loves, Satan destroys. So silly.kidwoo said:
How is pushing non-religion any different?Reactor said:
Crickets are any excellent idea! They have over a trillion cells, yet they just happened to form into a living form that is far more complicated than the watch on your wrist. Take your watch and take it apart then put all the pieces into a box. Shake it up and let me know when it evolves into a watch...H8R said:
Cue crickets again.
As a man of science a piece of me may have just died.
So...my watch not putting itself back together = God exists.Heath Sherratt said:Crickets are any excellent idea! They have over a trillion cells, yet they just happened to form into a living form that is far more complicated than the watch on your wrist. Take your watch and take it apart then put all the pieces into a box. Shake it up and let me know when it evolves into a watch...
Cue crickets again.
Brilliant.
Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Give me evidence of one species turning into another.
Maybe it will evolve into another you... only smaller. like mini-me...GumbaFish said:
Actually you use something in science called deductive reasoning.H8R said:So...my watch not putting itself back together = God exists.
Brilliant.
I.E. If you have a lawnmower, you probably have a lawn. If you have a lawn you probably have a house. If you have a house you probably have a mortgage. If you have a mortgage you probably have a wife. If you have no lawnmower you are probably gay.
Where?Heath Sherratt said:
Reasons.orgDRB said:
roncarlson.com
The Holy Bible
Your soul
Nature
I asked for your Scientific facts, that you claimed, that's not it.Heath Sherratt said:
Assessing the Opposition to Intelligent Design
by Jason Carlson and Ron Carlson
This past week President Bush declared his support for the theory of Intelligent Design. President Bush, along with 50% of Americans, believes that the theory of Intelligent Design should be taught side-by-side with the theory of Evolution in our nation’s schools. While this was an absolutely intelligent declaration by President Bush, his comments drew nothing but anger and ridicule from the Secularists of the world.
The Secularists of the world cannot tolerate the possibility of a Creator-God (because once you admit there is a Creator, then you become morally responsible to the Creator); and they will do anything and everything to remove the option of a Creator-God from the table. There are a number of primary strategies employed by the Secularists to dismiss the option of Divine intervention and the theory of Intelligent Design as an explanation for the origin of life.
The first strategy the Secularists have used to dismiss the option of a Creator-God and the theory of Intelligent Design is to redefine the historical meaning of science. When it comes to the question of the origin of life, Secularists have redefined “science” to equal “naturalistic evolution”. In framing the debate in these terms, the Secularists have ruled out the possibility of God a priori, stating that only naturalistic explanations will be considered “scientific”. As a result of this, Secularists cling to the theory of naturalistic evolution as the only “scientific” explanation for life, in spite of facts such as: the failure of naturalistic evolution to account for the origin of life from non-living matter, or the failure of naturalistic evolution to account for natural selection’s demonstrable inability to produce any new genetic information, or the failure of naturalistic evolution to explain immense complexities like the single cell, the eye, or the ear (the problem of irreducible complexity). In spite of all of these problems and more, the Secular advocates of naturalistic evolution maintain that they alone are looking at the question of origins “scientifically”.
The second strategy often employed by the Secularists, in the debate over the place of Intelligent Design theory in our nation’s schools, is to attack the position of Intelligent Design with false labels. So, when you listen to Secular commentators or read their editorials, you will often hear Intelligent Design ridiculed as “pseudo-science”, “Creationism 2.0”, “Creationism’s modern stepchild”, “faith disguised as science”, or “flat-earth science”. All of these labels are used with the purpose of flippantly dismissing Intelligent Design from the table of options without ever seriously addressing the arguments and claims of Intelligent Design. These ad hominem attacks only serve to reveal the philosophical bias the Secularists have against any theory for the origin of life that doesn’t rely solely on Naturalistic explanations.
Finally, a third strategy used by the Secularists to write off Intelligent Design is the tactic of stating that Intelligent Design is a philosophical or faith position and therefore does not belong in the realm of scientific debate and inquiry. This strategy contains the same flaws of the two false strategy’s mentioned above, but includes the additional flaw of failing to recognize the philosophical nature of their own, Secularist position. Secularism and its theory of naturalistic evolution are just as much of a philosophical or faith position as is Intelligent Design. No matter how “scientific” Secularists claim naturalistic evolution to be, the fact remains that when we are dealing with the question of origins, we are dealing with philosophical propositions. Science is based on observation and experimentation; and since nobody was around to observe the origin of life, and since it has not and cannot be replicated in experimentation, we are therefore dealing in the realm of philosophical speculation, not science.
Thus, the real questions should be, which philosophical position has more scientific evidence to support it and do students in science classes have the academic freedom to analyze and critique the pros and cons of any theory of origins that claims to be true? This is where Intelligent Design theory and the theory of naturalistic evolution should be evaluated on the same terms… which is exactly what 50% of Americans believe and what President Bush called for this week.
by Jason Carlson and Ron Carlson
This past week President Bush declared his support for the theory of Intelligent Design. President Bush, along with 50% of Americans, believes that the theory of Intelligent Design should be taught side-by-side with the theory of Evolution in our nation’s schools. While this was an absolutely intelligent declaration by President Bush, his comments drew nothing but anger and ridicule from the Secularists of the world.
The Secularists of the world cannot tolerate the possibility of a Creator-God (because once you admit there is a Creator, then you become morally responsible to the Creator); and they will do anything and everything to remove the option of a Creator-God from the table. There are a number of primary strategies employed by the Secularists to dismiss the option of Divine intervention and the theory of Intelligent Design as an explanation for the origin of life.
The first strategy the Secularists have used to dismiss the option of a Creator-God and the theory of Intelligent Design is to redefine the historical meaning of science. When it comes to the question of the origin of life, Secularists have redefined “science” to equal “naturalistic evolution”. In framing the debate in these terms, the Secularists have ruled out the possibility of God a priori, stating that only naturalistic explanations will be considered “scientific”. As a result of this, Secularists cling to the theory of naturalistic evolution as the only “scientific” explanation for life, in spite of facts such as: the failure of naturalistic evolution to account for the origin of life from non-living matter, or the failure of naturalistic evolution to account for natural selection’s demonstrable inability to produce any new genetic information, or the failure of naturalistic evolution to explain immense complexities like the single cell, the eye, or the ear (the problem of irreducible complexity). In spite of all of these problems and more, the Secular advocates of naturalistic evolution maintain that they alone are looking at the question of origins “scientifically”.
The second strategy often employed by the Secularists, in the debate over the place of Intelligent Design theory in our nation’s schools, is to attack the position of Intelligent Design with false labels. So, when you listen to Secular commentators or read their editorials, you will often hear Intelligent Design ridiculed as “pseudo-science”, “Creationism 2.0”, “Creationism’s modern stepchild”, “faith disguised as science”, or “flat-earth science”. All of these labels are used with the purpose of flippantly dismissing Intelligent Design from the table of options without ever seriously addressing the arguments and claims of Intelligent Design. These ad hominem attacks only serve to reveal the philosophical bias the Secularists have against any theory for the origin of life that doesn’t rely solely on Naturalistic explanations.
Finally, a third strategy used by the Secularists to write off Intelligent Design is the tactic of stating that Intelligent Design is a philosophical or faith position and therefore does not belong in the realm of scientific debate and inquiry. This strategy contains the same flaws of the two false strategy’s mentioned above, but includes the additional flaw of failing to recognize the philosophical nature of their own, Secularist position. Secularism and its theory of naturalistic evolution are just as much of a philosophical or faith position as is Intelligent Design. No matter how “scientific” Secularists claim naturalistic evolution to be, the fact remains that when we are dealing with the question of origins, we are dealing with philosophical propositions. Science is based on observation and experimentation; and since nobody was around to observe the origin of life, and since it has not and cannot be replicated in experimentation, we are therefore dealing in the realm of philosophical speculation, not science.
Thus, the real questions should be, which philosophical position has more scientific evidence to support it and do students in science classes have the academic freedom to analyze and critique the pros and cons of any theory of origins that claims to be true? This is where Intelligent Design theory and the theory of naturalistic evolution should be evaluated on the same terms… which is exactly what 50% of Americans believe and what President Bush called for this week.
An essay isn't scientific fact either.
So now...
Science is observation and experimentation. If I can observe the Bible and experiment and find it is one hundred percent acurate historicaly, geographically, Factualy. Then it would concur, scientifically that it is a fact. By experimentation and by observation.DRB said:
Scientific. Fact. Scientific fact.
Did you even read it?DRB said: