One of the greatest deceptions perpetrated by atheists and humanists is that the theory of evolution is somehow “science.” The reality is that “evolution” has nothing to do with science, but is merely a tenet of certain false religions opposed to God.
The science that put men on the moon and has yielded tremendous advances in computers, medicine, and other fields, is observable, testable, and repeatable. When a theory is developed, experiments can be devised to determine if it is false. This true science is referred to as “operational science.” In recent years, the term “science” has been broadened to include many areas that typically do not meet the criteria for operational science. These include social science, political science, and others.
Even further removed from operational science is so-called “origins science.” Origins science is not observable, testable, or repeatable. Theories related to origins science typically are constructed so that no matter what the evidence, its adherents can claim it supports their worldview. In origins science, evidence related to the origin of the Universe (and everything therein) is interpreted within a given framework. To the atheist or humanist, everything must be explained without God.
And Phillip Johnson is . . . oh yes, a creationist crank!
And his response to science has been failure.
Thank you for playing!
--J.D.
He's also correct.
Phillip Johnson
He received a Bachelor of Arts degree in English literature, from Harvard University in 1961. He studied law at the University of Chicago. He served as a law clerk for the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, Earl Warren. He is an emeritus professor of law at Boalt School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, where he served on the active faculty from 1967-2000.
Ipse dixit but incorrect. However, given your manifest lack of understanding demonstrated on this and the other thread, I am not surprised you have been taken in by his lies.
Its also fucking retarded to suggest that intelligent design represents a credible alternative to evolution. It doesn't. Its just Stupid and Ignorant writ large and the battle against it is a battle against stupidity and ignorance. Arguing that hostility to intelligent design is informed by religious fervour is no different from arguing that hostility to flat-earthism, terracentrism or sympathetic magic is informed by religious fervour. IOW its so fucking dumb the only reason intelligent and informed people bother arguing is that there are sufficient numbers of stupid and ignorant people in the world to exercise enough political power to employ the machinery of state to fill the next generation's head with voodoo crap.
You are probably right about much of what you're saying but consider this: Evolution is not JUST science. Anyone who is the least bit familiar with the modern promotion of evolution would have to admit that it can't resist philosophic conclusions. Obviously you can't teach creationism, or ID in a science classroom because no thinking person would say they could describe the physics of creation ex nihilo (sp?) or the technique of speaking matter into reality. It is the philosophy/cosmology of theism that needs equal time with the philosophy/cosmology of evolution. I think that the large number of adherents to both views justify an open forum in education. Elitism does no one any good in the long run.
It is the philosophy/cosmology of theism that needs equal time with the philosophy/cosmology of evolution. I think that the large number of adherents to both views justify an open forum in education. Elitism does no one any good in the long run.
Why?
If it cannot find facts to support it, or if facts demonstrate it has failed, that is its problem.
Joshua - it was a response to the usage of the word "precede." I don't see that it's logically necessary. Maybe I misunderstood you.
I'm not really that careful with the words I choose, usually. All I meant to say was that it's something more fundamental than the desires of the deity; math (or whatever) is true regardless of what he does or doesn't do.
Logic would suggest our existence was the result of a Creator.
Save that it does not.
Quote:
Now about that first cell..
Ask someone who made the claim; a creationist presumably since you have been buried in science references that have demonstrated the fatuousness of your fallacious tactic.
You, however, did claim YEC is a valid description of reality.
So . . . you are stuck with trying to defend a flat Earth . . . cosmic oceans . . . plants that lived before stars . . . all of that stuff contradicted by simple observation.
Logic would suggest our existence was the result of a Creator.
Save that it does not.
Save that it does.
Quote:
Ask someone who made the claim; a creationist presumably since you have been buried in science references that have demonstrated the fatuousness of your fallacious tactic.
You, however, did claim YEC is a valid description of reality.
So . . . you are stuck with trying to defend a flat Earth . . . cosmic oceans . . . plants that lived before stars . . . all of that stuff contradicted by simple observation.
In your own time. . . .
--J.D.
So you don't believe there was a single cell that started the process or have any explanation for how that cell came into existence?
And it's been explained ad nauseam how tehom doesn't mean the earth is flat. The problem lies with you apparently believing in the inerrancy of Richard E. Friedman.
And the text says God created light before plant life. The fact you can't comprehend it doesn't render it false.
So you don't believe there was a single cell that started the process or have any explanation for how that cell came into existence?
Cadit quaestio--I realize it is irrelevant to the possibility of YEC.
Quote:
And it's been explained ad nauseam how tehom doesn't mean the earth is flat.
No one argued it did; tehom is the waters of the deep. Do try to keep up! The descriptions in the myth as well as in other descriptions by P--as well as other Pentateuchal authors--demonstrate the writers believed it did.
Quote:
The problem lies with you apparently believing in the inerrancy of Richard E. Friedman.
Given I criticized his failure to use the results of textual criticism and other mistakes?
You really do not read posts, do you? Like this:
Quote:
And the text says God created light before plant life.
But the stars afterwards.
It also noted that the Sun was created afterwards as well:
Plants created on the third day: Gen 1:11-12 and the Sun and Moon created on the fourth day: Gen 1: 16-19.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
You have not read the Bible have you? Still have not found Psalm 104?
"Anyways, I am NOT skilled in Biblical Hebrew. " - Doctor X
So, what makes you qualified to speak on such things? You read a book by an author who you admit is fallible? So now you're going to lecture us on the Old Testament even though your author is fallible and you are NOT skilled in the work?
I do think it must be time for you to quote another latin phrase.
Re: Does Evolution Have a Purpose?
Linear Mode
