Opponents and those who challenge some or all of the tenets of Darwinism have been encouraged recently as the “Academic Freedom” legislation advanced for review in four states.
Today's Christian News Online - The Christian Post
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (JN 8:32)
CP HOME
> Education > Creation/evolution
'Academic Freedom' Legislation Advances in Four States
By
Alexander J. Sheffrin
Christian Post Reporter
Sat, May. 10 2008 04:34 PM EDT
[-] Text [+]
Despite extensive searching of the Gospels I am unable to find any teaching of Christ's on Darwin's origin of species. Also I found nothing in the gospels where Christ seeks to prove the existence of God. It seems to me that not only is the pursuit of "scientific" evidence for God (ID) a enormous waste of time and inherently doomed to failure (since Science by definition deals with NATURAL phenomena and NATURAL causes and God by definition is supernatural) it is also fully inconsistent with the manner and teachings of Christ. One even wonders seriously if this vanity is what Christ spoke of when he discusses the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit. Is it not the Spirit of god living within us as C.S. Lewis so well describes in "Miracles" which informs us of the truth of Christss revelation. Is not chasing after other "proofs" of god and his covenant a repudiation of this new spirit which is to live within us.
"All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith By The Rev. F.O. Morris, B.A."
I do not believe that your posting constitutes a rational argument.
All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith By The Rev. F.O. Morris, B.A.
I believe that the common saying that one "cannot draw blood out of a stone" is the reverse of truth, and that not only bones, sinews, and life can be produced from them, but also, mind, reason, and the voice of conscience, which though would-be philosophers and atheists brave out in daylight, they are so horribly afraid of in the dark. [End quote]
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen 1:1).
“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge” (Ps 19:1, 2).
“…When will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see?” (Ps 94:8, 9).
Wilderness1, you quoted a reverend who criticized evolution. I would be more impressed if you quoted a biologist, preferably a biologist who doesn't work for the Christian organization called the Discovery Institute.
I would also be more impressed if you didn't quote the Bible as if the Bible had any science in it.
Call it "Academic Freedom" all you want if it make you feel better about your deception. Still remains a back door why to teach the tenants of one particular faith in public schools. That's State sponsership of a religion, clearly a violation of the separation of church and State In HS we learned about some faiths. Some in a historical context others in mythology. In the event the schools teach the history of Christianity and Christians warts and all. it wouldn't be a pretty picture. Would be fantastic if Christians and the US dump their moral ambiguity and start correcting things they do that affect their fellow man adversely.
“Don't laugh, I beg you. It's all of a piece with my whole argument, for I have said all along that it is easy for natural selection to fit any animal for any changed habits whatever.”
Oh don’t worry, I am others are laughing, but not with you, but at you. Firstly, Darwin made as best an educated guess as anyone of his time could have made regarding to how whales & dolphins which are fully mammals came to inhabit water. At the time the evidence for how mammals became modern whales wasn’t very collectively convincing, times they have changed though. Over time more evidence is gathered, tested and based on their results and further predictions it reveals the truer picture of what transpired.
Today we know not only from genetic evidence but also from fossil evidence that the early whales like ambulocetus and rhodocetus demonstrated that cetations were actually descendants from a group of small/medium sized deer like mammals (see packicetus). Early on the paleontologists weren’t sure where to look for these fossils, but now we know where their type evolved, therefore the collection of intermediates is growing; Indohyus, Ambulocetus, Dalanistes, Rodhocetus, Tackracetus, Gaviocetus, Dorudon, and Basilosaurus, and others but you get the point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodhocetus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus
Today with the evidence we can make testable predictions on what these intermediates should look like if evolution be true. Two such predictions are how the inner ear structure must have changed over time to allow for hearing under water and the migration of the nostrils from the front of the skull, towards the middle and lastly on top as modern cetations are. If evolution is true an these mammals were the ancestors of modern whales we should be able to find fossils with ears which aren’t fully whale like and not fully mammal like, additionally we should also find the location of the nostrils migrate with succession towards their current position. Do we find such evidence? Yes, indeed we do the newest intermediates back up such predictions and reaffirm that indeed these groups of mammals are the ancestors to modern whales.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/cetacean.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html
And to follow up, Natural Selection does have some limitations for how drastic and quick such evolutionary changes can occur, if at all. IE, there are physically limitations on how large an animal can be, most of this relates to allometry, for instance, invertebrates in comparison to vertebrates can’t grow nearly as large due to the fact that they have endoskeletons, and therefore no insect could ever rival vertebrates in sheer size, this is directly why vertebrates came to dominate the land even though they weren’t the first to inhabit land.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allometry
"All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith By The Rev. F.O. Morris, B.A.
I believe in a bear "swimming for hours with a widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects on the water." "Very like a whale!" I think I hear you saying, but I can't help it if you do. "I see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered by natural selection more and more aquatic in their habits, with longer and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."
Don't laugh, I beg you. It's all of a piece with my whole argument, for I have said all along that it is easy for natural selection to fit any animal for any changed habits whatever. “It is difficult to tell, and immaterial for us, whether habits generally change first and structure afterwards, or whether slight modifications of structure lead to changed habits." How can I tell you? All is fish that comes to my net. [End quote]
The Darwin faith is a dead faith indeed, for “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). “…When will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see?” (Ps 94:8, 9)."
I am curious. Do you have any argument against the validity of the theory of evolution that is not an appeal to the logical fallacy of ridicule, or an appeal to the logical fallacy of question begging?
All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith By The Rev. F.O. Morris, B.A.
I believe in a bear "swimming for hours with a widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects on the water." "Very like a whale!" I think I hear you saying, but I can't help it if you do. "I see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered by natural selection more and more aquatic in their habits, with longer and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."
Don't laugh, I beg you. It's all of a piece with my whole argument, for I have said all along that it is easy for natural selection to fit any animal for any changed habits whatever. “It is difficult to tell, and immaterial for us, whether habits generally change first and structure afterwards, or whether slight modifications of structure lead to changed habits." How can I tell you? All is fish that comes to my net. [End quote]
The Darwin faith is a dead faith indeed, for “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). “…When will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see?” (Ps 94:8, 9).
"It's actually rather amazing the leaps of logic one can achieve when viewing the anecdotal evidence of random biological relationships while ignoring the billions of others where, glaringly, no such evidence exists."
Please explain the "leaps of logic" to which you refer. Please identify the "anecdotal" evidence to which you refer, and identify the "billions" of biological relationships that have been ignored.
"Perhaps one day, true academic freedom will allow the "religion" of spontaneous generation to go the way of alchemy.""
Spontaneous generation is a rejected biological concept. It is not a religion. Moreover, I do not understand why you reference it, as it has no direct relevance to the current topic of discussion.
It's actually rather amazing the leaps of logic one can achieve when viewing the anecdotal evidence of random biological relationships while ignoring the billions of others where, glaringly, no such evidence exists.
Perhaps one day, true academic freedom will allow the "religion" of spontaneous generation to go the way of alchemy.
Dimensio, or as another recently put it.
“Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”
"Listen Einstein wanna be take your pseudo intellectual persona and redirect your attention to someone else Im done with you."
If you are unwilling to justify your assertions with evidence, then why should your claims be considered credible?
"Please explain the specific physical processes involved in such a "design" mechanism, and cite the direct observed instances of these processer or explain the observed events that from which the processes of the "design" mechanism have been directly derived."
and this is also why ID isn't falsifiable or sciencetific. they can't describe the designer as doing so would make it unteachable in schools, and paradoxically but not defining the designer and the methods he/she uses to build things it makes it unscientific as its can't make falsifiable testable examples. i toyed with an ID person a month ago asking him to explain the processes by which the designer built such organisms, or how the designer would explain human chromosome 2 fusions or ERV's and making them falsifiable. Needless to say he couldn't come up with a falsifiable explanation for those examples and so the 'design inference' becomes nothing more than subjective inference of statistical patterns.
“Common Design by the Creator can also explain the similarities between life forms, the existence vestigial organs, the validity of comparative biology, genetics.”
This proposal of yours requires some explanation star, like why would the designer purposely leave such evidence like fossils around or genetic evidence like ERV’s and Human Chromosome 2, which collectively spanning across all those hundreds of millions and billions of years suggest not common design, but common shared ancestry. After all, why would the designer continually come back to keep designing and building organisms, which would be quite similar, both to extinct species and soon to be living species according to the fossil record?
Moreover, if you’re arguing they are designed and intelligently at that, why are some 99% of all species, which have ever existed, extinct? To me, when 99% of your work is no longer around it doesn’t suggest the work was very intelligently built.
“I agree here but Biblical creation should also be taught because…”
Sorry, constitutional law forbids it, also the evidence for it is quite lacking star. We teach what the evidence supports and not what pleases people or fits their religion. If we did, we would have to teach about Xenu and scientology nonsense.
‘There is no evidence for Biblical creation but, by the same token, there is no evidence for macroevolution.”
Yup, except for all those collections of fossils and genetics which collectively can only be explained by notions such as common descent or modification with descent.
“Wrong, there is no direct observation of macro-evolution, it requires timescales that effectively prevent direct observation,”
Cough* Fossils*cough. Fossils are more of a direction observation then we have of atoms and their properties star. Besides, macroevolution as I’ve stated endlessly has been observed with microorganisms, flies and others. These species reproduce faster so the results are more readily obvious in our short life timescales.
"Common Design by the Creator can also explain the similarities between life forms, the existence vestigial organs, the validity of comparative biology, genetics."
Please explain the specific physical processes involved in such a "design" mechanism, and cite the direct observed instances of these processer or explain the observed events that from which the processes of the "design" mechanism have been directly derived.
"Doesn't evolution assume as truth that life began as a single cell organism? How do you know?"
This is not an assumption. This is a conclusion derived from the complete lack of any evidence of any life other than single-celled life existing before a certain time in the planet's history. Bacterial fossil evidence extends to more than three biliion years in the past, however fossil evidence for multicellular life does not suggest the existence of any such life until approximately 1.2 billion years ago. As such, the premise that extant biodiversity emerged from single-celled organisms is a conclusion derived from evidence, not an "assumption" and any argument based upon the claim that such a premise is an "assumption" absent any evidence is fundamentally flawed.
‘The problem is they don't know.’
True they don’t know, yet. But if you can sit and think you’ll recall not too long ago we didn’t know the earth was spherical, or that is revolves around the sun or how electricity works and that how closely tied magnetism is to electricity. We also didn’t’ understand gravity until only some few hundred years ago, nor did we understand atomic matter or quantum mechanics till recently. All of these things are the fruits of science, and like them science will show us how the universe truly is.
“They just assume that it started out as a single cell organism for which they have no evidence to prove that.”
As stated before star, evolution isn’t dependant on the ‘how life got here’. Life is here, we’re living so it’s evident regardless how it got started that we’re here. Regardless if god poofed it, aliens engineered and dropped it off, or if it arose naturally, in the end life still exists and thus can evolve over time. The ‘how’ doesn’t negate the after processes of evolution once the replicating molecules are around. Lets for arguments sake say god poofed a replicating cell here. It would then next begin to evolve over time. Or let’s say some aliens dropped off replicating molecules, again the same outcome, as it would change over time. And the same goes for the naturally arising hypothesis; in the end the replicating molecules exist and therefore can evolve.
“Doesn't evolution assume as truth that life began as a single cell organism? How do you know? There is no proof because there is no evidence.”
Stromatolites star, Stromatolites. Use Google for a change, you might actually learn something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite
“Micro-evolution will never produce macro-evolution. The laws of genetics will never allow it. It takes a leap of faith to believe that it can.”
Here we have a person saying the laws of genetics wont allow X, when not too longer ago she had a trouble grasping ‘genetic drifting’ ‘natural selection’ and the very definition of macro evolution/speciation.
Star, what evidence is there that such micro changes over short time spans won’t lead to macro changes over larger time spans? The fossils certainly don’t suggest that such macro changes are impossible, in fact they line up nicely with the genetic rates. How can such evidence like ERV’s and Human Chromosome 2 be explained but by inferring such macro evolutionary changes star? Has god revealed to you the answer on these yet?
"Maybe they need to critically analyze what they were taught instead of accepting everything like mindless sheep."
Please demonstrate that they have not already done this.
dbrydges
Re:Thousands of educated scientists disagree,
Maybe they need to critically analyze what they were taught instead of accepting everything like mindless sheep.
Re: but you are entitled to your opinion.
You are entitled to your opinion as well.
Re: I can lead the horse to water but I can't make him drink.
I feel the same way about you.
dbrydges
So star2 advocates critical thinking but not when it comes to the Bible.
No I don't. I challenge you to critically analyze the Word of God.
Thousands of educated scientists disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion. I can lead the horse to water but I can't make him drink.
dbrydges
Re:The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the origins of life, the book is titled "The Origin of Species" Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, this is a straw man argument that attempts to refute a claim that is never made by evolution.
I know that it is abiogenesisists that concern themselves with how life got started. The problem is they don't know. They just assume that it started out as a single cell organism for which they have no evidence to prove that. The evolutionist accepts this and then tries to describe how it changed over time to produce all the different forms of life we see today.
Until the abiogenesisists can prove that it started as a single cell organism then any theory that describes how it changed over time is worthless. My argument is not a straw man argument. Doesn't evolution assume as truth that life began as a single cell organism? How do you know? There is no proof because there is no evidence. What you assume is truth could very well be wrong. If it is wrong then any theory you come up with based on this fallacious fact will be wrong. I would think that you would want to start out with a factual truth before you would want to try to develop a theory from it.
Micro-evolution will never produce macro-evolution. The laws of genetics will never allow it. It takes a leap of faith to believe that it can.
Life starting out as a single cell organism is a scientifically untestable.
The theory of evolution that postulates on how all the different life forms we see today came to be is scientifically untestable.
Micro-evolution, genetic variation within a species, is scientifically testable.
Evolution should never be taught as science.
So star2 advocates critical thinking but not when it comes to the Bible. Pitiful. Thankfully rational Christians like viking give me hope that they're not all mindless sheep.
viking
Jesus and the writers of the NT (for example, Peter, Jude, the writer of Hebrews) all accepted as literal fact the accounts given in the book of Genesis, along with the other OT historical accounts such as Jonah and the whale. We should do no less.
viking
Re:Augustine goes on in his writings to elaborate that the holy writings were to be understood as allegorical spiritual truth. This is consistent with all informed understandings of the Christian scriptures.
Augustine (354-430) was a student of Plato and Aristole before becoming a Christian and was steeped in Greek thought and philosophy. When he became a Christian he did not allow God to renew his thinking to conform to God's thinking (Romans 12:2) and as a result he viewed scripture through a Greek philosophical worldview. This resulted in him interpreting the book of Genesis as allegorical. This method of interpreting the Word of God became the norm in the RCC and has resulted in heretical teaching.
It is unfortunate that the conflict in this issue has been promoted as faith (specifically Christian faith) vs. Science. In fact this is a created conflict inconsistent with historical or informed Christian teachings. This issue was addressed by St. Augustine 1600 years ago.
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.
– The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408]
Augustine goes on in his writings to elaborate that the holy writings were to be understood as allegorical spiritual truth. This is consistent with all informed understandings of the Christian scriptures. For example in the new testament Christ constantly uses metaphor to explain his teachings to his disciples.
This is well articulated 1600 years later at this website http://www.bcbsr.com/survey/genint.html
Perhaps persons of sincerity can move beyond conflict to respect and tolerance.
I studied biology in the 1990's and we were taught about Lemark's theory of evolution, Darwins theory and creationism. We even performed critical analysis and comparison of both evolutionary theories. Creationism was explained as simply the theory that everything was created, analysis of creationism in the scientific context is of course impossible, so it was only briefly touched.
"Common Design by the Creator can also explain the similarities between life forms, the existence vestigial organs, the validity of comparative biology, genetics."
As would common design by a consortium of supernatural beings, or a committee of them. Maybe God created the designers and the designers designed the universe. God is all powerful after all so it is equally as plausible. The problem with the designer theory is that it is completely untestable, it therefore has no place in the study of science.
"Scientists of your persuation have no explanation for how life got started."
The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the origins of life, the book is titled "The Origin of Species" Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, this is a straw man argument that attempts to refute a claim that is never made by evolution.
"Biblical creation should also be taught because it is also a plausible explanation."
Sorry have to disagree here. Biblical creation or any creationism relies on a scientifically untestable premise, this is the antithesis of the scientific method.
"There is no evidence for Biblical creation but, by the same token, there is no evidence for macroevolution."
Wrong, there is no direct observation of macro-evolution, it requires timescales that effectively prevent direct observation, there is however plenty of evidence that supports it as a valid theory. Just because you reject the evidence as conclusive does not mean there is no supporting evidence.
"It takes more faith to believe in macroevoultion then it takes to believe that "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:1
So it takes more faith to believe that many genetic mutations, as observed in micro-evolution, over millions of years can result in speciation than it does to believe that some magical being, let alone your particular magical being, willed life into existence? Are you for real? It is simply not rational.
dbrydges
Re:RE: I have to disagree. I think the teaching of evolutionary theory is very important in the study of biology.
For many years high school biology was taught without ever a mention of evolution. I went to High School in the 60's. Before the 64-65 school year, high school biology did not include evolutionary concepts. The '64-'65 school year was the first year that it was taught. That is when I had to take biology. We study abiogenesis and evolution. Many of the students, me included, just laughed at the teacher for teaching, what we preceived, as idiotic ideas.
I also took Introduction to Botany in a Junior College in 1976 and never once was evolution ever discussed. It wasn't needed to learn about botany.
I disagree with you that it is important to teaching biology.
Re: It is a reasonable scientific theory that provides plausible explanations for the similarities between life forms, the existence vestigial organs, the validity of comparative biology, genetics.
Common Design by the Creator can also explain the similarities between life forms, the existence vestigial organs, the validity of comparative biology, genetics.
Scientists of your persuation have no explanation for how life got started. There is no evidence that life began as a single cell organism. If you can't prove that life began as a single cell organism then it is a total waste of time to discuss how it changed over time. Your ideas are merely hypothetical and is nothing more than imagination, the kind that makes up science fiction novels and short stories.
Re: I think that a teacher should explain that not everyone accepts the theory (evolution), but the theory should definitely be taught in a biology class.
I agree here but Biblical creation should also be taught because it is also a plausible explanation (common design) to similarities between life forms, the existence vestigial organs, the validity of comparative biology, genetics.
There is no evidence for Biblical creation but, by the same token, there is no evidence for macroevolution.
Re: ID on the other hand is not a scientific theory, it pretends to be but it is really a theological or philosophical theory, and would be more appropriately taught in a theology or philosophy course, where evolutionary theory should not be taught.
Evolution is not a scientific theory either. There is no evidence for macroevolution. It takes more faith to believe in macroevoultion then it takes to believe that "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:1
Evolution is a religious/philsophical theory and should be taught in a Religion and Philosophy Class.
Star2, I have to disagree. I think the teaching of evolutionary theory is very important in the study of biology. It is a reasonable scientific theory that provides plausible explanations for the similarities between life forms, the existence vestigial organs, the validity of comparative biology, genetics. I think that a teacher should explain that not everyone accepts the theory, but the theory should definitely be taught in a biology class. ID on the other hand is not a scientific theory, it pretends to be but it is really a theological or philosophical theory, and would be more appropriately taught in a theology or philosophy course, where evolutionary theory should not be taught.
dbrydges
The origins of life and its development are not needed to study biology. Towards the end of the school year maybe the last six week marking period, I am all for teaching all the major theories regarding the origins of life and its development. The theories would include abiogenesis/evolution, Biblical Creationism with the flood(YEC), and theistic/ID evolution. I think that the teacher should help the student think critically about these theories to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each. If the teacher doesn't have this ability to teach a student how to think critically, then the teacher should teach each of these theories pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of each of these theories for the students.
If the student is in college, then I am all for having a course dealing with origins of life and its development but these theories should not be included in the different biology courses for they are not needed. I think, however, that a course dealing with the origins of life and its development, should be taught examining and anaylizing all the major theories.
Let the student, whether he/she is a high school student or a college student, decide for him/herself which theory resonates the best with his/her worldview.
Or if you find FSM offensive because it has such a small following, how about Scientology. Should Dyanetics be required reading in biology too? The Church Of Scientology has after all alternate theory too. If we are going to simply present the evidence and let students decide the truth for themselves then we should present them will all theories, giving equal weight to each, not favoring evolution, ID or any other theories.
Flying Spaghetti Monster - Intelligent Design
dbrydges
What is FMS ID theory?
"A hallmark of intellectual cowardice is refusing to even remotely consider alternatives to any given theory. "
OK, this is funny. Is then also cowardice to refuse to remotely consider other theological theories? Do you consider Hinduism, Islam, Taosim etc... as true religions? Is it cowardice to reject a theory because it's premise is unprovable? Have you considered the FSM ID theory? Should it be taught in school with the same regard and respect with which you expect Christian ID to be taught?
Give me a break... hypocritical much.
Jerry2
You are nothing but a broken record. It is the same ole stuff from you all the time.
When are you going to come up with some original ideas?
A hallmark of intellectual cowardice is refusing to even remotely consider alternatives to any given theory. Not to mention two ad hom laden posts. Someone's knickers are showing.....
"scientific weaknesses of Darwinism"
Biological evolution does not have any weaknesses. The only people who think evolution has problems are the uneducated hicks who would rather believe in magic instead of scientific facts.
The creationist hicks are brainwashed cowards who are afraid to grow up and face facts. They are so terrified of science, they refuse to study it. They will spend the rest of their pathetic lives living in their childish fantasy world, forever ignorant about how the real world works.
Alexander J. Sheffrin, it's called biological evolution, not "Darwinism".
Casey Luskin is a professional liar for Jesus. He's an attorney who knows nothing about biology. Luskin supports the religious belief called intelligent design creationism, which is a childish belief in magic. Luskin has a lot of nerve to quote Darwin to support his attacks against science education.
These academic freedom bills give incompetent biology teachers the right to lie to their students about biology. These science teachers who prefer magic instead of science deserve to be ridiculed, fired, and never allowed to teach biology again.
Since only religious extremists, who know nothing about science, support these academic freedom bills, it's obvious these bills are just attacks against science education.
I suggest to the flat-earthers reading this - keep your breathtaking stupidity in your churches and out of our schools. Science education is for science only. No competent science teacher would ever agree to teach your childish idiotic intelligent design magic.
What the Christian nuts would really like to do is completely suppress the teaching of any science that conflicts with their Bible. They will never be allowed to get away with it. Every anti-science bill that gets passed will be fought in court, and so far the religious nuts have lost every court case.
I bet money this comment will be flagged. Christians love censorship.
If you feel insulted when people ask you to support your outlandish claims, then you definitely have anger issues. Sorry, I call it like I see it.
No anger issues.... just don't like to be insulted by pompist personality types. I call em like I see em
jar: You certainly seem to have a lot of anger issues. Perhaps you should work on those . . . and I am saying this as someone who has had anger issues in the past and has worked on them.
Listen Einstein wanna be take your pseudo intellectual persona and redirect your attention to someone else Im done with you.
"You are right.. I incorrectly stated that iller was an atheist.. however he is a philosophical antagonist and I stand by that."
Please explain and justify your assertion that Dr. Ken Miller is a "philosophical antagonist".
"About Eugneics.. I am not shifting the burden.. I do not need to re-examine what is already part of the historical record on Nazism. "
You asserted, specifically, that the theory of evolution "is the factual foundation for the creation fo Nazism and the Final Solution". You have not demonstrated that claim to be true. You also claimed that "if you believe in Darwinsim than you should also support the removal of any deviancy in the species which would threaten the survival of the species.. for instance.. homosexuality", however you have offered no justification of this claim. Introducing the concept of eugenics, which is not a part of the theory of evolution, and then claiming that your assertions are a "part of history" does not demonstrate that your claims are correct.
FOR AGENTO: Wrong.. agai you speak without critically assessing your words. The Creation Institute does favor ID and would prefer it over evolution.. no doubt.. but not to the exclusion or censorship of it as a subject worthy of academic exploration. Censorship always hapens at the hands of fascists and quite frankly, if you even look at the leading headlines on this site every effort of disruption and censorship is always reported at the hands of leftist, fascists, liberals and those of the religion of political correctness... And before you attack this post I challange you to review the last 2 dozen articles and see if I am wrong...And I will wager you can barely find one even under a google search in which Christians storm a speaker or interfere with an event.. Even pro lifers who campaign against abortion centers do so in a dignified and law abiding way... (And forget the few violent driven lone actors)
I think Ken Hovind might have to do that by conference call...
“YOu won't find a Christian afraid of engaging evolution in the classroom,”
Well, I guess I could put the who’s who from the Discovery Institute, Institute of Creation Research, Answers in Genesis and other creationist groups who don’t want evolution taught in public schools, but I guess to you that wouldn’t suffice. Bill Dembski, Ben Stein, Jonathan Wells, Stephen Meyers, Ken Han, Kent Hovind, want me to keep going?
You are right.. I incorrectly stated that iller was an atheist.. however he is a philosophical antagonist and I stand by that.
About Eugneics.. I am not shifting the burden.. I do not need to re-examine what is already part of the historical record on Nazism. It is clear and well documneted. its like trying to demand that I prove the HOlocaust happened when the historical recordis clear....
"Immm..MIller is... are you dense? The post I provided from Miller came from his atheist blog.... "
I think you're dense jarjar binks. it's not logical to link miller as an atheist simply b/c there is a point of inquiry podcast of behe's arguements for IC getting owned. Miller doesn't have a blog, and even if he did he can't be held liable for all things discussed on it, as it wouldn't be directly of his own opinon but that of others.
"FOR DIMENSIO: Here is the link: A-Deistic: Ken Miller on Collapse of Intelligent Design
Cell biologist, Kenneth Miller Ph. D. of Brown University gives a talk on The ... of Behe's claims for irreducible complexity of ID-selected systems. ...
a-deism.blogspot.com/2002/02/collapse-of-intelligent-design.html - 36k -
There is also a link:
endly Atheist » Michael Behe on Point of Inquiry
Nov 13, 2007 ... Ken Miller had already told many of those little stories in his talk at Case Western and managed to thoroughly trounce all of Behe’s typical ...
friendlyatheist.com/2007/11/13/michael-behe-on-point-of-inquiry/ - 45k -"
Neither of the blogs that you have referenced are owned or maintained by Ken Miller, nor do either of them support your assertion that Dr. Miller is an atheist.
Jarjar binks, please responsd to these in kind. Good luck trying to rationalize them with the ID hypoethesis.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
"About Ken Miller.. As I said... while not "technically" considered an atheist he is what is referred to as an _A-Deistic Scientist...."
You are now misrepresenting your own past statements. You expressly claimed that Dr. Kenneth Miller is an atheist. You stated "Miller is a stauch atheist and philosophical agitator...!!". You did not claim that he is not "technically" considered an atheist; you expressly declared that he is, in fact, an atheist.
"Notwithstanding his catholicsim, his faith plays little role in his approach as a scientist."
This is correct. This is a rational approach to science. It is irrational to employ religious faith when conducting science.
" While he tries to reconcile evolution with creationism his is devoutly an anti-reationist and tries to uise his cahtolic lable to give him crediblity in the religious community.. which he doesnt get."
You are now attempting to alter the subject of discussion. You originally claimed that Ken Miller is an atheist. You are simply incorrect regarding that assertion. Your assertion that he is attempting to gain credibility in the "religious community" is wholly unsupported; please justify your allegation of this motive.
"Fro dimensio: You sound like a Buddhist.. you pose questions for which you think there are no deifnitive answers."
To which specific questions do you refer? If I did not believe that my questions had definitive answers, I would not ask them.
" Obviously you have little understnading of things beyond 1+1 and Na+CL = NACL......If I have to spoon feed you the connection between evolution and eugenics and you try to present yourself as an intellect then you dont insult yourself and I wont consider your snobbery an insult...."
It would appear as though you are engaging in ad-hominem. This is not a logical justification of your position; insulting me is not logically equivalent to providing evidence in support of your claim.
It is not unreasonable to ask that an assertion regarding alleged implications of the theory of evolution be supported with evidence. It is unreasonable to refuse to support an assertion regarding the alleged implication of the theory of evolution with evidence after making the assertion.
"Tell you what tell me how you fail to make the connection between eugenics and evolution..."
You are attempting to shift the burden of proof. If you are asserting a logical connection between eugenics and evolution, it is your responsibility to demonstrate this logical connection.
FOR DIMENSIO: Here is the link: A-Deistic: Ken Miller on Collapse of Intelligent Design
Cell biologist, Kenneth Miller Ph. D. of Brown University gives a talk on The ... of Behe's claims for irreducible complexity of ID-selected systems. ...
a-deism.blogspot.com/2002/02/collapse-of-intelligent-design.html - 36k -
There is also a link:
endly Atheist » Michael Behe on Point of Inquiry
Nov 13, 2007 ... Ken Miller had already told many of those little stories in his talk at Case Western and managed to thoroughly trounce all of Behe’s typical ...
friendlyatheist.com/2007/11/13/michael-behe-on-point-of-inquiry/ - 45k -
About Ken Miller.. As I said... while not "technically" considered an atheist he is what is referred to as an _A-Deistic Scientist....Notwithstanding his catholicsim, his faith plays little role in his approach as a scientist. While he tries to reconcile evolution with creationism his is devoutly an anti-reationist and tries to uise his cahtolic lable to give him crediblity in the religious community.. which he doesnt get.
Fro dimensio: You sound like a Buddhist.. you pose questions for which you think there are no deifnitive answers. Obviously you have little understnading of things beyond 1+1 and Na+CL = NACL......If I have to spoon feed you the connection between evolution and eugenics and you try to present yourself as an intellect then you dont insult yourself and I wont consider your snobbery an insult....
Tell you what tell me how you fail to make the connection between eugenics and evolution...
"Immm..MIller is... are you dense? The post I provided from Miller came from his atheist blog...."
Please provide the URL of this blog. I am unable to locate any blog of Ken Miller. A Google-based search on the specific text that you provided yeileded a result for a blog titled "Religion is Man-Made", which on <a href="http://religionismanmade.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-05-08T12%3A33%3A00-04%3A00&max-results=12">May 7, 2008</a> posted a link to a number of videos, including one titled "The Effect of Abuse of Science on Democracy" (in which Dr. Miller does not appear), however there is no indication that Dr. Kenneth Miller is the owner or maintainer of this blog site. If you have evidence that the blog belongs to Dr. Miller, or if you have reference to another blog run by Dr. Miller wherein he claims to be an atheist, please provide that information.
Dear JG
I'm, sorry I can explain no further as the maths is well beyond me. All that can be said is that the maths give answers that are infinate, i.e they completly break down, indicating that events are occuring that are beyond our experience concerning spacetime (or theory).
As a complete aside I love it when people start talking about logic etc.. when it comes to these sort of events because it shows they have not the foggiest idea of what they are talking about,our ideas of space time breakdown and people still want to cling to logic which comes into existenece after the universe forms...LOL
Regards
Steve
"DIMENSIO: I have no desire to engage in a debate in whcih the roots of Nazism have been well established and Adolph H. Has well been known to believe..."
You are again providing no evidence in support of your claim. Declaring that your claim is "well established" is not logically equivalent to providing evidence in support of your assertion.
"While i won't embarrass you or insult your intelligence I'll share with you a simple euphemism that the 3rd Reich was associated with.. Eugenics...."
Eugenics is not evolution. Your previous assertion is still unsupported.
"Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.[1] Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier and more intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering."
I am not disputing the definition of eugenics. I do not understand what point you are attempting to make by providing this definition.
"Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding, while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering. Opponents argue that eugenics is immoral. Historically, a minority of eugenics advocates have used it as a justification for state-sponsored discrimination, forced sterilization of persons deemed genetically defective, and the killing of institutionalized populations. Eugenics was also used to rationalize certain aspects of the Holocaust. The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,[2] drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin. From its inception eugenics was supported by prominent people, including H.G. Wells, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, William Keith Kellogg and Margaret Sanger.[3][4] G. K. Chesterton was an early critic of the philosophy of eugenics, expressing this opinion in his book, Eugenics and Other Evils"
Demonstrating that Hitler's actions had a basis in eugenics does not demonstrate that the theory of evolution logically justifies or deems "correct" Hitler's actions. The above excerpt is a non-sequitur. Your previous assertions remain unsubstantiated.
Immm..MIller is... are you dense? The post I provided from Miller came from his atheist blog....
LIsten in the arena of public ideas it is liberals and leftists only that try to censor the exchange of ideas. Im not going to continue to debate issues that are foolish. What it boils down to is that leftists are afraid of anything related to God. YOu won't find a Christian afraid of engaging evolution in the classroom, but every person like you agentO would rather die than allow the free flowing exchange of ideas in academia....
There have been people like you all throughout history.... starting with Islamo fascists, nazis, dictators.... last I checked we live in a democracy.,... something that true liberals really despise.
"and by the way.. Catholics ( I am a former Catholic) are typically not Biblically centered people of faith..."
Even if your claim is true, Catholics are typically not atheists. Your previous assertion that Dr. Ken Miller is an atheist is false regardless of your opinion of Catholics in general.
"All politics is local and we local folks have the whole story that does not get reported. Im not offering this information for the sake of arguing.."
Then WHY are you even bickering over it? The court found out that the people trying to have ID taught in Dover lied under oath, have you no idea of that too? you say the whole court had it wrong, the judge had it wrong and Behe is honorable, while the other DI clows didn't bother to show up to court and sum it up by saying you don't want to debate it further? To us it just looks like your arguements are hollow and rather than admit defeat openly you express that you'd rather not continue to discuss it so you're not exposed.
'Im sharing what really happened beyond the headlines... "
Here's some headlines for you.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
DIMENSIO: about eugenics:
Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.[1] Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier and more intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering.
Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding, while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering. Opponents argue that eugenics is immoral. Historically, a minority of eugenics advocates have used it as a justification for state-sponsored discrimination, forced sterilization of persons deemed genetically defective, and the killing of institutionalized populations. Eugenics was also used to rationalize certain aspects of the Holocaust. The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,[2] drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin. From its inception eugenics was supported by prominent people, including H.G. Wells, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, William Keith Kellogg and Margaret Sanger.[3][4] G. K. Chesterton was an early critic of the philosophy of eugenics, expressing this opinion in his book, Eugenics and Other Evils
DIMENSIO: I have no desire to engage in a debate in whcih the roots of Nazism have been well established and Adolph H. Has well been known to believe... While i won't embarrass you or insult your intelligence I'll share with you a simple euphemism that the 3rd Reich was associated with.. Eugenics....
That is because BEhe was the primary witness.. and it doesnt matter who appointed the judge, he madehis views well known.. I live in Pa. near where this happened. All politics is local and we local folks have the whole story that does not get reported. Im not offering this information for the sake of arguing..Im sharing what really happened beyond the headlines... and by the way.. Catholics ( I am a former Catholic) are typically not Biblically centered people of faith... and one can be a constrxutionist and still be secular... constructionists simply believe that the Law of the Land is the ofundation on which rulings are made... not act ivism from the bench...
steveh20,
Equations break down into infinity? Can you expand on that logic a bit more because it seems flawed to me. It would make sense for them to break down into non-existence, or nothing, but I'm not sure about infinity. Wouldn't that be a logical fallacy in itself though? Time is a physical unit, how then can you use it to describe something which existed before time itself?
Whoops!! That should read Planck, its me thats the plank....
jar: Did you