2
   

Liberal Hypocrisy about Intelligent Design

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 12:46 am
Momma Angel wrote:
parados,

You are the first person I have run across that will admit science is fallible because man is fallible. Thank you for that!

Ok, I understand your last paragraph there. And that is where the faith has to come in. I have faith that the Bible is the infallible word of God.

Woo hoo! Feel like I just won a prize!


You just won the booby prize Momma because you refuse to admit that you are fallible. Such arrogance can only lead you to be wrong. It is the same with science as it is with religion. Belief that you are absolutely correct about something means you will stop searching for the answers that would make it believable or not.

Evolution is a theory that itself is evolving in minute ways. We find out more about DNA. We found new fossils links that we didn't have before. The basic premise of evolution, like the basic premise of the earth revolving around the sun haven't changed but both theories have changed over the years. The earth doesn't follow a circular orbit. The orbit changes over time. All have been added to the original theory.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 12:46 am
Ok, understood. Then let me ask you this. If you agree that science is infallible because of man could you accept the Bible as being the Word of God on the same basis you accept science?

In other words, since you agree that science is infallible because of man but (you seem to) accept science as a pretty (can't think of the right word) proven thing, then can't the Bible be accepted in the same way?

If that didn't come out right I will work on what I mean. It's getting late and I'm a bit tired.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 12:49 am
BTW, however, I wouldn't advocate teaching ID in public schools--but I despise the double standard when many scientific theories are no more proven than the God Made It theory.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 12:49 am
Momma Angel wrote:
Ok, understood. Then let me ask you this. If you agree that science is infallible because of man could you accept the Bible as being the Word of God on the same basis you accept science?

In other words, since you agree that science is infallible because of man but (you seem to) accept science as a pretty (can't think of the right word) proven thing, then can't the Bible be accepted in the same way?

If that didn't come out right I will work on what I mean. It's getting late and I'm a bit tired.


No, I can't accept that because science can REPLICATE its experiments.

You can't replicate or show under any conditions a book being written by a supreme being.

The only way to prevent the fallibility of man is to be able to duplicate it repeatedly and have others also repeat it. There is no experiment that you can do that I can repeat that would show that God wrote a book.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 12:50 am
MA--

You have cracked me up on this thread. Cheers!!
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 12:50 am
ebrown_p wrote:
The Intelligent design folks are not only attacking evolution, they are attacking science itself.
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 12:52 am
Teach ID in public schools. No prob. Just not in science class.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 12:54 am
Lash wrote:
BTW, however, I wouldn't advocate teaching ID in public schools--but I despise the double standard when many scientific theories are no more proven than the God Made It theory.



There is no double standard about scientific theories vs ID. Scientific theories are open to peer review. Where is the peer review of ID? Where is the science?

Every theory you have presented has flaws because SCIENTISTS have pointed out those flaws. When a theory no longer has factual inconsistencies then it becomes the prevailing theory until a new theory fits the facts better.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 12:54 am
I haven't been reading the news. I haven't seen them attacking evolution--though I wouldn't be surprised if some of them were.

I can't take those people anywhere.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 12:55 am
echi,

So the real problem here is that there are those that just don't want it to be taught in a science class?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 12:59 am
Momma Angel wrote:
echi,

So the real problem here is that there are those that just don't want it to be taught in a science class?


It's not science Momma because it doesn't use the scientific method. It is philosophy which is about belief systems.

The difference is this.

I believe something but I can't show you any reason for it that you can duplicate.

I observed something and this is what you can do to get the exact same results I got and anyone who is skeptical will get the same results.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 01:01 am
parados Wrote:

Quote:
Every theory you have presented has flaws because SCIENTISTS have pointed out those flaws. When a theory no longer has factual inconsistencies then it becomes the prevailing theory until a new theory fits the facts better.


But parados, you have said that scientists are infallible because they are men. So, how can you be absolutely sure that the theories presented have flaws? Couldn't the flaw be in the scientists pointing?
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 01:01 am
"Attacking" wasn't my word. But I have seen on tv and the net some nearly hostile exchanges between the two camps. I just don't understand the motivation for it. It's as if each believes the other is encroaching on their territory, and I fail to see how that is possible (aside from asserting that ID is science).
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 01:02 am
Dang it! Couldn't edit it.

I meant you have already said scientists are fallible.....
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 01:05 am
Momma...

That is my only concern. Yes.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 01:07 am
echi,

So, if it were to be taught under the label of Philosophy, you would be okay with it?

How about you parados?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 01:07 am
That'd be fine with me.
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 01:08 am
Fine. Absolutely.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 01:10 am
So, it's all about the labeling and not the product itself?
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 01:11 am
Momma Angel wrote:
So, it's all about the labeling and not the product itself?

ID is not a product of science. That's the thing.
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
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/12/2019 at 07:44:45