2
   

Liberal Hypocrisy about Intelligent Design

 
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 10:00 am
Nimh,

I was quite surprised myself (as I am sure ebrown was) that we did agree. And eloquently? Woo Hoo! First time anyone used that word with me on these threads! Laughing I thought the way this thread was posed was wonderfully done by ebrown, whom I find very eloquent in all his postings, whether I agree with him or not.

I am one for compromise. If they want to teach ID then yes, it should be taught. If teaching it under the label of philosophy gets it taught, then so be it. I see that as both sides getting what they want. Unfortunately, not everyone will agree.

I understand about the evidence of creation not being able to be proven scientifically. I can't and won't say it can be scientifically proven because it can't. I don't think it was meant to be. It's about faith and not proof. I do see the frustration on both sides of the coin in this argument. It's hard for one side to accept the other's because of the different standards being set.

I say teach it and let those learning decide whether it fits in their life scientifically or faithwise.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 11:10 am
kicky, If there is a "god," it will be nothing like the god of the bible. Therefore, the likelyhood of a god is nil, because religion doesn't accept any other kind of "god."
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 11:13 am
Blind belief of creationism based on religion is not "overwhelming support."
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 11:36 am
Cicerone Imposter Wrote:

Quote:
kicky, If there is a "god," it will be nothing like the god of the bible. Therefore, the likelyhood of a god is nil, because religion doesn't accept any other kind of "god."


I would think you wouldn't use such a wide brush, C.I., not all religions view the God of the Bible as the one true God, so I'd say your statement is a bit faulty.

Quote:
Blind belief of creationism based on religion is not "overwhelming support."


I do not think I have read a single post from a person believing in creationism that has said it can be scientifically proven or even scientifically supported. I think you will find great pains have been taken to admit that we do not believe it can be scientifically supported. If you will also notice, we don't feel that it needs to be scientifically proven. That is what faith is all about. You only call it blind belief because you do not see it the way we see it.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 02:14 pm
This has been an interesting read. I agree with those who say ID should not be taught in a scientific class the same as Ebonics should not be taught in an English class. If it is not scientific then it shouldn't be in a science class, pretty simple.

If schools do offer religious philosophies, then they should have to include all the known religious philosophies (beliefs). I think in this day and age, it would be helpful to learn all the different beliefs in the world.

For parents who believe in ID and don't believe in evolution (or whatever it is now called) and worry about their children being taught evolution, parents should simply keep up with what is being taught to their children and read the scriptures to their children and let them make up their own minds on the subject. (IMO)
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 05:10 pm
parados wrote:



Then lets use the simple bacteria found in a single person.
A person has 390,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (3.9x10 to the 23rd, again larger than your claim of what is needed)single celled bacteria in them. There are 6 billion people on the earth. A single bacterium can replicate itself 1 million times in 12 hours. That means that in humans alone there are probably.
234,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 opportunities every 12 hours just in bacteria found in humans for there to be evolution....


The basic problem: they'd all still be bacteria. The debate over evolutionism is not about microevolution.

They ran the experiments on fruit flies which breed new generations every couple of days for several decades, i.e. for more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been generations of primates on this planet. They subjected them to everything in the world known to cause mutations and then recombined the mutants every way possible, and all they ever got was fruitflies and sterile freaks.

The results were so unambiguous that a number of the scientists involved in the studies publically renounced evolution, including the famous case of Richard Goldschmidt.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 05:17 pm
gungasnake wrote:
parados wrote:



Then lets use the simple bacteria found in a single person.
A person has 390,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (3.9x10 to the 23rd, again larger than your claim of what is needed)single celled bacteria in them. There are 6 billion people on the earth. A single bacterium can replicate itself 1 million times in 12 hours. That means that in humans alone there are probably.
234,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 opportunities every 12 hours just in bacteria found in humans for there to be evolution....


The basic problem: they'd all still be bacteria. The debate over evolutionism is not about microevolution.

They ran the experiments on fruit flies which breed new generations every couple of days for several decades, i.e. for more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been generations of primates on this planet. They subjected them to everything in the world known to cause mutations and then recombined the mutants every way possible, and all they ever got was fruitflies and sterile freaks.

The results were so unambiguous that a number of the scientists involved in the studies publically renounced evolution, including the famous case of Richard Goldschmidt.


Such an experiment disproves the idea of evolution? That's just foolish...
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 05:22 pm
Quote: The results were so unambiguous that a number of the scientists involved in the studies publically renounced evolution, including the famous case of Richard Goldschmidt.

And who exactly were these "scientists" that denounced evolution? Names, titles, and place of employment, please.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 06:20 pm
gungasnake wrote:
parados wrote:



Then lets use the simple bacteria found in a single person.
A person has 390,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (3.9x10 to the 23rd, again larger than your claim of what is needed)single celled bacteria in them. There are 6 billion people on the earth. A single bacterium can replicate itself 1 million times in 12 hours. That means that in humans alone there are probably.
234,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 opportunities every 12 hours just in bacteria found in humans for there to be evolution....


The basic problem: they'd all still be bacteria. The debate over evolutionism is not about microevolution.

They ran the experiments on fruit flies which breed new generations every couple of days for several decades, i.e. for more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been generations of primates on this planet. They subjected them to everything in the world known to cause mutations and then recombined the mutants every way possible, and all they ever got was fruitflies and sterile freaks.

The results were so unambiguous that a number of the scientists involved in the studies publically renounced evolution, including the famous case of Richard Goldschmidt.


And they had an extremely small sample over a very short time frame.. Of course you ignore the fact that they weren't all sterile and they created a new species of fruit fly. You might as well claim no one can win the lottery jackpot because you played it once and didn't win. Or rather you played it once and only won a dollar.

Lets see. A few cubic feet of the earth vs the entire globe and 10 years vs 3 billion years. The odds of them getting a major change in that time with that limited sample are infintesimal.

As for the multiple bacteria. Well, until and unless you check every bacteria in every human you can't claim they all remained bacteria. It is possible some might have become symbiotic with other bacteria creating a multicelled creature. Your claim that they didn't is unprovable.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 06:30 pm
Quote:
5.3 The Fruit Fly Literature

5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).


It is the fact that sterile males were produced from cross breeding that proves the speciation

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 07:31 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
The miracle of birth is the strongest proof of all to me of God.

The "miracle" of birth is a very good example of the difference between science and religious faith, and one of the reasons I find the concept of "Intelligent Design" laughable.

Childbirth is difficult and painful for human females, primarily because the baby's head must be pushed through a small opening in the pelvic bones (an incredibly stupid design, IMO). Millions of woman and their babies died when the baby simply would not come out, due to infection, or other problems. Half a million women per year still die from childbirth, mostly in third world countries.

Jewish mythology came up with a just-so story to explain it: God made the process painful to punish all women for the sin of Eve, the first woman (no explanation as to why it is just to punish all women without giving us an equivalent test. Women who are obedient to God suffer as much as the wickedest women.) Babies who die or are born with severe defects may serve as punishment for sinful parents or test their characters.

Science looks at human anatomy, hominid fossils, animal brains and other assorted data and comes up with an explanation that has nothing to do with sin: pelvis size is constrained by the mechanics of upright walking, but the evolution of the cortex over the last few million years gradually increased head diameters. Head and pelvis sizes vary among individuals, and the average baby's head can be squeezed through the average pelvis, albeit painfully. When there is a size disparity (CDP), those outside the norm tended to die. You might expect us to evolve small fetal heads with brain growth after birth, but other factors give larger babies a better chance of survival so it's a trade-off. As long as sufficient women with large-enough pelvises and babies with small-enough heads survive the process to maintain the species, the design is "good enough."

Medical science brought us the anesthesia, surgical techniques, antiseptics and antibiotics that have saved the lives of millions of women and babies who would otherwise have died. Does anesthesia thwart God's Will for the punishment of women? That argument has been used.

----------

Back to the topic, I do not think that either ID or Ebonics should be taught in public schools. Students' time needs to be spent on subjects that prepare them for adult life, not courses that reinforce ignorance.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 07:38 pm
Reinforce ignorance? You are deciding for everyone was is ignorance and what is not? I offered compromise so a choice was not taken away. Now, it seems the tables are turned. It seems your side of the fence would now take away the choice.

At least I admit when I don't want abortion that a woman's choice would be taken away. Your side of the fence doesn't give an inch, does it?

I will say it again. I am becoming more and more convinced that some (not all) of you want complete freedom from religion and not freedom of religion.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 07:53 pm
well yes MA that's exactly right, we do want freedom FROM religion.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 07:59 pm
Yes, "freedom from religion" would be the preference.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 08:18 pm
You got that right, Momma.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 08:22 pm
At least you are honest about it. Thank you. I do appreciate your honesty.
0 Replies
 
lightfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 08:25 pm
Yes Ma... I agree as well, I go further... by saying, it should be illegal, teaching ANY religion, to ANY child, until the age of 21, an age the mind is no longer swayed by mythology or guessemetics, we would then have freedom from religion.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 08:52 pm
lightfoot,

Now, that is scary.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 08:57 pm
Writer, Philip Wylie once wrote that the Bible should be locked away. Then, sometime in the future, scholars studying the madness of our times would have access to it.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 09:52 pm
My kids often make the comment-- "Christians are so gay!" (I am not kidding).

When I scolded them for saying saying this, they responded... "don't worry Dad, we don't really mean homosexual."

They didn't understand why I found the use of the word "gay" to mean boring, strange and obnoxious (their view of religious people) offensive.

Kind of ironic huh?... anti-religious and homophobic at the same time.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Intelligent Design - Question by giujohn
What is Intelligent Design? - Discussion by RexRed
Do *ANY* creationists understand evolution? - Discussion by rosborne979
The Bed Bug/Parasite Plant Theory - Question by TeePee38
dna worlds - Discussion by Syamsu
DD VERSUS EVOLUTION - Discussion by Setanta
The Evil of god - Discussion by giujohn
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 07:19:33