I’ll let the author speak for herself:
I can see how an ID course might worm its way into some backwater institution like Pigfucker U out in Yeehaw, Alberta… but U of T?!? What are they thinking?!
I’ll let the author speak for herself:
I can see how an ID course might worm its way into some backwater institution like Pigfucker U out in Yeehaw, Alberta… but U of T?!? What are they thinking?!
Well, I can only speak for myself, Louise & Jo, but I’m not an a-theist (the concept of which is ludicrous, considering the Greek root of the word), though I am an a-deist. But I could be wrong. After all, I’ve been wrong before. I remember once in ’64…
Science and religion are not fundamentally incompatible, indeed, they are fundamentally orthogonal. They operate in different parts of the brain. Carl Sagan noted that: “There is no necessary conflict between science and religion. On one level, they share similar and consonant goals, and each needs the other”.
In his Regensburg Lecture, Pope Benedict noted that: “Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought: to philosophy and theology”.
Personally, I think there’s only one axiom, existence exists. After that, you play the hand your dealt. Yet I think that Intelligent Design is less likely than random equilibrium-seeking self-organization (on the grand semiotic scale), though it my just be that that makes more sense to me. Others find that unsatisfactory, and so they see things other ways.
Those aren’t problems. The problem is when people mix them up. Look, the science stuff operates at the epistemological level, and the religion stuff operates at the theological level, and from the human experience, they both affect metaphysics.
To deny it is just to be belligerent.
Whoops, the smelly old hippie is a she…’couldn’t tell by the photo…’looked like a guy…
A few thoughts of my own on this: if evolution stands up as a theory for our existence, then, as a Christian, I’d be quite comfortable: IMO, if it’s true, it’s God’s plan and so OK with me. The problem, it seems to me, however, is that the theory of evolution, like global warming, has huge gaps in it. Neither is proven, though both are altars at which many worship.
I’ve gone to Denyse O’Leary’s website. She says: “David Warren of the Ottawa Citizen is another Canadian journalist who, having travelled and read widely, is skeptical of Darwinism. I sometimes publish some of his musings on the subject, often in correspondence with other thoughtful people:
“Warren, a Catholic, quotes George Sim Johnston, ‘Did Darwin Get It Right? Catholics & the Theory of Evolution’, Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 1998, pp. 22-24.”
David Warren says:
“Now, it may be argued that Darwin’s hostility toward Christianity is beside the point. Shouldn’t a scientific theory be judged on its own merits, rather than on the motives and psychology of its progenitor? Yes, of course – if the theory is truly scientific and confirmed by empirical observation. Isaac Newton was as strange as they come; as John Maynard Keynes pointed out, Newton’s private philosophical notebooks make one think of an ancient Babylonian magician. But Newton’s scientific theories were rigorously formulated. They can be tested and shown to be true for most of material reality. But an ideology dressed up as science is a different matter. Theories like Darwinism, Marxism, and Freudianism have an explanation for everything (natural selection, economic repression, the unconscious) and so finally explain very little; they are elastic and vague enough to absorb almost any contradiction; when they run into falsifying data, they simply mutate. And since these theories began, consciously or not, as highly skewed readings of the available evidence, the biographies of their founders are very much to the point.
“It is the job of a scientist to explain things without reference to a Creator. Great scientists like Gregor Mendel, who deciphered the genetic basis of heredity, operate this way, and when evaluating Mendel’s work, we don’t need to know what he thought about God. His rigorous mathematical analysis of his breeding experiments with peas can be tested and verified on its own terms. Mendel happened to be an Augustinian monk, but it makes no difference. A Christian physicist or biologist who runs into an intractable problem is not obliged to throw up his arms and say, “Well, God did it that way.” Rather, he waits patiently for a natural explanation. If such is not forthcoming, he admits a scientific mystery and humbly hands over his data to philosophers and theologians, who may then talk about design and creation.
“At the same time, a scientist who takes the (often covert) position, that because there is no God, any puzzling phenomenon can in principle be explained entirely by material causes is also out of bounds. As is the case with a Christian physicist who solves any mystery in nature by simply positing divine intervention, scientists who adopt this strategy are practicing bad philosophy rather than sound science. Many Darwinists take the position that because other material explanations (for example, Lamarkism; the inheritance of acquired characteristics) of evolution are false, Darwin’s must be true. But they can only do this if they rule out of court nonmaterial first causes. As scientists, they are not qualified to do this. Science, which deals only with physical reality, can have nothing to say about what, if anything, is outside that reality.
“…Twenty years before the publication of the Origin, Darwin was a convinced materialist who wished to rid nature of a Creator. In other words, his agenda was not strictly scientific; it was metaphysical – or, we might say, counter-metaphysical. Darwin’s materialism was antecedent to, and not a result of, his scientific work. Even so, his philosophical biases would not be an issue if his theorizing had, like Mendel’s or Pasteur’s, been limited to secondary and proximate causes. But Darwin was stalking the First Cause. It was, he confessed in a letter, like committing “murder.” And this agenda must be taken into account when judging the argument of the Origin, because virtually every chapter of that book contains hidden and unwarranted philosophical assumptions.”
O’Leary: “Warren also draws my attention to Governor Huckabee fielding a line drive from Darwinists.
“Quoting a friend on the ‘random’ part of ‘random mutations’, he notes”:
“Huxley in his presentation of Darwin makes a very critical point. He says that ‘random’ means a mutation in the offspring that we observers could not have predicted from looking at the parents. In short, it means ‘unexpected’ and ‘surprising,’ and it is defined purely and strictly in respect of human observers. Huxley’s definition, in other words, has zero metaphysical or theological implications. From the mere fact that we human observers cannot predict an event, it is absurd to conclude that the event does not follow a regular pattern. Early human beings could not predict eclipses–so they appeared to happen at random. Yet this did not mean that eclipses did not follow a regular and predictable pattern. For Huxley, ‘random’ simply referred to the limits of our knowledge; it did not mean that the course of evolution was itself random. The course of evolution could be the unfolding of an intelligent design or it could the result of a cosmic law of progress.
“It is simply bad logic to jump from the Darwin/Huxley concept of random to conclusion that the process of evolution is itself random. People today forget the fact that those who embraced Darwin’s theory in the 19th century saw it as scientific proof that progress was built into the universe–after all, if evolution led from microbes to Michelangelo, then who could possibly fail to see that the universe was constantly progressing, and not simply drifting randomly and without direction.”
Denyse O’Leary has also co-authored a very recent book called, “The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist’s case for the existence of the soul”. The evolution-as-fact literature, written by Darwin acolytes is everywhere. That doesn’t mean it’s right. Healthy scepticism is a good thing. (How come that’s OK, apparently, for everyone except those who question Darwinism?) But that means being INFORMED. Sceptics of ID should actually be pleased that the U of T is willing to allow more than one card on the table: isn’t that in keeping with valid inquiry and scientific method?
I find the virulent anti-Christian sentiments of the blog quoted at the top of this thread—though I’m fully in favour of Kate exposing us to such bigoted bilge: it’s good to know what one’s opponents are thinking—and in some of the intolerant and bigoted comments here most disturbing. Narrow minded, nasty, insulting comments from the “anti-religionists”—altogether failing to discern the faith required to fall whole hog for Darwinism—are unwelcome and undignified, and tell far more about the pathologies of the writers than the mindset of those with whom they apparently disagree. If the Darwinist acolytes’ zeal were not religious in nature—I BELIEVE it to be true—why are they so hostile to another theory?
A lot of you people need to do your homework. Here is a good place to start.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
I’d like to know why evolution has stopped. Where are all the creatures crawling from the swamps? Where are the hundreds of thousands of living transitions as these creatures painfully adapt to life on land?
If evolution were true there would be living proof, including the hundreds of thousands of transitions.
If they’re honest, Lookout, they’re not so hostile. To say one doesn’t believe in belief would be a tenuous limb to go out on indeed. We can’t even prove F=ma. We’ve just never found a single example where it doesn’t work. As an exercise, apply that metric to the topic at hand. Chaotic equilibrium-seaking “it is the way it is because that’s the way it is” scores very high on that measure – it works. Intelligent design, not so much. After all, what’s intelligent about draining the sinuses over the cake-hole, and why isn’t my bladder four times bigger? That would be an optimal design. And prehensile tails. Why don’t humans have prehensile tails? Another major design error.
The way I see it, as soon as you introduce a metaphysical design channel, you’ve introduced a source of error, and existence doesn’t do errors.
Jon the closet Liberal says: “People like me sit on CPC boards of directors.”
Ooooooooh, you sit on a committee!
Tell us more about your brilliant plan to fight the Christians in Ontario by raising the provincial sales tax to 10%.
Tell us more about your brilliant plan to follow in the footsteps of Mao, Lenin, Pot and others by outlawing religion.
Tell us more about your brilliant plan to have a birthrate so low Charles Darwin would mock you and tell you you deserve to become extinct.
What brilliance! Truly a roadmap for the future.
If she is a proud product of U of T then her declarations give us a better insight into the quality of it’s grads than this trifle that has set her off.
I suppose it’s comforting for her to refer to herself as a middle aged hippie rather than a petrified adolescent. Have a look at her favourite music. Hippies have always wrapped their self absorption in a cloak of moral superiority and altruism. At 53 she’s pushing it to call herself a hippy. She was only a 13 year old girl during The Summer of Love. Maybe she’s one of those dreaded Neo-Hippies. Or maybe she just follows a routine of puffing her lungs up with Kitsilano brain enhancer and dinning on those wee Island mushrooms.
No doubt “smelly old hippie” lives off money she receives from EI paid into by Albertans. Liberalism truly is a mental condition.
Lookout, I both agree and disagree withyour first paragraph, specifically this part:
“if it’s true, it’s God’s plan and so OK with me”
My conception of god is not a being with anthropomophic qualities, therefore, it (whatever it is) does not “plan”. I do not and cannot believe in a force that interferes in the daily affairs of humans on earth or any other planet, for that matter. But I do believe that the mechanisms of evolution do not disprove the possibility of some sort of creative force behind it all.
As an aside, contrary to your assertion, the mechanisms of evolution are so well understood and have such a vast array of “proofs” accumulated via the scientific method over a period of 150 years, that to deny it is utter foolishness that reflects badly on those who do.
The only reason the evolution thing is called a theory is because the world of science, by its very foundational principles, must always remain skeptical and alway remain open to new evidence and reinterpretion, so no theory can ever be arrogantly declared as a “fact”, even though 99.9999999999999999 ad infinitum percent of scientists believe it to be so nailed down, it might as well be stated as fact. This, by the way, was one of my favorite subjects in university and I have continued to read books on the subject ever since I got my first undergrad degree, so I think I know what I’m talking about.
Anyway, to say that the theory of evolution is like the theory of global warming is a proposterous exaggeration. The theory of global warming is very, very new, compared to the theory of evolution. Give science 150 years and they will have nailed down the phenonenon a whole lot better than they currently have. At least now, the strangle hold by those who politicized the science of global warming is starting to be pried apart, and that is a good thing. Now, if only the same thing would happen with the creationists.
Good for UofT! Why not present ID as part of their science course? It is fast becoming a well known theory on mankinds origins. Why not present both sides of the argument? If mainstream evolutionary theories are as proven and rock-solid as many would ascribe then ID theory would quickly fall apart and only strengthen those who believe in evolution.
Personally, believing in random chance and rocks to man evolution poses alot of questions to me. Such as, where did the rocks come from? I have yet to have someone explain to me where the first primordial slime or big bang gases came from.
Everything man does on earth that has function and usefulness is a product of careful planning and orgainizex thought. Everything from toasters to cars are the product of mans intelligence and dont just happen. When there is a lack of intelligence and design things fall apart and become less organized.
Who designed the Creator??
Who raised my taxes?
Atheists. Atheists raised my taxes because they care more about fighting Christians than cutting taxes. Closet Liberals, the lot of them.
vitruvius – I’ll second and third your comment that the U of Alberta is superior to the U of T – and I’m a U of T grad.
But, U of Alberta, in my view, encourages quality innovation, thorough research and exploration, debate and questioning – in a manner that the U of T doesn’t. The U of T has become more ‘hidebound’ and trapped in old fiefdoms.
joe – ‘theory’ doesn’t mean ‘virtual’ or imaginary. It means the analytic component of a hypothesis, which is then empirically supported by material evidence. You cannot just operate with only the material ‘particulars’; you need a theory, an analytic ‘map’ that correlates and links those particular facts.
And as pointed out, Darwinism never had any application to human societies.
I agree that ID (understood as design by an intentional metaphysical agent) is akin to AGW, the flat earth society, and various utopianisms. That is – fallacious but emotionally attractive. I think these views should be explored in universities. Universities, as pointed out, aren’t for promulgating truth but for questioning conclusions. It is the act of questioning that gradually leads us to valid conclusions.
I’m an atheist; that doesn’t mean that I reject universal morality. Sheesh – the views that some of you have of atheists – akin to The Devil. Please wait for Hallowe’en. Actually, Richard Ball, most theories, including ID, are ‘rife with inconsistencies and improbabilities’.
Dave in pa – the statistical question is wrong. The key phrase is ‘just happen’ which implies ungrounded, uninformed biological processes. Evolution and the formation of organic entities aren’t processes of ‘just happening’ but are acts of ‘complex adaptive systems’ (CAS) that operate by processes of gathering, using and moulding information. And, a CAS doesn’t require a metaphysical agent (ID); it manages all by itself.
Pope Benedict’s Regensburg lecture, is indeed, Vitruvius – excellent. We need both faith and reason (actually, very Aristotelian)..
By the way, certainly accept evolution, but not the reductionist neoDarwinism, which is based around random mutation and natural selection. Darwin’s original theory wasn’t as mechanical and reductionist as neodarwinism. But, for a species that is ‘out of sync’ with its envt and needs to adapt – to rely on a random mutation to come up with a solution is like me waiting for the lottery to pay my bills. (sigh).
No, our planet operates as a CAS, and its properties exist in a ‘borderline’ state between instability and stability….A bit much to discuss here..
Actually, ol hoss, evolution hasn’t stopped; biologists are finding new adaptations and new species all the time. Check out the journal Science. Google ‘new species’. Google ‘speciation’.
I think more important here is that this JJ is no different that many people and other provincial governments in this country.
Look at Saskatchewan NDP ads, saying they don’t want a life style like Alberta; so elect us again. Sort of the Federal Libs saying (or really coveting the American way of life) by saying the CPP are promoting an American way of life…
It all boils down to envy… these people can’t accept that Albertan’s worked very hard to eliminate their public debt (provincial anyway); by making hard economic choices. Now with no interest payments on a huge and untenable public debt; plus the resource revenues; everyone in Canada want’s a piece of the pie without earning the right!
Shades of PET raping the west in the early 80’s by confiscating resource revenues to fund their deficit spending.
Anyway… I guess this person like many others use derision of other people, provinces or nations as some sort of justification to support their own uninformed opinions…
One good thing though… we are all still allowed to do this and I hope that doesn’t change; nor the right for others to publically oppose that view.
As Aristotle said, ET, “Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.”
ol hoss, no one, and I mean NO ONE in the scientific community or even people like me who are just interested in the subject believes evolution has stopped. There are numerous examples of the process available for study right now in many parts of the world. Go down to your library and get a few good books for the layman explaining the science. I think on the greatest difficulties people have with this field of science is grasping the great expanse of time of the earth’s history. It’s hard to comprehend the passage of 4.5 billion years, but that’s the kind of time frame in which the process of the beginning of life and it’s continual evolution has to be understood.
Um Jon do you really think that you know me that well as to say that I know nothing about evolution? My specialty is in the hard sciences Math and Physics I admit. However as a person raised in a ‘scientific’ culture fully immersed in Darwinian biology I did actually take some time to read a good number of biologists explaining the theory of evolution. Having read them I determined that like many ivory tower residents they had no clue about the real world and how it worked. The statistical probability of the random developement of DNA goes way beyong the 6 billion years we think this universe has existed. Of course having said that there comes the problem of LIFE itself. I can take the DNA of a dead dog and do whatever I want to it but it won’t come back to life.
Who is it who said “life is more than a bunch of amino acids bumping together”. If you are as scientific as you claim to be then it is time you did a few experiments of your own that you too might gain in knowledge and wisdom. Right now all I see coming from you is atheistic hatred backed up by science someone else gave you and you have accepted uncritically.
It’s interesting that it’s those who live closest to nature who, in the main, understand all that is has been created. Even the animals understand.
An example is the Asian tsunami. The animals knew it was coming and moved. Nature speaks, but those who rely solely on their own, or others, reasoning are deaf. Man’s reasoning will get you dead. Here and the hereafter.
Any bets as to Unrepentant Old Hippie’s response to a U of T course on the Koran, or Wahabism, or comparative religion, or Gaia worship, or Zen, or…
The core of a true bigot is that they don’t see their own bigotry for what it is.
Oh, and by the way, I think Intelligent Design is complete crap. Theories that have no heuristic or predictive value aren’t much use, you ask me.
A thread is officially killed when Andrew starts blaming a section of Canada for his problems.
Yes, Andrew: Jon, an engineer, atheist, and a CPC member from British Columbia is responsible for the Ontario PC loss in the last election. Happy now?
A set size of 4.5 billion? Peanuts. Here’s a question for you: how many RNA transcriptions have there been in the history of the planet? Then throw in a little of ET’s CAS stuff. Now we’re havin’ fun.
Yukon says “Whaaaa! That’s raaaaaaacist!”
This thread was supposed to be about mocking a leftist for her bigotry, not an attack on Christians.
But since we’re on the subject tell me more about your brilliant plan to outlaw religion, Yukon Gold. Tell me again how raising the PST 2% will aid your jihad against Christians. Tell me again how your abortion society birthrate would be mocked by Charles Darwin. Please, enlighten me.
No, this thread is killed when people pay too much attention to Andrew.
“Somehow you’ve managed to assume that some hippie from Vancouver Island represents the view of the liberal-left”
Pretty much…if it quacks like a duck….
Stick around and live a while Jon, you will dicover that Liberalsim is a mental disorder and that socialism is greed disguised as morality….and yes it’s easy to recognise someone who subscribes to these simplistic errant lib-left dogmas.
Live and learn…live and learn.
There is a problem when society , as it seems to be doing now, looks to science to provide the answers for everything. It cannot. Science is limited in its methodology. Scientific method is purposeful but not appropriate for every type of enquiry. Science cannot, by itself answer all the mysteries of man’s existence and being. There is more to man than what he can observe.
As a Christian, I do not find there to be a conflict between science and faith. God is ‘reason’able.
Actually, ol hoss, evolution hasn’t stopped; biologists are finding new adaptations and new species all the time.
That’s interesting. Where are the hundreds of thousands of living transitions that lead up to all these “new species”? Stopped, just like I said.
No, liberalism is not a mental disorder, don’t be silly.
vitfalsius says: “No, this thread is killed when people pay too much attention to Andrew.”
There you go again, attacking a conservative when every opportunity exists to spank a young punk atheist who really deserves it. Way to mark yourself as a closet Liberal, Liberal.
I asked you atheist freaks 3 simple questions and I demand an answer, now:
-Tell us more about your brilliant plan to fight the Christians in Ontario by raising the provincial sales tax to 10%.
-Tell us more about your brilliant plan to follow in the footsteps of Mao, Lenin, Pot and others by outlawing religion.
-Tell us more about your brilliant plan to have a birthrate so low Charles Darwin would mock you and tell you you deserve to become extinct.
Speak now, or admit you are part of a death cult.
Posted by: Vitruvius at October 20, 2007 11:10 AM
“what’s intelligent about draining the sinuses over the cake-hole…”
Efficiency. Our throat area is used for both eating and breathing. Having the mouth and nose adjacent provides a redundancy for breathing without which many of us would now be dead. The processors of air and food, our lungs and stomach are marvellous in their workings, as are all the systems that comprise the human body. There is zero chance that all of this “just happened”.
That’s one argument, Richard (though I still think the nose should go under the mouth). Yet the other argument is that the only way that is could all have happened is that it just happened. Either way, it’s been a long day for me folks (well, technically I’ve been working night shift), so I wish you all well, and leave you with the words of Indira Gandhi, who said: “There are two kinds of people, those who do the work and those who take the credit. Try to be in the first group; there is less competition there.”
The trouble with the opening argument for ID is that it contains buried question-begging. The standard opener for the ID proponent is usually, “it’s obvious that there’s design in the universe; just look around and see.” This begs the question: “if an organism that did not interpret the external world as ordered sprung up, how long would it last?”
Further to previous comment, a link from a reputable science/philosophy professor and theologian. The Pope.
http://www.zenit.org/article-20238?l=english
At least the “Alberta backwater” has a culture where vulgar obnoxious people and pathalogical arrogance are shunned…
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux
Really? I thought you sent them to Ottawa as MPs.
I have not been able to force myself to buy into the theory that there is an almighty God looking out for me etc.
However, I have no problem with the fact that most of the world does. I will respect their views and hope they will respect mine.
The Old Unrepentant Hippie women who is dissing those who wish to study the “God as supernatural Engineer of the universe” is a first class hypocrite.
While dissing those who believe in the supernatural or the heavenly, or magic she proudly list in her personal provile that she her astrological sign is Virgo and her Zodiac year is Horse.
Check it out here if you wish.
If ever there was an imaginary belief system, it is Astrology.
She is actually on Vancouver Island where I also live. This is a place there are many old hippies hiding out from reality.
I cannot dis this woman any further since she listed Steely Dan as her first music favorite then Pulp fiction and Reservoir Dogs as her top two fave movies. On those counts alone I like her. Plus we both obviously don’t buy the God thingy.
Peace!
I have not been able to force myself to buy into the theory that there is an almighty God looking out for me etc.
You are probably right.
Proverbs 8:17 I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me.
I sent her a respectful email about her intolerance.
unrepentantoldhippie@yahoo.ca
(I especially liked the “This Flag isn’t white” logo on the right…)
“If ever there was an imaginary belief system, it is Astrology.”
Every friggin’ Canadian woman I meet believes in astrology. But Christianity is, to them, stupid. This is not logical.
the fossil record does not have any evidence of one species evolving out of another – in fact the fossil record shows exactly the opposite. During the Cambrian period, some 530 million years ago there is a great diversification of life and the sudden appearance of animals. Before that there were only single celled organisms. There is no evidence of evolution from amoeba to frog to alligator etc.
Yes there is plenty of evidence of micro-evolution (changes within species) but there is actually no evidence of macro evolution. When the journal Science or Nature publish that a new species has been “found” it is simply that no one had seen it before, not that it had recently evolved.
As a molecular biologist I would have to say that belief in evolution (one species evolving out of another) is simply that – a belief. It neatly explains the big questions (how did we get here, what is the meaning of life, etc) for secularists and atheists. It is not based on reason or fact because as I stated above there is no fossil evidence of it occuring.
(Richard Ball and Joe, I appreciated your posts; have not had time to read all posts)
Andrew appears to be quite logical. I think Canada needs more people like Andrew. I notice how nobody ever seriously disputes what he says, they just blurt out “you’re mental!” or “you’re stupid!”.
I think we’re pretty lucky to have The Only Person In The History Of The Internet To Defeat Atheists In Debate comment here.
Yep, Science definitely is the winner in explaining the origins of humans. It is really hard to successfully debate the ID side against evolution. ID does belong in university as a tool for critical thinking and debate.
I think that believing in a greater being is important to many of us mere mortals though. Spirituality gives many a feeling of comfort and purpose beyond todays rampant materialism and self-centered existence . Formal religious institutions provide tradition,companionship, charity and some very good rules to live by. Hardly deserving of the condescension or outright hatred it so often receives by our enlightened progressives and media.
When bloggers like the obvious Christian-o-phobe highlighted in this post goes on a an intolerant rant I find it humorous. Why? Because often these are the same people that believe in junk science and tabloid experts unconditionally – almost religiously. They fail to use their own common sense and observations to evaluate the flavor of the day “science” that we are bombarded with on a daily basis.
In fact, I have become as skeptical with modern science as I am of fire and brimstone TV evangelists. Both seem to be motivated more by personal economic well being than truth.
Just to add to my little riff above, “liberalism” as we define it today is crap in exactly the same way intelligent design and astrology are crap.
You can demonstrate that none of these none of these theoretical structures tell you anything useful about the real world, nor do they allow you to ask useful questions.
Such things are worth a university course, as the study of them reveals their flaws and instructs the young on the dangers of sloppy thinking.
Belief in Christianity does not require one to swallow the steaming pile that ID is, nor does it require the rejection of science as a whole or evolution in particular. Mostly because the truth about the world is we don’t understand how it works. Anybody who says they’ve got it all figured out is either a charlatan or they haven’t done the math right.
A small example from my area of study: there is currently no -complete- understanding of what makes muscles contract. They’ve got pretty far with it, but once you get down to the molecular level there’s a “Here Be Dragons” sign where nobody knows how it works. Pardon me if I find protestations of “there’s no way this could arise randomly!” a bit premature.
Yep, Science definitely is the winner in explaining the origins of humans.
In order to have won, one must have won something.
What tangible thing, in this regard (the origin of humans), has science “won”?
Andrew – would you happen to be a Christian? Just trying to establish the basis for dialogue here…
Pardon me if I find protestations of “there’s no way this could arise randomly!” a bit premature.
Hurry up. You’ve only got until you die to figure it out.
“What tangible thing, in this regard (the origin of humans), has science “won”?”
A marginal tax rate exceeding 50% for people making $30,000 a year so we can defeat teh xtians!!!!11
Tenny: No, I am not a Christian, or an atheist. I’m also faaaaaaaar too clever to have form 🙂
To give you an idea of where I am coming from, though, I live in Ontario, where fearmongering against Christians just propelled McGuinty to re-election and an imminent 2% PST hike. So I think it’s time to turn the tables and demand some answers from this death cult called atheism which acts as a collusive unit to raise my taxes, starting with their propensity for mass murder and aborting their offspring.
pretty obvious sock puppet, aka, andrew, your hubris defines you as a Cloud Dweller. That’s someone who is far removed from facts and reason.
The fact that you DEMAND answers is arrogant. Your three ‘questions’ or rather, assertions, are completely unfounded and illogical. That is, you can’t correlate ‘atheists’ with ‘fighting Christianity’ and sales tax raise to 10%’. There is no factual link. There is no correlation between atheism and outlawing of religion in Ontario/Canada (huh? where? when?); no correlation between atheism and low birthrate’.
You need a course in basic logic – and some counselling to deal with your arrogance and egoism.
ex-liberal, if you are a molecular biologist, I’d think that you would be a proponent of gradual evolution (neodarwinism) and find it strange that you don’t comment on the various modes of speciation (allopatric, etc).
I disagree that the appearance of a new species can be defined as only that ‘we’ were ignorant of it before.
Again, a CAS, which is what I define both abiotic and biotic systems as, is the source of adaptation and speciation (evolution).
phantom – the theory that I work on, using CAS, is that an organism will informationally interact with its envt, sense that adaptation is required, and, self-organize several hypothetical solutions to this need. This is called ‘Strong Anticipation’. The one that the organism actually chooses may be random, but, any one of these several hypothetical solutions would have worked.
A marginal tax rate exceeding 50% for people making $30,000 a year so we can defeat teh xtians!!!!
One of the hazards of having a “king” over you. The Israelites wanted a king over them, like the heathen. God, while granting that request, listed the things a king would take. God only asks for 10% to be freely given. Net, not gross. You can read all about it in 1 Samuel 8.
Closet Liberal ET tells the following outrageous lie: “no correlation between atheism and low birthrate'”
Factually inaccurate. Since my time is more valuable than yours you will provide ample data supporting your fake claim which is proven false by extremely googlable data. I’ve posted relevant data to prove you wrong at this very website repeatedly and have no obligation to prove you wrong again. In summary, way to not defend your beliefs, lefty.
It gives us our morals —- such as the residential schools ??
An example ? Dinosaurs to birds. Primates to us.