| Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Dumbing Down Of America, 2 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 12 2006, 11:46 AM (5,657 Views) | |
| cmoehle | May 25 2006, 07:53 PM Post #166 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
But back to the founders of ID. William A. Dembski, The Act of Creation: Bridging Transcendence and Immanence:
|
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 25 2006, 07:58 PM Post #167 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
William A. Dembski. Address to Fellowship Baptist Church, Waco, Texas, March 7, 2004:
(source) |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 25 2006, 08:02 PM Post #168 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
From "The Bible Answer Man" with Hank Hannegraff and Michael Behe talking about Behe's book, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution", aired Monday, March 20, 2000:
(source) |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | May 26 2006, 07:42 AM Post #169 |
![]()
Member
|
You have yet to define "well ordered" in any meaningful way other than as stated by the weak anthropic principle: the universe appears well ordered because we exist and can observe it.
Let me suggest part of the problem MIGHT be you fail to consider what YOU write in the context of the discussion. My "other than the obvious: because it's not evolution" phrase was a response to your:
There is no weighing of the evidence (or not) supporting ID in your statement; there is definite editorializing about "almighty evolution" and "the height of arrogance." Rather than science you wish to bring in "other viewpoints." My Logical Empiricism asks - how do you know these viewpoints "deserve some consideration?" We're talking science classes here and not comparative religion, philosophy or literary criticism where viewpoints have meaning. Science plays by a different set of rules and if ID wants to jump into the sandbox, it needs to play by the same rule book. Now... based on what you wrote and that you haven't offered a scrap of scientific evidence supporting ID - is my conclusion that the only reason you want ID in the classroom because "it is not evolution" so far off the mark? Have a good trip and hope you'll join in even if it's not an HPA. |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 26 2006, 06:49 PM Post #170 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
"My Logical Empiricism asks - how do you know these viewpoints "deserve some consideration?" " And the answer so far has been, well, they might some day "deserve some consideration?" Anything is possible--oh, except design being the result of evolution. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| bikemanb | May 27 2006, 06:30 AM Post #171 |
|
Liberal Conservative
|
Chris, What seems to be the hanging point with most, not all, that view the theory of evolution as some godless, secular, humanist plot is that they believe in the literal seven twenty-four hour day creation story. There is no way to reconile the fossil record with 7/24 and thus anthing that disagrees with it must be wrong, because that would mean accepting that God created the mechanisms and then has allowed the mosaic to paint itself based on those principles. |
|
Bill, Rita and Chloe the Terror Cat For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise. Benjamin Franklin | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 27 2006, 06:48 AM Post #172 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Agree, that's part of it, evolution runs contrary to the inerrancy of the Bible. But, then, so does ID! But there is more, there's the notion of purpose. This rests in the ambiguity of design. Creation theory testifies to and evolution theory explains the order we find in the world around us. One is concerned with the purpose of it, the other only its process. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | May 27 2006, 09:11 AM Post #173 |
![]()
Member
|
Biblical inerrancy does not, apparently, relate in any way to precision. Witness the biblical measurement of pi in 1 Kings 7:23. Even "a line of thirty cubits and a little bit more" would have been more accurate than the definite "thirty cubits." To me this does not signify the Hebrews were unaware that pi was a bit more than 3 times the diameter, but an indication that the details were less important than the tale being told. If they were so sloppy in mathematics and geometry in 1 Kings, why assume they were dead accurate in Genesis Chapter 1. No one uses the bible as a math textbook and it certainly shouldn't be used as a cosmology text, either. But, again... what "order?" People are throwing around this "orderly universe" as if it were a proven concept rather than an undefined term. Would the earth be an orderly place to the Cheela in Robert Forward's "Dragon's Egg" book or would any of us like to be moved to the surface of the Cheela's neutron star? How orderly when we are seriously considering the detection and destruction of possible earth impactors? Wouldn't having a planet-buster sized asteroid slamming into the earth just before a long weekend be a pretty darned unorderly thing to have happen? How orderly when, in just a couple billion years, the sun will expand beyond the earth's orbit and vaporize the planet and all our decendents? What does "orderly" mean in terms of the universe in which we live? Anyone? |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 27 2006, 10:23 AM Post #174 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
By order I mean that which comes about naturally following the laws of biology, physics, information--life, thermodynamics, communication. This order, called spontaneous by some, is fleeting, ephemeral, full of error, mistakes, aberrations, mutations, bordering on chaos. It is not absolute perfection imagined of Divine Order or Great Chain of Being. If god be involved, they are more on the order of Greek gods, or Shinto--or perhaps those you and Doc allude to. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | May 27 2006, 10:37 AM Post #175 |
![]()
Jane
|
the laws of physics matter and anti matter attraction (what forms atoms) gravity recycling without loss of substance |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| teryt | May 27 2006, 12:54 PM Post #176 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
Let me suggest part of the problem MIGHT be you fail to consider what YOU write in the context of the discussion. My "other than the obvious: because it's not evolution" phrase was a response to your:
There is no weighing of the evidence (or not) supporting ID in your statement; there is definite editorializing about "almighty evolution" and "the height of arrogance." Rather than science you wish to bring in "other viewpoints." My Logical Empiricism asks - how do you know these viewpoints "deserve some consideration?" We're talking science classes here and not comparative religion, philosophy or literary criticism where viewpoints have meaning. Science plays by a different set of rules and if ID wants to jump into the sandbox, it needs to play by the same rule book. Now... based on what you wrote and that you haven't offered a scrap of scientific evidence supporting ID - is my conclusion that the only reason you want ID in the classroom because "it is not evolution" so far off the mark? Have a good trip and hope you'll join in even if it's not an HPA. [/QUOTE] Hey - I managed to catch an errant Wi-Fi signal, but I'll have to be breif because it is fleeting (like this life of ours). And since this is sort of a working vacation, HPAs are generally suspended! LOL When ONLY evolution is taught, it is then by default the only thing that seems to have any merit whatsoever. And it is then also not taught as a theory. Then I think we (i.e., our culture) get myopic, and tend not to even creatively consider other view points, or that is, at least, the environment we are setting up. Is this a good thing? For instance, we were watching an interesting PBS show the other night, and it referred to monkeys, chimps, etc., as our "evolutionary ancestors." There is no mention that this is based on a theory. It is now just an overwhelmingly assumed part of our culture. So while there are undeniable similarities (we share something like 97% of DNA with other primates), there has never been a definative & proven "link" to show how they morphed into humans. We have fossil records of what appears to be early (& evidently more primative) man, but this huge transition from chimp to man has never been adequatly demonstrated. So I would say evolution works well to show adaptability, but the huge leaps between species is something else. Better scoot! |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 27 2006, 02:14 PM Post #177 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
"When ONLY evolution is taught..." Far as I've seen a page or two in a Biology textbook. What exactly are you talking about? "And it is then also not taught as a theory." You keep repeating this BS. Is it not called Evolutionary Theory? Where do you live? You make wild accusations, Teryt. "but the huge leaps between species is something else." For instance? Are you making this up? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| DocInBird | May 27 2006, 04:26 PM Post #178 |
|
Member
|
terryt, you'll have to be patient with me because I am having a cognitive disconnect right now. I must be wrong. It sounds like you are saying that you are stealing someone's WiFi bandwidth, saying that evolution is being force fed to children, saying that humans and saying that humans are not related to chimps? First, stealing someone's WiFi bandwidth is illegal, let alone unethical, even for someone who does not profess to live by the higher standards of God's law. Secondly, I have never seen a case where evolution is taught where it is not referred to as a theory. Thirdly, the current number for the DNA similarity between humans and chimps is 99.4%. Given the current degree of accuracy in DNA testing, we can prove that a sample is from one person and not another, but we cannot prove where that "person" is a human or a chimpanzee. There is actually a larger difference in DNA between a trout and a salmon that there is between humans and chimps. Please forgive my tone. It was a very difficult night. |
|
--doc Just Doc and Orson (German Shepherd) wandering around North America. | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | May 27 2006, 04:48 PM Post #179 |
![]()
Jane
|
Doc..... you'd have to go very far to find a school textbook titled "the ascent of man" that doesn't have a picture/graph of man ascending from apes. not that I mind that myself, but the "theory" part is glossed over as if evolution is a proven fact. although it certainly looks like we humans and apes came from a common ancestor, that has not been proven or observed... yet. heck, anthropologists can't even agree that homo sapiens and neandertal are linked. some fossils suggest interbreeding, most don't and there aren't any conclusive signs of natural progression from neandertal to homo sapiens. as I said, I don't have a problem with it because I figure we all started as an amoeba in the sea (therefore all living things are related. I like that imagery) but fundamentalists do have a problem with it, and until science can prove that homo sapiens didn't just pop into existence one day, it's stuck with calling it theory. only thing is, it's not treated as theory...it's treated as fact. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | May 27 2006, 05:24 PM Post #180 |
![]()
Member
|
So, you and Chris seem to be saying that "orderly" is nothing more than how the universe is. Anything in the universe is "orderly?" "Orderly" is just another term for natural law or laws of nature? If gravity were a repulsive, rather than attractive, force and we evolved in the universe in which this were so - you'd find it equally as "orderly?" It still all sounds like a tautology: the universe is orderly because we evolved in it because it's orderly. Does saying it's orderly teach us anything useful about the universe? And, sorry Shadow, but recycling definitely causes a loss of substance due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Energy is lost when a plastic bottle is made the first time around and more enegy lost when the bottle is recycled. "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Heinlein. |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |











1:28 PM Jul 11