Evolution Debate ...

[peapod]

Pasta man, you ain't my daddy, I already got one... and if I choose to post the entire essay, I will :? or sometimes I provide a link. Since the TRUTH about what fundies are doing happens to mean something to me, and since alot of this has to do with ego... :roll: and alot of things are not read, I post the entire story. If one person reads it and sees the truth, my work is done. As for copyright...well I don't think that it matters to this particular group, because getting the message out is more important to them...but I will check.
Now as I stated before...I am not interested in your lectures.

 

[pastafarian]

Well, seeing as how Her Highness is too busy whining about how other poster's avatars don't suit her or how she doesn't "need" to see cogent rebuttals of her prejudices, I'll give Her the lack of attention She so richly deserves. 8)

 

[peapod]

uh huh...thank you, now you can go round the narcissist bush with someone else 8)

 

[no1important]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.

Link

Does this guy ever shut up?

 

[Reverend Blair]

I think it's safe to say that it would be an interesting scientific experiment to crucify Pat Robertson and see if he could resurrect himself within three days. If not, we could use his rotting carcass to study the decompostion process.

 

[GL Schmitt]

. . . Pat Robertson . . .warned them Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.. . .

Since everyone who heard his threat had to be listening to Pat Robertson, one could say that one form of disaster had already struck.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

. . . Pat Robertson . . .warned them Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.. . .

Since everyone who heard his threat had to be listening to Pat Robertson, one could say that one form of disaster had already struck.

too funny. :lol: Robertson and his ilk can continue to make safe predictions and the sheeple just gobble it up.... as mystical.

(fortune telling at it's worst)

sheesh. :roll:

 

[Nascar_James]

Some good words from Pope Benedict XVI ...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175362,00.html

FOXNews:

Pope Cites World's 'Intelligent Project'
Friday, November 11, 2005

VATICAN CITY — Pope Benedict XVI has waded into the evolution debate in the United States, saying the universe was made by an "intelligent project" and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order.

Benedict made the off-the-cuff comments during his general audience Wednesday. The Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, published the full text of his remarks in its Thursday editions.

Benedict focused his reflections for the audience on scriptural readings that said God's love was seen in the "marvels of creation."

He quoted St. Basil the Great, a fourth century saint, as saying some people, "fooled by the atheism that they carry inside of them, imagine a universe free of direction and order, as if at the mercy of chance."

"How many of these people are there today? These people, fooled by atheism, believe and try to demonstrate that it's scientific to think that everything is free of direction and order," he said.

"With the sacred Scripture, the Lord awakens the reason that sleeps and tells us: In the beginning, there was the creative word. In the beginning, the creative word — this word that created everything and created this intelligent project that is the cosmos — is also love."

His comments were immediately hailed by advocates of intelligent design, who hold that the universe is so complex it must have been created by a higher power. Proponents of the theory are seeking to get public schools in the United States to teach it as part of the science curriculum.

Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism — a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation — camouflaged in scientific language and does not belong in science curriculum.

Questions about the Vatican's position on evolution were raised in July by Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn.

In a New York Times op-ed piece, Schoenborn seemed to back intelligent design and dismissed a 1996 statement by Pope John Paul II that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis." Schoenborn said the late pope's statement was "rather vague and unimportant."

Schoenborn attended Wednesday's audience. He was seated on the dais behind Benedict in St. Peter's Square, along with other Austrian bishops making a regularly scheduled visit to the Vatican.

 

[no1important]

VATICAN CITY — Pope Benedict XVI has waded into the evolution debate in the United States, saying the universe was made by an "intelligent project" and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order.

Where is Pope Benedict's proof? I do not believe in magic.

 

[Machjo]

Ah, and you know darn well that the Bible is to be taken literally too, right? For instance, When Jesus comes, all eyes shall see him.

Try to explain that one literally! Will it just so happen that He'd come down over BBC headquarters so that it would just so happen that some TV camera would be available right at that instant and it would also just so happen that the whole world just happenned to be really bored that day and so would be sitting in front of the boob tube? Or maybe the earth is flat, and he'd come down so fast we'd all hear a sonic boom and all look up? And right at that moment God would give us all sight so sharp we'd all see him?

Some of us believe the Bible is true, some don't. That's another matter. But anyone with an education can figure out that, at the very least, if it is indeed true, it's certainly not to be taken so literally. Same goes for evolution. Come on, now! And a literal snake literally spoke to Adam? Who can truly believe that so literally?

While I believe that evolution was guided by God, I also believe that science must remain science (i.e., it examines what can be proven in the physical world, and then base theories on that). At the moment (and perhaps never) science can neither proove nor disproove scientifically whether there is an intelligent designer guiding the direction of our evolution; we can only confirm that we have indeed evolved, but whetehr by chance or design, that is still scientifically unprovable for now). Thus intelligent design ought to stay out of the science class for now. If we wish, we could perhaps include it in world religions classes, but certainly not science class for now. Just my thoughts.

 

[zenfisher]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1501AP_Ice_Worms.html

Now if this isn't adaption.....

 

[Reverend Blair]

Ah, and you know darn well that the Bible is to be taken literally too, right? For instance, When Jesus comes, all eyes shall see him.

Try to explain that one literally!

Maybe he's returning as a porn star. :lol:

Now if this isn't adaption.....

That's cool.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Re: RE: Evolution Debate ...

Same goes for evolution.

Evolution is not to be taken literally? How would you suggest we take it then? As metaphor? Allegory? Evolution's a scientific theory, one of the best-attested around, there's no way to take it except literally. Actually, to be pedantically correct, evolution's an observed fact as certain as the fact that the earth orbits the sun, the theory's about the mechanisms of it.

At the moment (and perhaps never) science can neither proove nor disproove scientifically whether there is an intelligent designer guiding the direction of our evolution; we can only confirm that we have indeed evolved, but whetehr by chance or design, that is still scientifically unprovable for now).

Chance and design are not the only options, that's the false dichotomy at the heart of the logical errors in intelligent design. There's another process going on called natural selection, which operates by preserving variations that work and eliminating those that don't. There are other processes too--sexual selection seems to be important in many species as well, for instance--but natural selection's the dominant one.

Science will never be able to prove or disprove the presence of an intelligent designer, it's a metaphysical claim that by its nature is not demonstrable either way. If there were such a being, for example, what possible test could prove it? The designer could presumably alter the outcome of any test on a whim in ways that we can't possibly control for. No definitive test is possible. The god hypothesis is neither necessary nor useful to science; it leads nowhere.

 

[Jo Canadian]

 

[Machjo]

Re: RE: Evolution Debate ...

Same goes for evolution.

Evolution is not to be taken literally? How would you suggest we take it then? As metaphor? Allegory? Evolution's a scientific theory, one of the best-attested around, there's no way to take it except literally. Actually, to be pedantically correct, evolution's an observed fact as certain as the fact that the earth orbits the sun, the theory's about the mechanisms of it.

Sorry, I guess I was typing too quickly. I meant that the bible, not evolution, should be taken not so literally. Evolution is scientific, so certainly it ought to be taken in technical and not allegorical terms.

At the moment (and perhaps never) science can neither proove nor disproove scientifically whether there is an intelligent designer guiding the direction of our evolution; we can only confirm that we have indeed evolved, but whetehr by chance or design, that is still scientifically unprovable for now).

Chance and design are not the only options, that's the false dichotomy at the heart of the logical errors in intelligent design. There's another process going on called natural selection, which operates by preserving variations that work and eliminating those that don't. There are other processes too--sexual selection seems to be important in many species as well, for instance--but natural selection's the dominant one. [/quote]

Even natural selection could theoretically be guided in that God could have decided for man to evolve to become the way we are now, even if it is through natural selection. But again, sinse we could only come up with scientific evidence for natural selection, but not for whether or not there is an intelligent designer guiding this natural selection, it would thus be something which ought to remain out of the classroom. That would be a religious, not scientific issue.

[/quote]Science will never be able to prove or disprove the presence of an intelligent designer, it's a metaphysical claim that by its nature is not demonstrable either way. If there were such a being, for example, what possible test could prove it? The designer could presumably alter the outcome of any test on a whim in ways that we can't possibly control for. No definitive test is possible. The god hypothesis is neither necessary nor useful to science; it leads nowhere.[/quote]

I personally agree with the statement that God could never be proven scientifically. I guess you could say that, while I do believe in a creator, I also believe in sciense, and as such do believe that science ought to remain sciense, and religion religion, with the two being tought in separate classes. I'm not at all challenging Darwin. But I am challenging the following:

1)That faith and science are incompatible.

2) Religious theories such as creationism in the literal biblical sense of the word (which has already been scientifically disproven) and ID (assuming I understand this theory correctly in that it in no way attacks Darwin's theories but merely adds a religious interpretation of them by suggesting that God guided evolution, even if through natural selection in ways which science cannot prove, God playing a role behind the scenes if you will), which can be neither proven nor disproven scientifically, ought to remain out of the science classroom. And quite honestly, even in the religious classroom, we should only teach what the different religious traditions' sacred texts teach without trying to impose a particular interpretation thereof.

Now if I'm wrong about ID, and that it does in fact attack the Darwinian theory of evolution and natural selection, then I guess I'd need to know more about their claims.

 

[Nascar_James]

This is indeed great news. Under the old administration, the Vatican was somewhat neutral on the "intelligent design" debate. Nothing wrong with the old position ... of not taking sides. However, it looks (just as I had suspected) like the new administration has officially taken a position in the "RIGHT" direction. As it should be.

 

[peapod]

Of course its the "right" postion for "you" nascar...Lies, mis-representations, quote mining, not a shred of proof, is right up your alley :roll:

 

[peapod]

"the Vatican was somewhat neutral on the "intelligent design" debate."
They also appear to be "neutral" on dealing with pedophile priests that molest childern, and than abet the PEODOPHILE in trolling for new victims. Perhaps they could endorse childern carrying handguns..that way they could shoot, right there on the spot.

Can you spell...H-Y-P-0-C-R-I-T-E :roll:

 

[pastafarian]

Now if I'm wrong about ID, and that it does in fact attack the Darwinian theory of evolution and natural selection, then I guess I'd need to know more about their claims.

The reason that ID in its current form is incompatible with scientific explanations of biodiversity is that its main "legitimate" proponents, William Dembski and Michael Behe, build their cases on the assumption that there is a hard and-fast dichotomy between design and chance plus selection. They assume that no necessisity can exist for structures more elaborate than a certain (not ever defined) level of complexity. It follows then, that these things can not have resulted from selection pressures (i.e. evolution) so they must have been designed from a pre-existing plan. This "plan" implies the existence of an intelligence actively at work in creating new life forms.

This is a rehashed version of the "God of the Gaps", where automatically, we conclude that anything that current scientific knowledge can't explain is the work of God, or, in other words, magic.

Clearly, this is not suitable for scientific testing.

The claim that God exists, and set in motion the Big Bang, complete with the physical laws that circumscribe all possible events in the natural universe is different for a couple of reasons.

First, everything that is currently accepted in the physical sciences points to the conclusion that scientific reasoning does not, can not apply to pre-Big Bang conditions.

With the exception of some versions of the Anthropic Principle, science has tended to accept the values of the fundamental physical constants as "givens" without worrying too much about why they have the values they do.

Science, while basically sceptical in approach, does accept some things as axiomatic. "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed", E =MxCxC, F=ma, etc.

So, whether these laws came from God or just are, is irrelevant to scientific investigation. The only characteristic of God that a theistic scientist has to accept is that She doesn't micro-manage the natural world.

Atheist scientists know this to be true, because there is no God, so both types of scientist can get on with science, using the same set of assumptions about the natural world, and leave theology to others.

 

[Jo Canadian]