What would government possibly have to fear from Darwinism?
It requires no specific moral standard, nor does it promote any sort of laws. If anything, it devalues life in that it is simply a random collecting of cosmic junk that came together in the right way. Government could pretty much do what they wanted without ever having to answer to any sort of higher standard.
Occam's doesn't say that at all - it just says "The simplest explanation is the best." Both A and B require a base assumption, you'll have to do better than saying that one is preferred (by you, evidently).
The ultimate question is why do you believe what you believe?
1) ID/creationism is inherently religious and thus cannot be taught in public schools.
2) Evolution has no religious background, and is fine to teach in schools.
3) Religion can be easily separated from teaching
My response to these assumptions:
1) ID/creationism does require a base assumption in a higher power. Beyond that, the rest is science based. Find that hard to believe? Probably because you've never bothered to look into the science of it - ie www.creationscience.com
2) Evolution DOES require a base assumption (just like ID/creationism) in either a lack of a higher power or one that guided the process. After that, science is used to prove or disprove later claims. So, you see, evolution and creation are really not very different at all. Its just the concept of 'God' or a higher power that people get scared about. And those who believe in a higher power are certainly not extremists.
3) Its impossible to separate religion/beliefs/assumptions from teaching - wether it comes out explicitly or implicitly. Outlawing ID just narrows the playing field, enabling evolution to get an unfair advantage.
Everyone just needs to calm down and actually take a look at their own base assumptions, which really are not all that different from the guys across the table - let freedom ring, and let ID in the classroom.
Your first mistake is that your presume YOU know what an intelligent designer would do. Who made you a god? Or an all-knowing power that can see both infinite past and present?
Additionally, we often go around thinking we have some idea of perfection - and that if a higher power / intelligent designer did exist, they would have met our idea of this perfect world. This thinking merely confirms how self-absorbed we are - any higher power would certainly not be bound my our limiting thoughts on perfect.
"The origin of life from a pre-biotic environment is a gradual process. There isn't some magical step at which it transitions to life. The pre-biotic systems become more "life-like" (ie. more complex and more biological) over time."
Ah, the god of evolutionists = time. It's ridiculous to assume that given enough time, life can come from non-life. It has never been observed, and there is no evidence that suggests things become more complex over time, rather entropy and decay is the rule. Things tend toward disorder rather than order.
"Are you really arguing that demonstration of organizing mechanisms, confirmation of the presense and action of the mechanisms in the early Earth environment, and congruence of observed events and novel theoretical predictions derived from the action of those mechanisms some how does not constitute a legitimate science or sound theory for the origin of life?"
Yes, I am saying that I think many, many aspects of evolution is flawed, starting with its assertion that life somehow comes from non-life. Even in the few experiements we've seen where organic compounds have been created (though no one knows if this is what the early earth was really like), they were all done by INTELLIGENT scientists, which is a major distiniction given evolutionists maintain it was originally done completely randomly.
I think you have some strong misconceptions regarding life.
"Organic" chemicals and compounds are found all over. But chemicals and compounds do not constitute life, and I would love to see even ONE example of life coming from non-life.
Pasteur did many experiments on spontaneous generation - which was obviously proved false.
Just as gravity has never been observed false, and thus is a law, the same is true for life coming from non-life. It has NEVER happened.
"In addition, I have a question to ask you, why would "God" decide to put Archea that live 4.5 km below the earths surface into existence. Or the Platypus, that one is just a big old puzzle for me."
I fail to see how this is relevant to the matter at hand at all. Why not create those creatures? Why create anything at all? Ultimately to show God's glory.
Regardless of how "favorable" this supposed conditions are, the fact remains -
Life does not come from non-life, and never has.
Its a law of science, and something that evolutionists continue to struggle mightily to overcome.
For those with questions regarding Creation Science, I would recommend http://www.creationscience.com/
I would also recommend Lee Strobel's "The Case for Faith" for the legions of cynical/. visitors I seem to see - there ARE legitimate, real reasons to hold Christianity as a true and personal belief system.
Besides, why exactly is it that you believe in no God (for you atheists). Its ultimately a step of faith, just as is Christianity. What verifiable and objective facts can we see to verify atheism?
-jajawarrior
Slashdot Mirror
Did Microsoft include the paper clip this time? Or the puppy? Or how about the mad scientist guy? They sure were helpful. =P
Will these third-party packages bring back these lovable characters from my childhood?!
What would government possibly have to fear from Darwinism?
It requires no specific moral standard, nor does it promote any sort of laws. If anything, it devalues life in that it is simply a random collecting of cosmic junk that came together in the right way. Government could pretty much do what they wanted without ever having to answer to any sort of higher standard.
The ultimate question is why do you believe what you believe?
The basic assumptions I'm seeing:
1) ID/creationism is inherently religious and thus cannot be taught in public schools. 2) Evolution has no religious background, and is fine to teach in schools. 3) Religion can be easily separated from teaching
My response to these assumptions:
1) ID/creationism does require a base assumption in a higher power. Beyond that, the rest is science based. Find that hard to believe? Probably because you've never bothered to look into the science of it - ie www.creationscience.com
2) Evolution DOES require a base assumption (just like ID/creationism) in either a lack of a higher power or one that guided the process. After that, science is used to prove or disprove later claims. So, you see, evolution and creation are really not very different at all. Its just the concept of 'God' or a higher power that people get scared about. And those who believe in a higher power are certainly not extremists.
3) Its impossible to separate religion/beliefs/assumptions from teaching - wether it comes out explicitly or implicitly. Outlawing ID just narrows the playing field, enabling evolution to get an unfair advantage.
Everyone just needs to calm down and actually take a look at their own base assumptions, which really are not all that different from the guys across the table - let freedom ring, and let ID in the classroom.
-jajawarrior
Your first mistake is that your presume YOU know what an intelligent designer would do. Who made you a god? Or an all-knowing power that can see both infinite past and present? Additionally, we often go around thinking we have some idea of perfection - and that if a higher power / intelligent designer did exist, they would have met our idea of this perfect world. This thinking merely confirms how self-absorbed we are - any higher power would certainly not be bound my our limiting thoughts on perfect.
..and I'm proud to say that we keep things complicated around here! -jajawarrior
Ah, the god of evolutionists = time. It's ridiculous to assume that given enough time, life can come from non-life. It has never been observed, and there is no evidence that suggests things become more complex over time, rather entropy and decay is the rule. Things tend toward disorder rather than order.
"Are you really arguing that demonstration of organizing mechanisms, confirmation of the presense and action of the mechanisms in the early Earth environment, and congruence of observed events and novel theoretical predictions derived from the action of those mechanisms some how does not constitute a legitimate science or sound theory for the origin of life?"
Yes, I am saying that I think many, many aspects of evolution is flawed, starting with its assertion that life somehow comes from non-life. Even in the few experiements we've seen where organic compounds have been created (though no one knows if this is what the early earth was really like), they were all done by INTELLIGENT scientists, which is a major distiniction given evolutionists maintain it was originally done completely randomly.
-jajawarrior
I think you have some strong misconceptions regarding life.
"Organic" chemicals and compounds are found all over. But chemicals and compounds do not constitute life, and I would love to see even ONE example of life coming from non-life.
Pasteur did many experiments on spontaneous generation - which was obviously proved false.
Just as gravity has never been observed false, and thus is a law, the same is true for life coming from non-life. It has NEVER happened.
"In addition, I have a question to ask you, why would "God" decide to put Archea that live 4.5 km below the earths surface into existence. Or the Platypus, that one is just a big old puzzle for me."
I fail to see how this is relevant to the matter at hand at all. Why not create those creatures? Why create anything at all? Ultimately to show God's glory.
-jajawarrior
Regardless of how "favorable" this supposed conditions are, the fact remains - Life does not come from non-life, and never has. Its a law of science, and something that evolutionists continue to struggle mightily to overcome. For those with questions regarding Creation Science, I would recommend http://www.creationscience.com/ I would also recommend Lee Strobel's "The Case for Faith" for the legions of cynical /. visitors I seem to see - there ARE legitimate, real reasons to hold Christianity as a true and personal belief system.
Besides, why exactly is it that you believe in no God (for you atheists). Its ultimately a step of faith, just as is Christianity. What verifiable and objective facts can we see to verify atheism?
-jajawarrior