LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

Krauthammer on Intelligent Design: Phony Theory, False Conflict

Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 2:02:28 pm PDT

I was browsing through Charles Krauthammer’s columns today, and discovered this excellent piece on the Kitzmiller case, and the pseudo-scientific claptrap promoted by the Discovery Institute: Phony Theory, False Conflict.

Let’s be clear. Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological “theory” whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge — in this case, evolution — they are to be filled by God. It is a “theory” that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species but also says that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, “I think I’ll make me a lemur today.” A “theory” that violates the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science — that it be empirically disprovable. How does one empirically disprove the proposition that God was behind the lemur, or evolution — or behind the motion of the tides or the “strong force” that holds the atom together?

In order to justify the farce that intelligent design is science, Kansas had to corrupt the very definition of science, dropping the phrase “ natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us,” thus unmistakably implying — by fiat of definition, no less — that the supernatural is an integral part of science. This is an insult both to religion and science.

The school board thinks it is indicting evolution by branding it an “unguided process” with no “discernible direction or goal.” This is as ridiculous as indicting Newtonian mechanics for positing an “unguided process” by which Earth is pulled around the sun every year without discernible purpose. What is chemistry if not an “unguided process” of molecular interactions without “purpose”? Or are we to teach children that God is behind every hydrogen atom in electrolysis?

He may be, of course. But that discussion is the province of religion, not science. The relentless attempt to confuse the two by teaching warmed-over creationism as science can only bring ridicule to religion, gratuitously discrediting a great human endeavor and our deepest source of wisdom precisely about those questions — arguably, the most important questions in life — that lie beyond the material.

How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein? Even if it did give us the Kansas State Board of Education, too.

Applause!

Advertisement

1117 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 Charles  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:04:16pm

It's nice to find at least one conservative columnist who hasn't drunk the creationist koolaid.

2 scottishbuzzsaw  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:05:56pm

Brilliantly said, Mr. Krauthammer!

3 Charles  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:05:58pm

Creationist are really jumping on that minus button for this one.

4 nikis-knight  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:07:18pm

Say what you will about gravity, at least it brings us together. Evolution creates differences.

(that was a pun, by the way.)

5 grumpy old codger  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:08:54pm

Again, why is it hard to believe that God created the universe and that Darwin's theory explains what has happened since then. They are mutually exclusive. One is The Cause, the other the means.

6 iowavette  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:09:33pm

Krauthammer is one elegant individual.

7 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:09:58pm

The next dramatic exit in 5...4....3....

8 EC Marm  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:10:23pm
The relentless attempt to confuse the two by teaching warmed-over creationism as science can only bring ridicule to religion, gratuitously discrediting a great human endeavor and our deepest source of wisdom precisely about those questions — arguably, the most important questions in life — that lie beyond the material.


Worth repeating.

9 Charles  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:10:32pm

The big question, though, is why does Charles Krauthammer hate God?

cough

10 scottishbuzzsaw  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:10:47pm

"The relentless attempt to confuse the two by teaching warmed-over creationism as science can only bring ridicule to religion, gratuitously discrediting a great human endeavor and our deepest source of wisdom precisely about those questions — arguably, the most important questions in life — that lie beyond the material."

Why isn't this more obvious?

11 jaunte  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:10:59pm

Krauthammer sets a high standard for clarity and economy in writing. What a great column.

12 Ringo the Gringo  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:11:26pm

re: #1 Charles

It's nice to find at least one conservative columnist who hasn't drunk the creationist koolaid.

Then you probably won't like this quote by a long time LGF favorite:

The fact is that this is a planet overwhelmingly dominated and shaped by one species, and our kith and kin – whether gibbons or pumpkins – basically fit in in the spaces between. That’s pretty much the world the Psalmist outlined in the Old Testament thousands of years ago. By comparison, the evolutionists’ insistence that we’re just another “animal” seems perverse and irrational and refuted by a casual glance out the window. I am coming round to the view that hyper-rationalism is highly irrational.

~ Mark Steyn


(found at this link)

13 Edouard  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:12:00pm
"In order to justify the farce that intelligent design is science, Kansas had to corrupt the very definition of science, dropping the phrase 'natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us,' thus unmistakably implying — by fiat of definition, no less — that the supernatural is an integral part of science. This is an insult both to religion and science."

Right on the mark. Right on the mark.

14 Charles  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:12:55pm

re: #12 Ringo the Gringo

You're right, I don't like it, and it's disappointing but not surprising.

15 kansas  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:13:37pm

Hey I resemble those remarks. Anyway, the members of the Kansas Board that came up with those rulings got voted out and Kansas is back in the present. Creationists run stealth campaigns though, so it's hard to keep em off.

16 eschew_obfuscation  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:13:44pm
How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein?


What a creation! And how elegant the means of its construction....

I don't see a conflict with science and Christianity/Judaism.

The weakness in all of this is our ability to understand how it all fits together. Sometimes I feel like we're a bunch of arrogant children arguing over ignorantly held ideas (ignorant only in that our understanding is not perfect).

17 zinowl  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:13:53pm

Is intelligent design the opposite of natural selection, indicating a higher life form or god – or is intelligent design our own cells directing evolution, responding to the environment and collapsing potential in DNA to better fit the environment?

The first replicating protein had the ability to measure and collapse quantum potential. This ability superceded the randomness of merely bumping and jostling that had been going on in the so-called primodial soup. Life started because it was a better quantum measuring tool.

18 jaunte  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:14:31pm

re: #12 Ringo the Gringo

Steyn is particularly wrong about this part: "The fact is that this is a planet overwhelmingly dominated and shaped by one species, and our kith and kin – whether gibbons or pumpkins – basically fit in in the spaces between."
...because he forgets the oceans.

19 CommonCents  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:14:41pm

I was under the impression that God was in every atomic element. Everytime something blew up in Chemistry my teacher yelled, "Oh my God!".

20 abolitionist  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:15:11pm
Or are we to teach children that God is behind every hydrogen atom in electrolysis?

Many islamists would teach that Allah is behind every hydrogen atom in electrolysis, instead of taking any interest in the relevent equations and theory. Whoever aways answers It happens that way because Allah wills it may get a pass in a madrassa, but nature is not so kind.

21 scottishbuzzsaw  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:15:29pm

re: #14 Charles


Not surprising? Because the belief in ID is more widespread than you thought?

22 keithgabryelski  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:15:34pm

re: #12 Ringo the Gringo

Then you probably won't like this quote by a long time LGF favorite:

The fact is that this is a planet overwhelmingly dominated and shaped by one species, and our kith and kin –

~ Mark Steyn

Mark, i guess, is ignoring the 2/3rds of the earth that is covered in water and the creatures that live in it.

Wouldn't it be equally as reasonable to assume this world was made for them and proof of it:

1) there is more of them
2) they get to move in three dimensions instead of just on the surface area.
3) it rains because god wants us land lubbers to understand what 100% of the earth should look like

23 Dianna  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:15:54pm

It's at +10 as I type this...

24 opnion  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:16:01pm

Perhaps the Discovery Institute should go barn storming with their Islamic, Turkish ,Creationist friends.
I am sure that the American people wiul just love that.
Idiots

25 cliffster  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:16:09pm

For what it's worth, you guys have educated me and turned me around on this topic. I'd always thought Intelligent Design is an interesting topic but didn't know the context in which it was being used in the world to be taught as science alongside, or even supplanting, evolution. So I've made it a point to learn more about it and yeah, it is a little creepy the way the idea ID is being used. Just in case you care whether someone's mind is ever changed. :^)

26 Dianna  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:16:12pm

re: #4 nikis-knight

Say what you will about gravity, at least it brings us together. Evolution creates differences.

(that was a pun, by the way.)

And a clever one, at that.

27 grumpy old codger  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:17:08pm

re: #19 CommonCents
Google "Is hell exothermic or endothermic". You'll get a laugh.

28 Maine's Michael  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:17:13pm

Krauthammer is drawing upon Jewish teachings in this regard.

God lives above the natural world, and the glory of God is seen in the complexity/beauty/elegance/ugliness/impoderability (totality) of his creations. Those creations include systems such as physics, evolution, chemistry etc.

There is no conflict. Period.

29 DeafDog  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:17:56pm

re: #25 cliffster

For what it's worth, you guys have educated me and turned me around on this topic. I'd always thought Intelligent Design is an interesting topic but didn't know the context in which it was being used in the world to be taught as science alongside, or even supplanting, evolution. So I've made it a point to learn more about it and yeah, it is a little creepy the way the idea ID is being used. Just in case you care whether someone's mind is ever changed. :^)

Same here. Well said.

30 opnion  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:18:21pm

re: #25 cliffster

For what it's worth, you guys have educated me and turned me around on this topic. I'd always thought Intelligent Design is an interesting topic but didn't know the context in which it was being used in the world to be taught as science alongside, or even supplanting, evolution. So I've made it a point to learn more about it and yeah, it is a little creepy the way the idea ID is being used. Just in case you care whether someone's mind is ever changed. :^)

I will echo that. I never gave it a lot of thought. I did fill some gaps in my education on LGF.

31 Dianna  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:18:52pm

re: #10 scottishbuzzsaw

Because people walk themselves into corners, and can't figure out how to turn around.

I've done it to myself, more than a few times. It's always an emotional thing, for me. Once I apply my reason, I can remember to back up, turn around, and see a way out. But it's hard.

32 gozza  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:19:05pm

I see no reason why there cant be both (ID and evolution). "Guided" evolution is just as valid and just as provable as Darwinian evolution.

We dont know. And we will never know.

Darwinists cant explain the 3 most important evolutionary events : the Cabrian Explosion, the formation of life, and human counsciousness.
And ID's cant provide a single rational theory of anything.

I see this science on par with climate science ! That was bit low, but you know what I mean - lots of wild speculation, little fact, lots of emotion.

33 arf  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:19:22pm

[Link: talklikeaphysicist.com...]

You can usually find a physics student with a T-shirt that read "And God said"..........followed by Maxwell's equations of electricity and magnetism........"and then there was light".

I always felt to be able to understand concepts like the equivalence of electricity and magnetism, of energy and matter, to figure it out like in general physics......to come to that "ah-ha" moment is sort of a "touch the face of God" moment.

Never could understand why the concept of God and evolution have to be mutually exclusive.

34 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:19:30pm

re: #23 Dianna

It's at +10 as I type this...

+18 now, with 2 ding downs (20 ding ups!).

35 grumpy old codger  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:19:40pm

re: #28 Maine's Michael

Correct. Versus the moslem approach, where one day, Stan may just get pissed and, all of a sudden, things won't work the same way. Why? Because Stan said so.

36 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:20:07pm

Nice to read something I've felt all along. Who says evolution is against God? I feel its just another one of his miracles.

37 EC Marm  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:20:12pm

re: #7 Killgore Trout

The next dramatic exit in 5...4....3....


I wonder if we'll hear from our resident genetic epidemiologist who publishes about five 1st author manuscripts a year and contributed $1,000 dollars to the Discovery Institute?

38 Neo Con since 9-11  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:20:52pm

Honest question here no trolling intended. Is intelligent design different than Deism? To me they seem fairly similar. Not that I think either should be taught in science class.

39 CommonCents  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:21:20pm

re: #27 grumpy old codger

Google "Is hell exothermic or endothermic". You'll get a laugh.

Very nice work. I would have given him an A as well.

40 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:21:22pm

If that asshole Shotgun shows up, someone please tie me up and shove me in my filing cabinet.

41 nikis-knight  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:21:39pm

re: #12 Ringo the Gringo

I think my disagreement there is that he should replace "the evolutionists" with "the environmentalists" or some such. There are poeple who say we are just another animal, but it isn't a contiguous group with evolutionary scientists. (And they are wrong)

I don't think Steyn means numbers when he says we dominate and shape the planet, either, since of course there are more insects, let alone bacteria, than us. But we are the ones shaping it to our will. The oceans as well (as much as one can shape an enormous quantity of liquid, anyway.)

42 Cato  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:21:46pm

Krauthammer is most certainly correct about intelligent design. It can't even pretend to be science to anybody who understands what science is.

I think I agree with him nearly as much as I agree with VDH.

43 StinkHammer  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:21:57pm

Yet one more indicator of why Krauthammer RULZ (as the kids say).

44 Dianna  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:22:11pm

re: #22 keithgabryelski

And never forget, "An inordinate fondness for beetles."

45 scottishbuzzsaw  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:22:30pm

re: #31 Dianna

Well said. And you're right, it is hard.

46 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:22:39pm

re: #40 MandyManners

If that asshole Shotgun shows up, someone please tie me up and shove me in my filing cabinet.

I'd rather you just kick his butt, Mandy.

47 Ringo the Gringo  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:23:15pm

re: #14 Charles

You're right, I don't like it, and it's disappointing but not surprising.

I'd like to hear more from Steyn on the subject (perhaps we will when he returns from his hiatus). My guess is that he accepts that evolution is real but that he, like many people (myself included), views it as the means by which God has created man.

When his website is back up, I'll send him an email and ask him.

48 Charles  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:23:28pm

re: #32 gozza

"Guided" evolution is just as valid and just as provable as Darwinian evolution.

No, it is not.

49 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:23:30pm

In. Into. Whatever.

50 nikis-knight  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:23:40pm

re: #26 Dianna

And a clever one, at that.

Thanks. I had to tag it to avoid being seen as criticizing the thread at first reading.

51 marjoriemoon  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:23:52pm

re: #5 grumpy old codger

Again, why is it hard to believe that God created the universe and that Darwin's theory explains what has happened since then. They are mutually exclusive. One is The Cause, the other the means.

I saw you type that before, the Cause and the Means. I like it. I'll remember it.

Good to see ya btw. Got any chocolate?

52 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:24:19pm

re: #46 Honorary Yooper

I'd rather you just kick his butt, Mandy.

After his attack on the disabled earlier today, I don't have the patience to restrain myself.

53 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:24:21pm

re: #32 gozza

So, instead of investigating the events, we should just say "God did it!" and stop investigating?

Don't be stuck on stupid.

54 ladycatnip  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:24:22pm

Charles Krauthammer is an amazing individual. According to his bio on wikipedia, he calls ID "tarted-up creationism."

55 StinkHammer  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:24:27pm

re: #37 EC Marm

I wonder if we'll hear from our resident genetic epidemiologist who publishes about five 1st author manuscripts a year and contributed $1,000 dollars to the Discovery Institute?

I.e., the illiterate hack who was laying claim to some sort of professional scientific credentials?

56 keithgabryelski  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:24:33pm

re: #32 gozza

I see no reason why there cant be both (ID and evolution). "Guided" evolution is just as valid and just as provable as Darwinian evolution.

It is not. It is faith. Evolutionary Theory is science.


We dont know. And we will never know.

We do know because we can see evolution happen, in the lab.


Darwinists cant explain the 3 most important evolutionary events : the Cabrian Explosion, the formation of life, and human counsciousness.
And ID's cant provide a single rational theory of anything.

They don't have to for The Theory of Evolution to be fact.


I see this science on par with climate science ! That was bit low, but you know what I mean - lots of wild speculation, little fact, lots of emotion.

No. You are mistaken on this. Evolution is not only scientific fact, whose every element has been seen first hand, it is the only scientific theory that fits the evidence at hand.

57 looking closely  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:24:36pm

Don't forget that Krauthammer is a Harvard trained physician.

58 CommonCents  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:24:43pm

re: #27 grumpy old codger

Google "Is hell exothermic or endothermic". You'll get a laugh.

For those of you who want to skip the evil middle man


Is Hell exothermic or endothermic?

59 marjoriemoon  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:25:08pm

We have sprung from the same evolutionary tree as The Great Apes have we not? Hanging on another branch?

60 DeafDog  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:25:12pm

re: #57 looking closely


That's Hahvahd.

61 HoosierHoops  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:25:14pm

re: #4 nikis-knight

Say what you will about gravity, at least it brings us together. Evolution creates differences.

(that was a pun, by the way.)

and a really good one to boot

62 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:25:25pm

re: #40 MandyManners

...someone please tie me up ...

Dibs, I call dibs.

63 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:25:39pm

(please allow me a moment of anti-ID pulpit-thumping)

What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms...

IMHO, the ID'ers are trying to create a G*d who fits into a shoe-box.

(Charles, if this is over the line, feel free to delete. At least it's off my chest.)

64 bitsy  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:26:14pm

"I think I'll make a lemur today!"

I was thinking of making chocolate cupcakes.

65 Pyroskank  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:26:17pm

re: #28 Maine's Michael

Krauthammer is drawing upon Jewish teachings in this regard.

God lives above the natural world, and the glory of God is seen in the complexity/beauty/elegance/ugliness/impo derability (totality) of his creations. Those creations include systems such as physics, evolution, chemistry etc.

There is no conflict. Period.

This has always been my position on the matter, and I don't understand why it isn't obvious to more people. Science and religion answer two different questions about the world around us. Science tells us HOW the world works, while religion tels us WHY the world works as it does. It is literally impossible for these two things to conflict with one another.

I happen to think that ID is probably more correct than not, but as has been said here many times, that's a matter of personal faith, not objective science. Frankly, I find the idea of teaching ID in a public classroom offensive.

66 KingKenrod  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:26:55pm

re: #32 gozza


I see this science on par with climate science ! That was bit low, but you know what I mean - lots of wild speculation, little fact, lots of emotion.

Speaking of that, America's non-President Al Gore says we need a radical energy change in the next 10 years or the planet is lost. Why the sudden desperation? Easy...if the planet stubbornly refuses to warm over the next decade, Al Gore will know the jig is up on the global warming scare. But if Algore can get some real changes made soon, he can take credit for saving the planet no matter what happens. If the planet warms, it'll be "boo-hoo, we were too late, GWB destroyed the planet!" If the planet cools it'll be "Yay, Al Gore saved the Earth! All hail Algore!"

67 Cognito  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:27:05pm

Good grief, guys.

Hold on a minute. Before we whip out anymore dueling writers, let's get something straight: One fellow might believe in both science and creation.

Just because Krauthammer believes Intelligent Design is bunk doesn't mean he believes God didn't create us. And just because Steyn believes evolutionists overstep their authority when characterizing humans as no different from the surrounding chimps and chipmunks.

Am I the only one who believes these two ideas do not exclude each other?

68 marjoriemoon  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:27:11pm

re: #64 bitsy

"I think I'll make a lemur today!"

I was thinking of making chocolate cupcakes.

I don't know why that tickles me so, but I can't stop laughing.

69 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:27:19pm

I can see G-d saying "if this mutation goes this way, and that one goes that way..... I'll get the creature I want". Maybe a bit like Bonsai, but where He directs "random" events.
But it isn't science and shouldn't be in science class.

But ID goes further; it says G-d has to go beyond the system He created to get the results He wants. This certainly isn't science.

And I'm also bothered by scientists who say that science proves there is no Creator, because it doesn't; all their arguments are metaphysical.

The scientific evidence does not answer the question.

Maybe someday we'll find embedded in the cosmic microwave background are the spoken words of Torah, and then I'll say science has indicated there is a Creator. Or we'll find something else. But right now, there is no way to prove or disprove scientifically whether there is a Creator.

So what should be taught in science class is that science cannot say whether there is a Creator or not, and the students should discuss how to reconcile scientific evidence with their religion, with their parents, religious authorities, etc.

70 Racer X  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:27:23pm

Krauthammer is a Lizard, yes?

71 keithgabryelski  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:27:26pm

re: #44 Dianna

And never forget, "An inordinate fondness for beetles.

It all comes back to The Cockroach God.

I'm sure Sal is please, dancing, half nekkid, by moonlight making screeching cockroach noises.

72 looking closely  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:27:43pm

re: #32 gozza

I see no reason why there cant be both (ID and evolution). "Guided" evolution is just as valid and just as provable as Darwinian evolution.


"Guided" evolution is a contradiction in terms.
There is plenty of empirical evidence for evolution.
Where is your evidence of a divine being?

73 Dianna  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:27:48pm

re: #38 Neo Con since 9-11

No.

Try Martin Gardner's The Whys of a Philosophical Deist.

74 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:28:05pm

re: #63 pre-Boomer Marine brat

(please allow me a moment of anti-ID pulpit-thumping)


IMHO, the ID'ers are trying to create a G*d who fits into a shoe-box.

(Charles, if this is over the line, feel free to delete. At least it's off my chest.)

Why delete? That is exactly what the YECs/IDers are doing. They're trying to place God in a box of ink and paper to conform to what they want God to conform to.

75 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:28:27pm

re: #62 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Dibs, I call dibs.

*sigh*

I walked right into that.

76 Charles  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:28:31pm

re: #67 Cognito

Just because Krauthammer believes Intelligent Design is bunk doesn't mean he believes God didn't create us.

What are you talking about? Did you even read the excerpt above?

77 opnion  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:28:45pm

re: #66 KingKenrod

Speaking of that, America's non-President Al Gore says we need a radical energy change in the next 10 years or the planet is lost. Why the sudden desperation? Easy...if the planet stubbornly refuses to warm over the next decade, Al Gore will know the jig is up on the global warming scare. But if Algore can get some real changes made soon, he can take credit for saving the planet no matter what happens. If the planet warms, it'll be "boo-hoo, we were too late, GWB destroyed the planet!" If the planet cools it'll be "Yay, Al Gore saved the Earth! All hail Algore!"


He gave us 10 years 2 years ago. Enjoy your remaining 8 years.
But if he's wrong, he'll give us 10 more.

78 Cognito  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:28:52pm

re: #67 Cognito

Should've read, "And just because Steyn believes evolutionists overstep their authority when characterizing humans as no different from the surrounding chimps and chipmunks doesn't mean he's advocating a non-science as science."

79 nikis-knight  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:28:53pm

re: #56 keithgabryelski

I see no reason why there cant be both (ID and evolution). "Guided" evolution is just as valid and just as provable as Darwinian evolution.

It is not. It is faith. Evolutionary Theory is science.

the random part--that is technically unprovable, and interpretation just as valid as is an intent.

80 Old Tanker  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:29:03pm

re: #56 keithgabryelski


Could you please explain why evolution is a theory and not the "Law of Evolution"?

81 cliffster  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:29:12pm

re: #67 Cognito

see #33

82 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:29:14pm

re: #75 MandyManners

*sigh*

I walked right into that.

Yes.

Yes, you did.

83 wolfie  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:29:15pm

Krauthammer, as usual, gets to the heart of the matter, debunking the very notion that Intelligent Design is science.

He not only manages to do this without debunking God or religion, as Charles points out. He does it without sneering at those who believe in intelligent design as a matter of religious faith or philosophical opinion. He does it without laughing down at "creationists," "Fundies," or even Young Earth literalists.

In this he reminds me of Judge Jones in the Dover decision, who stayed on point in firm defense of the integrity of the natural sciences, while showing every respect for categories outside of science's domain.

May their tribe increase.

84 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:29:17pm

re: #74 Honorary Yooper

I guess I was just covering bases, and bowing to the owner of the room.

85 marjoriemoon  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:29:25pm

re: #67 Cognito

Good grief, guys.

Hold on a minute. Before we whip out anymore dueling writers, let's get something straight: One fellow might believe in both science and creation.

Just because Krauthammer believes Intelligent Design is bunk doesn't mean he believes God didn't create us. And just because Steyn believes evolutionists overstep their authority when characterizing humans as no different from the surrounding chimps and chipmunks.

Am I the only one who believes these two ideas do not exclude each other?

I didn't read the whole post, but that's not what Steyn said,

By comparison, the evolutionists’ insistence that we’re just another “animal” seems perverse and irrational and refuted by a casual glance out the window.

That's a pretty ignorant statement which shows his lack of understanding of evolutionary science.

86 Cognito  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:29:35pm

re: #76 Charles

What are you talking about? Did you even read the excerpt above?

I did indeed: "He may be, of course. But that discussion is the province of religion, not science."

87 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:29:44pm

re: #54 ladycatnip

Charles Krauthammer is an amazing individual. According to his bio on wikipedia, he calls ID "tarted-up creationism."

I think it's more "creationism in a burkha".

88 eschew_obfuscation  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:29:47pm

re: #67 Cognito

Good grief, guys.

Hold on a minute. Before we whip out anymore dueling writers, let's get something straight: One fellow might believe in both science and creation.

Just because Krauthammer believes Intelligent Design is bunk doesn't mean he believes God didn't create us. And just because Steyn believes evolutionists overstep their authority when characterizing humans as no different from the surrounding chimps and chipmunks.

Am I the only one who believes these two ideas do not exclude each other?

Nope....a number of us do (believe that)

89 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:29:49pm

re: #76 Charles

What are you talking about? Did you even read the excerpt above?

Apparently not. He read into it what he expected it say.

90 jcm  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:29:56pm

re: #32 gozza

I see no reason why there cant be both (ID and evolution). "Guided" evolution is just as valid and just as provable as Darwinian evolution.

We dont know. And we will never know.

Darwinists cant explain the 3 most important evolutionary events : the Cabrian Explosion, the formation of life, and human counsciousness.
And ID's cant provide a single rational theory of anything.

I see this science on par with climate science ! That was bit low, but you know what I mean - lots of wild speculation, little fact, lots of emotion.

1) How would test, find evidence etc... of a metaphysical guidance in evolution?

2) Science is comfortable with gaps in knowledge. In fact that's ultimately the driving force in science. "Don't know that" how do I find out what I don't know. Just because there is a "I don't Know" in science proves nothing except I don' know.

3) There is very little science contrary to the current standing of evolutionary science that has survived scientific processes. Anthropogenic Global warming has plenty of contradicting scientific evidence.

91 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:30:00pm

re: #67 Cognito

Good grief, guys.

Hold on a minute. Before we whip out anymore dueling writers, let's get something straight: One fellow might believe in both science and creation.

Just because Krauthammer believes Intelligent Design is bunk doesn't mean he believes God didn't create us. And just because Steyn believes evolutionists overstep their authority when characterizing humans as no different from the surrounding chimps and chipmunks.

Am I the only one who believes these two ideas do not exclude each other?

Don't you read others here? You are not the first to state this.

92 keithgabryelski  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:30:55pm

re: #80 Old Tanker

Could you please explain why evolution is a theory and not the "Law of Evolution"?

in science the word "law" is reserved for math.

You can consider the word "theory" in science to be as close to "law" as possible.

93 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:31:02pm

re: #64 bitsy

"I think I'll make a lemur today!"

I was thinking of making chocolate cupcakes.

Share?

94 xtraBilly  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:31:05pm

Flame thread! Move along before people get trashed.

95 Dianna  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:31:06pm

re: #63 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I think that is quite well-put, at least about some of them.

96 bj1126  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:31:07pm

I am a Christian and "creationist" if you want to call it that though no where near as militant in my beliefs as many. I'm also an IT admin and pretty tech savvy guy. My job and nature dictates that I solve problems. I've also learned over my 10 year career not to be attached to things because as our collective knowledge changes so does our perspective on technology.

Maybe it's because I have trouble with the differences in the terms evolution and adaptation but there are things about evolution that have never been sufficiently explained to me and most of the proof for it to me looks more like adaptation. That however doesn't lead me to believe solely in 6 day creation or ID. It also doesn't cause me to question my belief in God. God as I believe in Him is capable of anything and could have created the world in 6 days and made it appear ancient or could have directed evolution or taken a hands off approach and let evolution run its course. I refuse to limit his abilities based on my potentially flawed understanding of His creation or Word.

I guess my major problem with your posts lately Charles is the tone not the content. Creationists aren't the John Birch Society and you're not Buckley. I don't see a reason for your efforts to insult and deride creationists. I think you could better make your point through a more sympathetic tone.

97 CapeCoddah  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:31:11pm

Gotta love Krauthammer, He always makes me smile when I listen to him speak or read his columns. He always "gets it". One smart man.

98 keithgabryelski  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:31:27pm

re: #79 nikis-knight

the random part--that is technically unprovable, and interpretation just as valid as is an intent.

What random part?

99 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:31:47pm

re: #95 Dianna

I think that is quite well-put, at least about some of them.

Thank you, ma'am.

100 theheat  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:31:49pm
What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein?

My guess is that explanation pretty much wipes out Genesis to those that interpret their bibles literally. And if Genesis can't be taken literally, that leaves a whole lot of 'splainin' to do for those who adhere to the bible as a non-negotiable book. And, believe it or not, I know many people who take their bibles literally. The majority of these people have chosen to home school their kids because they don't want any of those crazy scientific notions being taught to their children in public schools, or anything contrary to how they interpret their religious books.

I equate it to child abuse. I always hope the children can escape before they become mirror images of their parents, without the benefit of any other influences. Sadly, they rarely do, though I do know a couple who scrammed out of their parents' clutches and found out there's a great big world out there, and it's full of dinosaur bones and all kinds of forbidden history.

OT - I'm waiting for the animated version of the Fundie Creation Museum. I want to see the T-Rexes eat the children playing in the garden. (Of course, I'm a fan of science fiction movies.)

101 Neo Con since 9-11  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:31:49pm

re: #73 Dianna

Thank You I'll Amazon that later tonight.

102 HoosierHoops  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:32:34pm

re: #75 MandyManners

*sigh*

I walked right into that.

well then *wack* him :)
/I'm sure he won't mind

103 Cognito  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:32:48pm

re: #89 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Apparently not. He read into it what he expected it say.

I'm sure Charles appreciates your supportive comment. But if you've got something to say to me, feel free to say it directly.

I did indeed read Krauthammer's column, and my point is spot on, I think: Just because he believes Intelligent Design is bunk doesn't exclude him from believing in God as Creator.

104 nikis-knight  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:32:52pm

re: #72 looking closely

"Guided" evolution is a contradiction in terms.
There is plenty of empirical evidence for evolution.
Where is your evidence of a divine being?

So, science has proven that God had no effect after the Big Bang? That is the sort of evolutionist Steyn was refering to, who really does make such metaphysical pronouncements.
Evolution is a tool that can run on autopilot. That doesn't mean it has no other settings.
As for proof, I have none. Evidence? I will go home and hold her in arms tonight. No, I don't care to convince you with that, but I am content to be.

105 Dianna  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:32:58pm

re: #71 keithgabryelski

What?

106 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:33:02pm

re: #90 jcm

2) Science is comfortable with gaps in knowledge. In fact that's ultimately the driving force in science. "Don't know that" how do I find out what I don't know. Just because there is a "I don't Know" in science proves nothing except I don' know.

And everytime a scientist says they dont know yet (yet being an important part of that answer), the YEC jump on it as them admitting the YEC are correct.

107 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:33:26pm

re: #94 xtraBilly

Flame thread! Move along before people get trashed.

That'll be the FNDT.

108 Old Tanker  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:33:26pm

re: #92 keithgabryelski

Law of gravity, law of supply and demand, Law implies provable theory, theory implies best guess bases on a hopothesis, a SWAG.

109 DeafDog  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:33:58pm

re: #96 bj1126

I'm sympathetic, but do you think Creationalism should be taught in science class or in theology?

110 keithgabryelski  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:34:01pm

re: #105 Dianna

What?

another thread:
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

search for cockroach.

111 Charles  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:34:12pm

re: #96 bj1126

I guess my major problem with your posts lately Charles is the tone not the content. Creationists aren't the John Birch Society and you're not Buckley. I don't see a reason for your efforts to insult and deride creationists. I think you could better make your point through a more sympathetic tone.

Please post a quote from one of my articles in which I insulted or derided anyone.

The John Birch Society, by the way, IS a big supporter of creationism. Just a fact.

And you're right, I'm not William F. Buckley.

112 Old Tanker  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:34:16pm

hypothesis (sp)

113 Catttt  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:34:18pm

This part is beautiful - a keeper.

How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein?

114 VegasRick  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:34:37pm

re: #94 xtraBilly

Flame thread! Move along before people get trashed.

Yep. I'm sitting this one out as well.

115 Catttt  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:34:53pm

re: #93 MandyManners

Share?

I'd love a spot of lemur about now.

116 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:34:58pm

re: #96 bj1126

I am a Christian and "creationist" if you want to call it that though no where near as militant in my beliefs as many. I'm also an IT admin and pretty tech savvy guy. My job and nature dictates that I solve problems. I've also learned over my 10 year career not to be attached to things because as our collective knowledge changes so does our perspective on technology.

Maybe it's because I have trouble with the differences in the terms evolution and adaptation but there are things about evolution that have never been sufficiently explained to me and most of the proof for it to me looks more like adaptation. That however doesn't lead me to believe solely in 6 day creation or ID. It also doesn't cause me to question my belief in God. God as I believe in Him is capable of anything and could have created the world in 6 days and made it appear ancient or could have directed evolution or taken a hands off approach and let evolution run its course. I refuse to limit his abilities based on my potentially flawed understanding of His creation or Word.

I guess my major problem with your posts lately Charles is the tone not the content. Creationists aren't the John Birch Society and you're not Buckley. I don't see a reason for your efforts to insult and deride creationists. I think you could better make your point through a more sympathetic tone.

I dinged you up before I read the final paragraph.

117 wolfie  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:35:30pm

re: #67 Cognito

In the column above Krauthammer did not say intelligent design is bunk. He said it is not in the purview of the natural sciences.

Art, poetry, French literature, and poltics are not bunk just because they are not natural sciences.


Okay, maybe poltics.

118 wetfun  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:35:39pm

God created evolution, get over it

119 DeafDog  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:35:44pm

re: #108 Old Tanker


And don't forget Murphy's Law

120 goddessoftheclassroom  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:35:53pm

re: #114 VegasRick

Yep. I'm sitting this one out as well.

May I sit with you guys? I'll let you buy me a drink...

121 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:36:16pm

re: #103 Cognito


I did indeed read Krauthammer's column, and my point is spot on, I think: Just because he believes Intelligent Design is bunk doesn't exclude him from believing in God as Creator.

Considering he argued that very point, I'll call it a safe point to make.

122 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:36:25pm

re: #115 Catttt

I'd love a spot of lemur about now.

I wonder what a drink called the "lemur" would have in it?

123 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:36:47pm

re: #96 bj1126

Did you say "John Birch Society?"

124 Charles  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:37:12pm

I'll say it again, because people insist on misrepresenting my viewpoints.

If you want to believe in creationism, even young earth creationism, it's your choice, you have free will.

But if you try to tell me that it's just as valid as the scientific theory of evolution -- as science -- then yes, I'm going to argue against this with every resource I can muster.

125 xtraBilly  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:37:19pm

re: #107 MandyManners

FNDT? are you talking stock quotes, now? You really are a minx.

126 Cognito  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:37:21pm

re: #121 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Considering he argued that very point, I'll call it a safe point to make.

And yet when making the point, I'm asked whether I read the excerpt.

127 Dianna  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:37:21pm

re: #101 Neo Con since 9-11

You're welcome, and it's very fine.

128 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:37:33pm

re: #95 Dianna

BTW and for the record, I've never been quite comfortable with my idea of "Salvatore" for your squirrel because of the gender, but dang it, the moniker FITS so well. Why don't you try something which looks like ... hmm ... Sophia?

129 keithgabryelski  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:37:44pm

re: #108 Old Tanker

Law of gravity, law of supply and demand, Law implies provable theory, theory implies best guess bases on a hopothesis, a SWAG.

please, then, prove the law of supply and demand.

130 ladycatnip  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:38:06pm

For those here who believe that ID should be in the same cracked pot as global warming - here's some good news on that: American Physical Society has reversed their stand on GW.

De-bunk away!

131 Dianna  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:38:26pm

re: #110 keithgabryelski

Not today; I'm out.

132 goddessoftheclassroom  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:38:38pm

re: #128 pre-Boomer Marine brat


{pre-Boomer Marine brat}!

I told you that you ought to be more particular about your snack choices...

[Link: icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com...]

133 Old Tanker  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:38:41pm

re: #119 DeafDog

Can I get an Amen...(doohhhhh)

134 nikis-knight  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:39:00pm

re: #98 keithgabryelski

What random part?

Evolution is taught as unguided and random. Chance dictates what natural selection can work with.

That fact is what is just as proven as that it was guided.

(Which is a false dichotomy, no one who believes in evolution and a divine overseer of it believes that every bit was guided, just that humans and perhaps some other species (or maybe just kingdoms/etc.))

135 EC Marm  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:39:02pm

re: #120 goddessoftheclassroom

May I sit with you guys? I'll let you buy me a drink...


Here's an interesting, fairly short test to take if you're sitting on the sidelines.
I still can't figure out which one I got wrong. Probably the Fed Reserve.

136 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:39:08pm

re: #100 theheat

Kabbalists have a quite different interpretation of Genesis; one that sounds much more like the current scientific one.
In fact, they have calculated the age of the universe to be around 15 billion years and life on Earth for 2.5 billion; not the exact values from science, but not out of range, either, and a lot closer than a week.

137 VegasRick  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:39:12pm

re: #120 goddessoftheclassroom

May I sit with you guys? I'll let you buy me a drink...

You're on!

138 Dianna  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:39:14pm

re: #128 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I've been Dianna everywhere I've ever posted; it's a little late to change.

I've got to go.

Take care!

139 CapeCoddah  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:39:19pm

re: #123 Killgore Trout

Yipes, what complete morons. whoever wrote that does not have brains enough to tie his own shoes.

140 Spiny Norman  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:39:25pm

re: #27 grumpy old codger

Google "Is hell exothermic or endothermic". You'll get a laugh.

That's a classic.

141 cliffster  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:39:27pm

re: #129 keithgabryelski

Filled up your car lately?

142 mossley  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:39:49pm

re: #32 gozza

You'd have saved yourself a lot of time and embarrassment if you had bothered to read any of the other threads on this subject. Everything you said has been repeatedly demonstrated to be a strawman, a deliberate misstatement of evolution, or a downright lie.

143 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:40:15pm

re: #125 xtraBilly

FNDT? are you talking stock quotes, now? You really are a minx.

Friday Night Drinking Thread.

144 keithgabryelski  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:40:32pm

re: #134 nikis-knight

Evolution is taught as unguided and random. Chance dictates what natural selection can work with.

No. Evolution is guided by "natural selection". Natural selection is not random.

145 bj1126  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:40:34pm

re: #109 DeafDog

Ideally I think there should be schools that don't and do teach it and parents should be able to choose which type of school their child goes to. It's too hard to dictate the tone and presentation of both and its not possible to please everyone. I will say that it doesn't benefit even staunch creationists to be ignorant of evolution.

146 VegasRick  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:40:42pm

re: #128 pre-Boomer Marine brat

BTW and for the record, I've never been quite comfortable with my idea of "Salvatore" for your squirrel because of the gender, but dang it, the moniker FITS so well. Why don't you try something which looks like ... hmm ... Sophia?

Philomena.

147 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:40:46pm

re: #126 Cognito

And yet when making the point, I'm asked whether I read the excerpt.

NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT YOU.

148 jcm  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:41:00pm

re: #96 bj1126

God as I believe in Him is capable of anything and could have created the world in 6 days and

made it appear ancient

or could have directed evolution or taken a hands off approach and let evolution run its course. I refuse to limit his abilities based on my potentially flawed understanding of His creation or Word.

Psalm 89:14 (Amplified Bible)
Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne; mercy and loving-kindness and truth go before Your face.

God is righteous, he is not deceitful. If he did make things appear different than what they are he would be doing that.

I would suggest that any disconnect between God's Word and His Creation lies not between the Word and the Creation. But WITH US and our comprehension of both.

Speaking as a Christian i think the greater error lies with our understanding of scriptures than with sciences understanding of creation. The misamings in understanding of scripture are numerous.

149 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:41:21pm

re: #132 goddessoftheclassroom

{pre-Boomer Marine brat}!

I told you that you ought to be more particular about your snack choices...

[Link: icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com.. .]

Ouch.

150 itellu3times  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:41:34pm

re: #18 jaunte

Steyn is particularly wrong about this part: "The fact is that this is a planet overwhelmingly dominated and shaped by one species, and our kith and kin – whether gibbons or pumpkins – basically fit in in the spaces between."
...because he forgets the oceans.

He forgot the germs. And the bugs.

We're about as dominant is Obama is the messiah. Steyn should get over himself, and his species.

151 Cognito  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:41:37pm

re: #147 MandyManners

NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT YOU.

A thousand pardons, Mandy. Next time someone asks me a direct question, I'll simply answer, "It's not about me."

152 goddessoftheclassroom  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:42:05pm

re: #135 EC Marm

Here's an interesting, fairly short test to take if you're sitting on the sidelines.
I still can't figure out which one I got wrong. Probably the Fed Reserve.

I missed the same one! Poor Ben Bernanke...

153 eschew_obfuscation  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:42:09pm

re: #100 theheat

My guess is that explanation pretty much wipes out Genesis to those that interpret their bibles literally. And if Genesis can't be taken literally, that leaves a whole lot of 'splainin' to do for those who adhere to the bible as a non-negotiable book. And, believe it or not, I know many people who take their bibles literally. The majority of these people have chosen to home school their kids because they don't want any of those crazy scientific notions being taught to their children in public schools, or anything contrary to how they interpret their religious books.

I equate it to child abuse. I always hope the children can escape before they become mirror images of their parents, without the benefit of any other influences. Sadly, they rarely do, though I do know a couple who scrammed out of their parents' clutches and found out there's a great big world out there, and it's full of dinosaur bones and all kinds of forbidden history.

OT - I'm waiting for the animated version of the Fundie Creation Museum. I want to see the T-Rexes eat the children playing in the garden. (Of course, I'm a fan of science fiction movies.)

What an arrogant snob!

On what basis do you assume that home schooling is based on parents desire to keep their children away from science class!

More often, it's a response to having multiculturalism, diversity, and the homosexual life style crammed down their pre-pubescent children's throats.

Apparently you think that you know better how to educate their children than they do.

Must be time for the brownshirts to come and take the kids away to protect them from their parents as is being done in Germany now (and almost, in California).

154 Charles  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:42:33pm

re: #142 mossley

You'd have saved yourself a lot of time and embarrassment if you had bothered to read any of the other threads on this subject. Everything you said has been repeatedly demonstrated to be a strawman, a deliberate misstatement of evolution, or a downright lie.

They're creationist talking points. They get dumped into almost every thread on this subject.

155 bj1126  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:42:36pm

re: #111 Charles

re: #124 Charles

I'll say it again, because people insist on misrepresenting my viewpoints.

If you want to believe in creationism, even young earth creationism, it's your choice, you have free will.

But if you try to tell me that it's just as valid as the scientific theory of evolution -- as science -- then yes, I'm going to argue against this with every resource I can muster.

I'm sorry then I guess I fall into that category. To me your posts have come across as very combative and insulting. I apologize for jumping to conclusions.

156 keithgabryelski  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:42:38pm

re: #141 cliffster

Filled up your car lately?

:-)

I'm not saying it isn't true -- I'm saying his defintion of "law" vs. "theory" is incorrect.

And citing "law of gravity" is incorrect, because it is "the theory of gravity".

157 nyc redneck  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:42:52pm

i love krauthammer.
he's brilliant and engaging.
and i think he's cute.

158 itellu3times  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:42:54pm
The school board thinks it is indicting evolution by branding it an “unguided process” with no “discernible direction or goal.” This is as ridiculous as indicting Newtonian mechanics for positing an “unguided process” by which Earth is pulled around the sun every year without discernible purpose. What is chemistry if not an “unguided process” of molecular interactions without “purpose”? Or are we to teach children that God is behind every hydrogen atom in electrolysis?

This is very good.

And to add to it, does the Kansas School Board say that they have a direct understanding of all of God's purposes and goals?

159 Racer X  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:43:05pm

re: #126 Cognito

And yet when making the point, I'm asked whether I read the excerpt.

Cog,

I appreciate your alternative views, and your posts that encourage people to disengage from groupthink.

However, sometimes you post stuff that just makes my head spin around trying to figure out your point.

Perhaps I am slow.

160 Spiny Norman  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:43:12pm

re: #90 jcm

1) How would test, find evidence etc... of a metaphysical guidance in evolution?

2) Science is comfortable with gaps in knowledge. In fact that's ultimately the driving force in science. "Don't know that" how do I find out what I don't know. Just because there is a "I don't Know" in science proves nothing except I don' know.

3) There is very little science contrary to the current standing of evolutionary science that has survived scientific processes. Anthropogenic Global warming has plenty of contradicting scientific evidence.

Indeed. Some of the original alarmists are finding that out.

161 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:43:15pm

re: #130 ladycatnip

Thank you!

Monckton: "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."

Damn, those CO2 emissions really reach FAR out there, don't they!

/s

162 Cognito  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:44:01pm

re: #159 Racer X

Cog,

I appreciate your alternative views, and your posts that encourage people to disengage from groupthink.

However, sometimes you post stuff that just makes my head spin around trying to figure out your point.

Perhaps I am slow.

Is there a particular passage I can clarify?

163 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:44:29pm

re: #161 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Thank you!


Damn, those CO2 emissions really reach FAR out there, don't they!

/s

Its all those SUVs the US exported to the outer planets which are causing the problems.

164 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:44:44pm

re: #132 goddessoftheclassroom

{pre-Boomer Marine brat}!

I told you that you ought to be more particular about your snack choices...

[Link: icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com.. .]

LOL -- that looks like more that (just) a kidney stone.

165 nikis-knight  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:44:52pm

re: #144 keithgabryelski

No. Evolution is guided by "natural selection". Natural selection is not random.

yeah, duh. I suppose you didn't read the second sentence you quoted?
Mutations are random, natural selection perserves or removes them according to the dictates of the environments. As I said, though, it's taught that chance is what makes changes availible for natural selection to work with.

166 Throbert McGee  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:45:47pm

One false note in Krauthammer's synopsis of ID:

It is a “theory” that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species but also says that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, “I think I’ll make me a lemur today.”

What he should've written is:

It is a “theory” that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species but also says that every once in a while God steps MUST step into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, “I think I’ll make me a lemur today ^, seeing as how non-supernatural evolution is incapable of producing a lemur by itself, without My miraculous assistance .”

That is the key difference between Intelligent Design™ and theistic evolution -- the former insists that evolution without God's guidance is an outright scientific impossibility, while the latter insists on God's existence without making specific claims about the extent to which He must've been involved in the evolutionary process. (Or rather, theistic evolutionists might insist that God's involvement WAS required to give humans an immortal soul, but not for the biological evolution of Homo sapiens.)

167 bj1126  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:45:47pm

re: #148 jcm

I don't see why creating the earth with apparent age is deceitful. In the end it doesn't really matter either.

168 Perry  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:46:55pm

re: #122 MandyManners

I wonder what a drink called the "lemur" would have in it?

Hair. Which pretty well kills it as a beverage.

169 itellu3times  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:47:01pm

re: #152 goddessoftheclassroom

Here's an interesting, fairly short test to take if you're sitting on the sidelines.
I still can't figure out which one I got wrong. Probably the Fed Reserve.

I missed the same one! Poor Ben Bernanke...

I so wanted to say that Condi was governor of Louisiana, but I restrained myself and got the others, too, though I had to think about at least one. I got the Bernanke, oy, did I get the Bernanke, how do I stop getting the Bernanke?

170 BlueCanuck  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:47:02pm

re: #135 EC Marm

Here's an interesting, fairly short test to take if you're sitting on the sidelines.
I still can't figure out which one I got wrong. Probably the Fed Reserve.

Can I join you, I only missed the majority house leader question. :)

/not bad for a furriner.

171 bosforus  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:47:08pm

Scrolling through comments looking for the red negative numbers is highly enjoyable in these threads.

172 Spiny Norman  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:47:17pm

re: #161 pre-Boomer Marine brat

re: #130 ladycatnip

Thank you!

Monckton: "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."

Damn, those CO2 emissions really reach FAR out there, don't they!

/s

Do the industrialized West's destructive tendencies know no bounds?

=^0

173 ladycatnip  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:47:40pm

#124 Charles

If you want to believe in creationism, even young earth creationism, it's your choice, you have free will.

But if you try to tell me that it's just as valid as the scientific theory of evolution -- as science -- then yes, I'm going to argue against this with every resource I can muster.

This is where it gets sticky for some people of faith. For them the belief in creationism is pure dogma, and they get testy and threatened when it's challenged. My belief in creation is entirely that - a belief. It's based upon faith, NOT science. Which is exactly why it needs to stay out of the classroom.

174 nikis-knight  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:47:48pm

re: #166 Throbert McGee
But we are being told in this thread that theistic evolution is a contradiction in terms.

175 Arbalest  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:47:54pm

Potentially OT, but let me ask a question that I rarely hear or see asked:

How, exactly, does the theory of Evolution, and the evidence behind it, change or in any way undermine the New Testament?

I’m a mediocre Christian, haven’t read the Bible in quite some time, and I don’t see how Evolution undermines the New Testament.

There might be a small conflict with the Old Testament (7 days vs. a few billion years, Adam vs. slime mold to fish to primates to us), but the author of Genesis trying to explain such things to nomads, farmers and the like seems pointless. A simpler explanation of Creation suffices, at least until the audience matures enough.

176 itellu3times  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:48:06pm

re: #161 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Damn, those CO2 emissions really reach FAR out there, don't they!

When Al Gore speaks, methane melts on Uranus.
/sorry

177 BlueCanuck  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:48:31pm

re: #164 pre-Boomer Marine brat

More like a serious blockage.

178 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:48:43pm

re: #148 jcm

And Psalm 90: "A thousand years are like a day in Thy sight, like a watch that passes in the night." So who says it has to be 6 24-hour periods, as we know them?

179 bitsy  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:48:47pm

re: #68 marjoriemoon

Thanks!

180 Catttt  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:48:51pm

re: #135 EC Marm

Here's an interesting, fairly short test to take if you're sitting on the sidelines.
I still can't figure out which one I got wrong. Probably the Fed Reserve.

Thank you for the ego boost. I think I'll celebrate. :D But not as fun as when I beat my husband and all his brothers at Trivial Pursuit - that was truly sweet.

Did you see how low the averages are (shades of Jay Leno's person on the street questions)? I'm betting most lizardoids are way up there on this test.

181 DeafDog  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:49:04pm

re: #145 bj1126

I think that's where there is a difference of thought. Whenever there is a scientific unknown, according to ID school of thought, the temptation would then be to say, "God did it." That's fine from a theological point of view. From a scientific point of view, however, you have to stop and say, "we don't know." And then you start testing your null hypothoses. So injecting ID into science as an answer to some of the "we don't knows" without going through the scientific methods makes that approach inconsistent with science.

(I'm not expecting to convince you. I suppos I'm just trying to get my thoughts straight by typing them out).

182 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:49:27pm

re: #177 BlueCanuck

More like a serious blockage.

We can't tell the gender of the cat. Is the blockage a hernia or a hisnia?

183 Salamantis  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:49:31pm

re: #32 gozza

I see no reason why there cant be both (ID and evolution). "Guided" evolution is just as valid and just as provable as Darwinian evolution.

Not a chance. The empirical evidence for evolution is overwhelming; the empirical evidence for deific interventionism in the evolutionary process is nonexistent.

We dont know. And we will never know..

Actually, between the two, just plain evolution is the only one that CAN be scientifically, empirically known - and to an extremely high degree of probability.

Darwinists cant explain the 3 most important evolutionary events : the Cambrian Explosion, the formation of life, and human consciousness.
And ID's cant provide a single rational theory of anything.

The cambrian involved a lot more time than most folks realize; it was a longer period that the 65 million years between the extinction of the dinosaurs and now. It's not the business of evolutionary theory to explain the origin of life, just how it evolves and diversifies in response to environmental selection pressures (but see the OOL paper that Charles posted). And the advent of human consciousness is another thing that isn't within evolutionary theory's rubric to explain, but if you wanna find out a great deal about it, read I Am A Strange Loop, by Douglas Hofstadter.

I see this science on par with climate science ! That was bit low, but you know what I mean - lots of wild speculation, little fact, lots of emotion.

If that's where you see it, you need new glasses - ones that can register 150 years of success.

184 xtraBilly  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:49:39pm

re: #173 ladycatnip

#124 Charles


This is where it gets sticky for some people of faith. For them the belief in creationism is pure dogma, and they get testy and threatened when it's challenged. My belief in creation is entirely that - a belief. It's based upon faith, NOT science. Which is exactly why it needs to stay out of the classroom.

Yes, and then alot of "history" would be thrown out too.

185 keithgabryelski  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:49:46pm

re: #165 nikis-knight

As I said, though, it's taught that chance is what makes changes availible for natural selection to work with.

A copy of a strand of dna is made. The copy is generally not perfect.
The imperfections are the "change", that change is generally undeterminable (random).

These are all known. These have been seen. They are fact.

186 Spiny Norman  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:49:55pm

re: #166 Throbert McGee

That is the key difference between Intelligent Design™ and theistic evolution -- the former insists that evolution without God's guidance is an outright scientific impossibility, while the latter insists on God's existence without making specific claims about the extent to which He must've been involved in the evolutionary process. (Or rather, theistic evolutionists might insist that God's involvement WAS required to give humans an immortal soul, but not for the biological evolution of Homo sapiens.)

Good point. A 100 + dings for that.

187 goddessoftheclassroom  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:50:21pm

re: #182 pre-Boomer Marine brat

We can't tell the gender of the cat. Is the blockage a hernia or a hisnia?

If it's stupid enough to eat cat toys, it must be a male...

/just kidding, guys! MWAH!

188 jcm  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:50:44pm

re: #167 bj1126

I don't see why creating the earth with apparent age is deceitful. In the end it doesn't really matter either.

Because it's not true.

If God created the earth and universe 6000 years ago, but put in place all the physical indicators of great age IT WOULD BE A LIE.

No different from me making a pot yesterday and selling it to you as a Ming vase.

189 wrenchwench  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:50:52pm

re: #162 Cognito

Is there a particular passage I can clarify?


From #67:

Am I the only one who believes these two ideas do not exclude each other?

Is this the first ID thread you have read?

190 itellu3times  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:51:10pm

re: #175 Arbalest

Potentially OT, but let me ask a question that I rarely hear or see asked:

How, exactly, does the theory of Evolution, and the evidence behind it, change or in any way undermine the New Testament?

Some people see it as challenging the idea that we really are who we are, that we have choices, or souls, that we are anything but meat machines who couldn't care less about what's in the New Testament or the Old Testament or any testament. So, they reason, since we have these testaments, then we are not meat machines, and Darwin is Satan, or at least wrong.

191 Racer X  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:51:11pm

re: #175 Arbalest

A simpler explanation of Creation suffices, at least until the audience matures enough.


That is a profound statement.

192 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:51:21pm

re: #168 Perry

Hair. Which pretty well kills it as a beverage.

Ick.

I was thinking something with Kahlua as an ingredient.

193 steve  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:51:41pm

Wow...Krauthammer speaks and everybody is ecstatic.

194 Cognito  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:51:47pm

re: #174 nikis-knight

But we are being told in this thread that theistic evolution is a contradiction in terms.

It can't be a contradiction, because neither half of the phrase excludes the other. Nothing in faith can falsify science. And nothing in science can falsify faith.

195 faraway  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:51:48pm

The problem with evolutionists is they can't roll anything back to the beginning.

Whatever the beginning is... where did that come from? It's a simple question.

/obviously I wasn't there, so I don't know either

196 Spiny Norman  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:52:09pm

re: #178 Kosh's Shadow

And Psalm 90: "A thousand years are like a day in Thy sight, like a watch that passes in the night." So who says it has to be 6 24-hour periods, as we know them?

I think reading that verse when I was 10 or 11 years old is when I began to doubt the "Young Earth Creationism" literalist dogma.

197 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:52:13pm

re: #180 Catttt

Thank you for the ego boost. I think I'll celebrate. :D But not as fun as when I beat my husband and all his brothers at Trivial Pursuit - that was truly sweet.

Did you see how low the averages are (shades of Jay Leno's person on the street questions)? I'm betting most lizardoids are way up there on this test.

Missed 2

198 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:52:15pm

re: #187 goddessoftheclassroom

ARF ARF ARF ARF ARF

199 nikis-knight  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:52:49pm

re: #185 keithgabryelski

A copy of a strand of dna is made. The copy is generally not perfect.
The imperfections are the "change", that change is generally undeterminable (random).

These are all known. These have been seen. They are fact.

"undeterminable" Can mean either random or chosen by unknown criteria.

200 Annar  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:53:07pm

Technically there is no conflict between evolution and religion but it is understandable that many of the religious refuse to accept the idea of their god being pushed further to the background by science. Perhaps the fear is that monotheism may eventually be replaced by nullotheism.

201 steve  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:53:10pm

Last I heard, Evolution was still a theory!

202 Charles  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:53:39pm

Oh brother.

203 HoosierHoops  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:53:50pm

I guess my major problem with your posts lately Charles is the tone not the content. Creationists aren't the John Birch Society and you're not Buckley. I don't see a reason for your efforts to insult and deride creationists. I think you could better make your point through a more sympathetic tone.

What is this sh*t? It seems every day somebody gets down on charles about his blog and i'm effen sick of it..
Look when you put together one of the most popular blogs in the world then you can do and say what you will..
Charles has shown such patience with you religious effen freaks that think they know everything..I've never seen him insult anyone..just ban them when they walk over the line...Jeez some people will believe anything to make them feel better..
yea..people marched around Jericho and the walls just fell down..
a woman is made out of man's rib..
The Sun stopped in the sky for hours..
Rainbows only existed after the great flood
A chariot of fire picked up that prophet dude and gave him a ride to heaven..( good drugs i expect)
( enter your own myth from the bible here)
The Bible is only good for the morals it teaches..nothing more nothing less.
STOP trying to make it a scientific book...
jeez it's like Galileo all over again..This isn't 1610AD..

204 Cognito  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:53:51pm

re: #189 wrenchwench

I've not read many of them. It's not a topic I'm particularly interested in; and no, I haven't seen much consensus around an acceptance of both evolution and creation. It's been mostly a food fight, that I've seen. Hence the disinterest.

205 keithgabryelski  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:53:59pm

re: #195 faraway

The problem with evolutionists is they can't roll anything back to the beginning.

evolution does not discuss "how life started". That is a different field of study: abiogenesis.

Evolution is about how traits are passed from one organism to its progeny.

206 DeafDog  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:54:04pm

re: #193 steve

Wow...Krauthammer speaks and everybody is ecstatic.


With a name like "Kraut"-"Hammer", it is a shock.

207 EC Marm  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:54:30pm

re: #180 Catttt


Did you see how low the averages are (shades of Jay Leno's person on the street questions)? I'm betting most lizardoids are way up there on this test.


Yes, I did. Whenever I see a test like that I try to post it here, because no matter how tough it is, the folks here are always in the 95% percentile and higher.
Even the furriners. Hi PBC!

208 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:54:31pm

re: #200 Annar

Technically there is no conflict between evolution and religion but it is understandable that many of the religious refuse to accept the idea of their god being pushed further to the background by science. Perhaps the fear is that monotheism may eventually be replaced by nullotheism.

Science will never push God to the background.

209 faraway  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:54:33pm

re: #173 ladycatnip

#124 Charles
My belief in creation is entirely that - a belief. It's based upon faith, NOT science. Which is exactly why it needs to stay out of the classroom.

I believe science books tout a theory that we came from monkeys. Can this also please stay out of the classroom?

Now, some of you may have come from monkeys. But, I prefer not to teach my kids they are monkeys.

210 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:54:40pm

re: #188 jcm

Because it's not true.

If God created the earth and universe 6000 years ago, but put in place all the physical indicators of great age IT WOULD BE A LIE.

No different from me making a pot yesterday and selling it to you as a Ming vase.

bj1126 fell face-forward into a big pile of it with that one

211 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:54:47pm

re: #201 steve

Last I heard, Evolution was still a theory!

AIIIYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

212 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:55:33pm

re: #195 faraway

The problem with evolutionists is they can't roll anything back to the beginning.

Whatever the beginning is... where did that come from? It's a simple question.

/obviously I wasn't there, so I don't know either

Neither can ID.

Was it Allah, Buddha, God, Azathoth, the Great Greenarklesneizure or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? They dont have a clue and they're only "evidence" is bullshit.

213 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:55:54pm

re: #203 HoosierHoops

Ummmmmmmmm...a wee bit over the top?

214 jcm  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:56:05pm

re: #178 Kosh's Shadow

And Psalm 90: "A thousand years are like a day in Thy sight, like a watch that passes in the night." So who says it has to be 6 24-hour periods, as we know them?

Exactly, a good exposition of the Hebrew yowm in Genesis.T

herefore the reader can possibly chose from any of the above, which ever seems to connect with them the most. Referring back to Fig 1 from Strong's, you will note that "age" is also a valid translation for yowm, but the authors have used "time" or "phase" since these are our preference.
215 faraway  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:56:05pm

re: #205 keithgabryelski

evolution does not discuss "how life started". That is a different field of study: abiogenesis.

Evolution is about how traits are passed from one organism to its progeny.

See what I mean.

216 ContraJihadi  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:56:09pm

re: #56 keithgabryelski


[Part of the original post] Darwinists cant explain ... human counsciousness. [sic]

[Response] No. You are mistaken on this. Evolution is not only scientific fact, whose every element has been seen first hand, it is the only scientific theory that fits the evidence at hand.

The theory of evolution explains the the existence of rational self-consciousness among humans? A random congeries of external physical events defines the characteristic determinations of the purposeful, internal deliberations of the mind? I would be interested in knowing how this could occur and when it has been seen.

217 jcm  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:56:30pm

re: #198 pre-Boomer Marine brat

ARF ARF ARF ARF ARF

Wrong nic....
WOOF!

218 keithgabryelski  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:56:37pm

re: #199 nikis-knight

"undeterminable" Can mean either random or chosen by unknown criteria.

correct. Over millions of seen examples you can run statistics to tell if the flaws are, indeed, random -- and they are.

but that doesn't preclude the hand of god. It just restricts it to "random".

It seems best just to accept that god lets happen what will, in these cases.

219 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:56:51pm

re: #212 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Neither can ID.

Was it Allah, Buddha, God, Azathoth, the Great Greenarklesneizure or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? They dont have a clue and they're only "evidence" is bullshit.

Faith is not bullshit.

220 EC Marm  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:57:04pm

re: #202 Charles

Oh brother.


&#9834 Here they come,
walking down the street,
they get the funniest looks,
from everyone they meet... &#9834

221 wrenchwench  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:57:08pm

re: #204 Cognito

I've not read many of them. It's not a topic I'm particularly interested in; and no, I haven't seen much consensus around an acceptance of both evolution and creation. It's been mostly a food fight, that I've seen. Hence the disinterest.

Your disinterest made you look ignorant, hence the reaction you got. Your point was "spot on," as you said, but at this point, it's "ad nauseum."

222 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:57:16pm

re: #212 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Neither can ID.

Was it Allah, Buddha, God, Azathoth, the Great Greenarklesneizure or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? They dont have a clue and they're only "evidence" is bullshit.

Nor is faith the same as evidence in the scientific sense.

223 Spiny Norman  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:57:18pm

re: #201 steve

Last I heard, Evolution was still a theory!

So is Relativity. If it were wrong, the atomic bomb would never have worked.

I think the term you thinking of is "Hypothesis". Not the same thing.

224 Cognito  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:57:24pm

re: #203 HoosierHoops

Jeez some people will believe anything to make them feel better..
yea..people marched around Jericho and the walls just fell down..
a woman is made out of man's rib..
The Sun stopped in the sky for hours..
Rainbows only existed after the great flood
A chariot of fire picked up that prophet dude and gave him a ride to heaven..( good drugs i expect)
( enter your own myth from the bible here)
The Bible is only good for the morals it teaches..nothing more nothing less.
STOP trying to make it a scientific book...
jeez it's like Galileo all over again..This isn't 1610AD..

See "gleeful anger."

225 Cognito  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:57:38pm

re: #221 wrenchwench


Eh.

226 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:57:41pm

re: #219 MandyManners

Faith is not bullshit.

Its not evidence either.

227 Salamantis  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:57:49pm

re: #71 keithgabryelski

It all comes back to The Cockroach God.

I'm sure Sal is please, dancing, half nekkid, by moonlight making screeching cockroach noises.

Half nekkid? Half measures! My full-moon bonfire-on-the-sand-dune circle-dancing is done completely and totally skyclad. Just like all the folks I am dancing with.

228 keithgabryelski  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:58:03pm

re: #216 ContraJihadi

The theory of evolution explains the the existence of rational self-consciousness among humans? A random congeries of external physical events defines the characteristic determinations of the purposeful, internal deliberations of the mind? I would be interested in knowing how this could occur and when it has been seen.

I see it in you.

229 Spiny Norman  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:58:06pm

*you're*

230 OldLineTexan  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:58:08pm

re: #180 Catttt

Thank you for the ego boost. I think I'll celebrate. :D But not as fun as when I beat my husband and all his brothers at Trivial Pursuit - that was truly sweet.

Did you see how low the averages are (shades of Jay Leno's person on the street questions)? I'm betting most lizardoids are way up there on this test.

I went 12 for 12. I knows me some stuff!

/

231 eschew_obfuscation  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:58:09pm

re: #200 Annar

Technically there is no conflict between evolution and religion but it is understandable that many of the religious refuse to accept the idea of their god being pushed further to the background by science. Perhaps the fear is that monotheism may eventually be replaced by nullotheism.

I'm sure there is some of that thinking and that it's not entirely bad logic.

I'm not suggesting this about people here because I haven't seen evidence of it, but there is a tendency in some circles to 'worship' science as the be-all and end-all of human understanding. While it is one of the best tools we have for understanding our environment, it has not yet led us to perfect understanding.....leaving at least some of what we 'know' open to question along with all that we don't know.

Religion may lead us to understanding in non-scientific ways that is just as true as if it had been discovered scientifically.

232 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:58:19pm

re: #226 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Its not evidence either.

I hit POST too soon. See my No. 222, please.

233 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:58:22pm

re: #217 jcm

Wrong nic....
WOOF!

If I had some get-up-and-go, I'd go get my sock and have it bite her tail.

234 BlueCanuck  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:58:38pm

re: #207 EC Marm

Ummm, I am not PBC.

/Well if you mean Pro-Bush Canuck the poster.

//but I am pro Bush.

235 bj1126  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:58:44pm

re: #181 DeafDog

I do not consider our little discussion an argument so don't worry about that. I see your point which is why I don't think anything but local governments should be dictating school curriculum and plenty of choice should be available.

re: #188 jcm

Again it's only a lie in our limited perspective and knowledge. Creation as is described literally in Genesis would essentially mandate at least some apparent age. All of the plants and animals were created with apparent age and it follows logically that the earth would have as well to facilitate the nature as it was described.

236 goddessoftheclassroom  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:58:44pm

re: #210 pre-Boomer Marine brat

[Link: icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com...]

237 wrenchwench  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:58:46pm

re: #225 Cognito

Eh.

I don't know why, but I just saved that to my "favorites."

238 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:59:03pm

re: #201 steve

We don't get that talking point as often as we used. I'm glad to see you're not embarrassed to still use it.

239 Kulhwch  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:59:20pm

re: #64 bitsy

"I think I'll make a lemur today!"

I was thinking of making chocolate cupcakes.

I wonder if there are special lemur pans ... mmm, a chocolate lemur w/sprinkles ...

}:)     [Do I have to wait for it to evolve or can someone make one right now?]

240 faraway  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:59:36pm

I see the down dingers work both ways here :-)

241 bitsy  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 2:59:52pm

re: #93 MandyManners

Certainly!

I have this box of "Central Market Organic Chocolate Truffles" (arugula not included), and I have a theory that if I put them in the middle they will turn into a gooey chocolate center during baking.

242 jaunte  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:00:24pm

re: #168 Perry

I wonder what a drink called the "lemur" would have in it?

Hair. Which pretty well kills it as a beverage.

/best laugh of the day. Thanks.

243 EC Marm  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:00:34pm

re: #234 BlueCanuck

Ummm, I am not PBC.

/Well if you mean Pro-Bush Canuck the poster.

//but I am pro Bush.


Opps. Sorry. You furriners all look the same to me. :~)

244 itellu3times  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:00:44pm

re: #216 ContraJihadi

The theory of evolution explains the the existence of rational self-consciousness among humans? A random congeries of external physical events defines the characteristic determinations of the purposeful, internal deliberations of the mind? I would be interested in knowing how this could occur and when it has been seen.

Hey ContraJihadi, how are you?

You could pull my string on this one, and I could give you a very long discussion of it. Which is to say, it's not the non-sequitur it may appear. Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" is about four hundred pages on the topic, and his "Freedom Evolves" is another three hundred. I don't think Dennett goes far enough, but he goes farther in the second book.

The question is, are humans the only ones with self-consciousness, or intelligence, or minds, or rationality? That's a pretty tough question right there, without getting into origins.

245 cliffster  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:01:20pm

re: #96 bj1126

I think you're probably lumping all the anti-ID camp together. There's been some people getting carried away and a tad insulting, but I don't think the one called Charles is one of them. Plus, I like the way he booted that joker BuddyG for posting an image that's offensive to you, more so than folks that believe in God

246 jcm  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:01:22pm

re: #233 pre-Boomer Marine brat

If I had some get-up-and-go, I'd go get my sock and have it bite her tail.

Ahhh...
Your get up and go got up and went.

247 BlueCanuck  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:01:51pm

re: #243 EC Marm

Opps. Sorry. You furriners all look the same to me. :~)

No problem, It's all us Canucks around here. I am sure there are a few other undeclared ones as well.

/but I know what to look for.

248 HoosierHoops  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:01:54pm

re: #213 MandyManners

Ummmmmmmmm...a wee bit over the top?

Sorry mandy.. give me a wack.. That's what the nuns did to me all the time anyway..

I am sorry if i offended you...

249 Steve  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:02:04pm

re: #223 Spiny Norman

the·o·ry Audio Help /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries. 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.


-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------

[Origin: 1590–1600; < LL theōria < Gk theōría a viewing, contemplating, equiv. to theōr(eǐn) to view + -ia -y3]


—Synonyms 1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

250 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:02:15pm

re: #236 goddessoftheclassroom

You have no idea how many allies I have ...

/hey guys, are any of you OUT there?
*gulp*

251 nikis-knight  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:02:26pm

re: #194 Cognito

Well, what was said by for example Looking Closely and Salamantis is that the term theistic evolution can only mean that God exists but hand nothing to do with evolution whatsoever after the Big Bang (or perhaps the moment of the inception of a protein or nucleic acid).
There is no room whatsoever for any divine intervention. Whatsoever. That is what I am reading in numerous people's posts.

That is incompatible with my faith, because no matter how metaphorical I take Genesis, and I do quite a bit, the whole point is the singular asertion that God did it. It doesn't say how, that is clearly not the main issue.

But if you all are really saying that it is proven God had no role in any of the development of Life, that this is the scientificly proven position, then please don't pretend this doesn't contradict the Christian God.

252 Catttt  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:02:33pm

re: #201 steve

Last I heard, Evolution was still a theory!

Theory: a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.

Some examples:

1. The Atomic Theory
2. The Theory of Matter and Energy: Conservation of Matter and Energy
3. The Cell Theory
4. The Germ Theory
5. The Theory of Plate Tectonics
6. The Theory of Evolution
7. The Big Bang Theory
8. Chaos Theory
9. The “Gaia” Theory of a Sustainable Earth which is illustrated with the idea of Spaceship Earth
10. The Theory of Quantum Mechanics
11. The Theory of Special Relativity which subsumes The Theory of General Relativity which subsumes Newtonian theories of motion
12. The Photon Theory of Light Energy and its speed of light
13. The Theory of Electromagnetism as begun by Maxwell and continued with the work of others
14. The Theory of Radioactivity or Nuclear Theory
15. The Theory of Molecular Bonds
16. The Theory of States of Matter—or is this part of the Atomic Theory and the Molecular Bond Theory?
17. The Theory of Thermodynamics—hey, I guess this theory takes care of the States of Matter and the Molecular Bond theories.
18. The Theory of Homeostasis within Living Organisms
19. The Constructivist Theory of Learning
20. The theories of self and development of mental processes in the brain.
21. Theory of Gravity

253 Occasional Reader  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:02:42pm

re: #188 jcm

Because it's not true.

If God created the earth and universe 6000 years ago, but put in place all the physical indicators of great age IT WOULD BE A LIE.

No different from me making a pot yesterday and selling it to you as a Ming vase.

Yep. As an atheist I have no god in this fight, but the whole idea that creationists would deliberately try to cast their God as a sort of celestial Nigerian scam artist is beyond me.

254 faraway  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:02:55pm

re: #250 pre-Boomer Marine brat

You have no idea how many allies I have ...

/hey guys, are any of you OUT there?
*gulp*

Are you riding a bus?

255 goddessoftheclassroom  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:03:02pm

re: #250 pre-Boomer Marine brat

You have no idea how many allies I have ...

/hey guys, are any of you OUT there?
*gulp*

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

256 VegasRick  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:03:07pm

re: #202 Charles

Oh brother.

We agree on that one Charles!
lol! (just what I was thinking!)

257 Steve  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:03:11pm

re: #238 Killgore Trout

Thank you! I like trying to keep a 'discussion' open.

258 Racer X  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:03:33pm

Crepes all muddy!

It is almost like there has to be a disclaimer on every post now.

My suggestion:

Previously on LGF -
ID proponents are sneakily trying to pass off their religious beliefs as science to be taught in public schools.

Belief in science does not negate a belief in God.
Belief in God does not negate a belief in science.

Evolution and religion can coexist!

ID is not science.
Evolution is science.

ID proponents have been aligning themselves with Islamic fundamentalists (this is very bad).

As you were.

259 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:03:37pm

re: #246 jcm

Ahhh...
Your get up and go got up and went.

If I make a move NOW, ... I'm toast

260 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:03:48pm

re: #241 bitsy

Certainly!

I have this box of "Central Market Organic Chocolate Truffles" (arugula not included), and I have a theory that if I put them in the middle they will turn into a gooey chocolate center during baking.

Does it go with fine bourbon?

261 bitsy  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:03:50pm

re: #122 MandyManners

I wonder what a drink called the "lemur" would have in it?

I'm guessing alot of rum, but I am preggars so I hafta stick to chocolate for now.

262 BlueCanuck  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:04:00pm

Hmmm, Hellboy or Indy 4. Choices choices. Anyway have yourselves a good night and keep the ideology on the low key folks.

/god is a mathematician

263 HoosierHoops  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:04:25pm

7. The Big Bang Theory
/I love that show

264 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:04:32pm

re: #248 HoosierHoops

Sorry mandy.. give me a wack.. That's what the nuns did to me all the time anyway..

I am sorry if i offended you...

That's okay. This topic inspires passion.

265 VegasRick  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:04:48pm

re: #255 goddessoftheclassroom

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm back!

266 Cognito  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:05:06pm

re: #252 Catttt

I'm sorry, but that last bit is starting to get under my skin. Newton's law of universal gravitation is just that: a law.

267 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:05:08pm

re: #249 Steve

Oh, no. You whipped out your dictionary.

268 venjanz  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:05:10pm

re: #201 steve

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.

When talkin' science, "theory" is not synonymous with "conjecture."

269 BlueCanuck  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:05:13pm

re: #250 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Hold on one second and I will get my sockpuppet.

/well at least it's furry.

270 goddessoftheclassroom  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:05:15pm

The best of both positions:

[Link: icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com...]

271 Occasional Reader  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:05:43pm

Love to stay and throw food, but I've got places to meet, and people to go. Later.

272 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:05:47pm

re: #254 faraway

Are you riding a bus?

Why am I down here desperately hanging onto the undercarriage?!?

273 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:05:56pm

re: #232 MandyManners

I hit POST too soon. See my No. 222, please.

Saw it. I'm not saying Faith in a higher being (which I do have) is bullshit. I'm saying relying solely on Faith to prove or disprove a scientific theory with no other supporting evidence is bullshit and a waste of time. Believe what you wish, but if you are going to try to convince me (or many others apparently), they need a better arguement than "because we say so" and wanting us to disregard all contradictory evidence.

274 Da_Beerfreak  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:06:00pm

re: #52 MandyManners

After his attack on the disabled earlier today, I don't have the patience to restrain myself.

We're all friends here.
We'll help you hide the body.
// {;-)™

275 grumpy old codger  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:06:08pm

re: #51 marjoriemoon
Remember, 97 percent of dirty old men prefer Hershey's

276 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:06:15pm

re: #261 bitsy

I'm guessing alot of rum, but I am preggars so I hafta stick to chocolate for now.

When are you due?

277 VegasRick  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:06:27pm

re: #267 MandyManners

Oh, no. You whipped out your dictionary.

I always say "when in doubt, you shuold whip it out!"
I likes Teddy.

278 OldLineTexan  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:06:28pm

re: #270 goddessoftheclassroom

The best of both positions:

[Link: icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com.. .]

Now we know what Obama's oficial photographer used to do before Barry hired him/her.

279 angst  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:06:40pm

re: #195 faraway

The problem with evolutionists is they can't roll anything back to the beginning.

Whatever the beginning is... where did that come from? It's a simple question.

/obviously I wasn't there, so I don't know either

This is a really good question, and one science hasn't really been able to explain, yet. I think the theory of evolution has shed a light on a great many things, but there is some work left to do, which is pretty exciting and very interesting. Most scientists don't want to work in fields where everything is known, fortunately there isn't a scientific theory yet that explains everything within its scope of application.

280 jaunte  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:06:43pm

re: #258 Racer X

One addition to your summation:
"Belief in science does not negate a belief in God.*"

* This is where the DI politicians are trying to shove in the Wedge.

281 Salamantis  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:06:48pm

re: #96 bj1126

I am a Christian and "creationist" if you want to call it that though no where near as militant in my beliefs as many. I'm also an IT admin and pretty tech savvy guy. My job and nature dictates that I solve problems. I've also learned over my 10 year career not to be attached to things because as our collective knowledge changes so does our perspective on technology.

Maybe it's because I have trouble with the differences in the terms evolution and adaptation but there are things about evolution that have never been sufficiently explained to me and most of the proof for it to me looks more like adaptation. That however doesn't lead me to believe solely in 6 day creation or ID. It also doesn't cause me to question my belief in God. God as I believe in Him is capable of anything and could have created the world in 6 days and made it appear ancient or could have directed evolution or taken a hands off approach and let evolution run its course. I refuse to limit his abilities based on my potentially flawed understanding of His creation or Word.

I guess my major problem with your posts lately Charles is the tone not the content. Creationists aren't the John Birch Society and you're not Buckley. I don't see a reason for your efforts to insult and deride creationists. I think you could better make your point through a more sympathetic tone.

Read up on the Discovery Institute, their Wedge Strategy, and their connections with the Dominionists and with Harun Yahya. I find them to be much more dangerous than the John Birch Society ever was.

282 jcm  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:06:56pm

re: #266 Cognito

I'm sorry, but that last bit is starting to get under my skin. Newton's law of universal gravitation is just that: a law.

It's just a theory......
Until you hit the ground.

283 Catttt  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:06:57pm

I forgot to include the compiler of my theories short list:

Valerie's soapbox

284 goddessoftheclassroom  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:07:16pm

re: #282 jcm

It's just a theory......
Until you hit the ground.

[Link: icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com...]

285 grumpy old codger  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:07:31pm

re: #57 looking closely

A psychiatrist yet.

286 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:07:51pm

re: #273 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Saw it. I'm not saying Faith in a higher being (which I do have) is bullshit. I'm saying relying solely on Faith to prove or disprove a scientific theory with no other supporting evidence is bullshit and a waste of time. Believe what you wish, but if you are going to try to convince me (or many others apparently), they need a better arguement than "because we say so" and wanting us to disregard all contradictory evidence.

I've never made that argument. I believe it's possible to keep the two separate except for one area, and that's the area of where it all started.

287 ladycatnip  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:07:58pm

#209 faraway

I believe science books tout a theory that we came from monkeys. Can this also please stay out of the classroom?

Now, some of you may have come from monkeys. But, I prefer not to teach my kids they are monkeys.

You don't have to teach your kids that we came from monkeys. We didn't. We taught our kids (who are all adults now) biblical creation as they were growing up. When they attended public high school, their sciences classes taught evolution. It was never a problem; just a different opinion. We didn't ridicule the teachers or textbooks, and our kids learned a valuable lesson - not everybody believes the same as we do and that's ok.

288 DeafDog  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:08:03pm

re: #235 bj1126

I'm all for school choice and I do believe that one of the choices should be a school that includes religion/bible/torah/koran studies and prayers. If the religious studies included teaching about Adam & Eve and creationalism, I would not object.

Whether creationalism taught as science should be a part of any school curriculum is a different matter. If it was to be propsed in my local district I would argue against it.

289 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:08:05pm

re: #262 BlueCanuck

Hmmm, Hellboy or Indy 4. Choices choices. Anyway have yourselves a good night and keep the ideology on the low key folks.

/god is a mathematician

Hellboy.

290 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:08:17pm

re: #274 Da_Beerfreak

We're all friends here.
We'll help you hide the body.
// {;-)™

Ah gotz me a root cellar.

291 Catttt  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:08:23pm

re: #248 HoosierHoops

Sorry mandy.. give me a wack.. That's what the nuns did to me all the time anyway..

I am sorry if i offended you...

I lasted one month in Catholic school, because I wacked back.

292 Steve  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:08:25pm

re: #268 venjanz

Theory becomes 'fact' only when it is repeatable.

(i.e.) gravity. Pickup an object and let go of it and see what happens.
if it continually falls to the ground gravity is fact and not a hypothis or a theory.

293 faraway  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:08:29pm

Big Bang Theory
Doesnt that one involve 90% dark matter (which has never been proven). Not to mention, what happened before that? Where did the little blob come from?

294 Salamantis  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:08:37pm

re: #100 theheat

Shoulda been a plus. 'Scuze me.

295 ContraJihadi  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:08:43pm

re: #244 itellu3times

Hey ContraJihadi, how are you?

You could pull my string on this one, and I could give you a very long discussion of it. Which is to say, it's not the non-sequitur it may appear. Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" is about four hundred pages on the topic, and his "Freedom Evolves" is another three hundred. I don't think Dennett goes far enough, but he goes farther in the second book.

The question is, are humans the only ones with self-consciousness, or intelligence, or minds, or rationality? That's a pretty tough question right there, without getting into origins.

I'm getting by, itellu3times. My son will be coming out for a visit next month. That should sooth some of the grumbles.

I guess we'll have to leave this as an open question for now. I read a fellow some time ago--it might have been Dennett--who did not convince me that the methods of natural science, which consider substances solely as externalities, could adequately explain the subject-interiority of consciousness. He said something like we don't really see red, we see wave lengths. I found this assertion unpersuasive, or at least trivial.

296 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:08:53pm

re: #277 VegasRick

I always say "when in doubt, you shuold whip it out!"
I likes Teddy.

Kennedy or Kacinzsky?

297 wong fei hung  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:09:00pm

I don't recall disagreeing with a damn thing Krauthammer has ever written. The guy's a legend.

-WFH

298 goddessoftheclassroom  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:09:12pm

re: #296 MandyManners

Kennedy or Kacinzsky?

As long as it isn't Bundy...

299 VegasRick  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:09:38pm

re: #296 MandyManners

Kennedy or Kacinzsky?

Sweaty

300 grumpy old codger  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:09:43pm

re: #68 marjoriemoon

Was God on a bender or a really big high when he did the platypus?

301 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:09:49pm

re: #281 Salamantis

Read up on the Discovery Institute, their Wedge Strategy, and their connections with the Dominionists and with Harun Yahya. I find them to be much more dangerous than the John Birch Society ever was.

On that we can agree...maybe.

302 jcm  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:10:04pm

re: #284 goddessoftheclassroom

[Link: icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com.. .]

That's inertia!

303 Steve  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:10:07pm

re: #289 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Hellboy.


go see both.

304 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:10:10pm

re: #298 goddessoftheclassroom

As long as it isn't Bundy...

Had a party when he got fried.

305 ContraJihadi  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:10:17pm

re: #228 keithgabryelski

I see it in you.

Close but no cigar.

306 goddessoftheclassroom  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:10:47pm

re: #304 MandyManners

Had a party when he got fried.

One reason why I support the death penalty.

307 Sabnen  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:11:03pm

re: #209 faraway

If we were descended from monkeys there would no longer be monkeys, get it?

Breed a big dog with a little dog and you get a middle sized dog, get it?

After the Scopes "Monkey Trial" in Dayton, Tennessee a polling of the jurors (mostly farmers) after the trial had most of them saying that animal husbandry resulted in better animals for them. Big cow + Big cow = Big cow. They got it, do you?

308 goddessoftheclassroom  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:11:11pm

Got to get ready for the drama camp showcase. Have a great evening, dear Lizard!

309 FamHistoryGuy  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:11:28pm

re: #173 ladycatnip

When people have a belief that is tightly entwined with their self-concept it tends to make any opposition to that belief considered a direct attack on their person. This tends to result in the extreme reactions to what others consider normal give and take of difference of opinions.

310 VegasRick  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:11:38pm

re: #305 ContraJihadi

I see it in you.

Close but no cigar.

Monica, is that you?

311 jcm  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:11:40pm
312 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:11:44pm

re: #299 VegasRick

Sweaty

Sweaty? Like Pete Schweaty and his holiday balls on SNL?

313 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:12:29pm

re: #306 goddessoftheclassroom

One reason why I support the death penalty.

It's final.

314 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:12:35pm

re: #284 goddessoftheclassroom

[Link: icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com.. .]

I once knew a lady who had a cat that fat. Every time the cat was out in the back yard and even looked at a bird, the woman fed it. Damn cat was a blimp.

315 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:12:39pm

re: #286 MandyManners

I've never made that argument. I believe it's possible to keep the two separate except for one area, and that's the area of where it all started.

I'm not saying you did. Sorry if you though I had. As for how it all started, I really dont have a clue and not overly concerned with it. I figure God will clue us in if its important and until then, worry about taking care of myself and my family

316 Sharmuta  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:12:45pm

re: #175 Arbalest

I think that for some Christians- Genesis must be literal due to Man's fall from Grace in order for Jesus to atone for our sins. Without Original Sin, there was no need for Jesus to be the Sacrificial Lamb. Hope that helps, but also bear in mind it's just my opinion.

317 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:12:45pm

re: #308 goddessoftheclassroom

Got to get ready for the drama camp showcase. Have a great evening, dear Lizard!

Break a leg!

318 VegasRick  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:12:51pm

re: #312 MandyManners

Sweaty? Like Pete Schweaty and his holiday balls on SNL?

Ted Nugent.

319 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:13:22pm

re: #315 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I'm not saying you did. Sorry if you though I had. As for how it all started, I really dont have a clue and not overly concerned with it. I figure God will clue us in if its important and until then, worry about taking care of myself and my family

That's about all we can do.

320 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:13:48pm

re: #318 VegasRick

Ted Nugent.

Duh.

321 ibmkeyboard  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:13:59pm

[Link: crustacea.nhm.org...]

Page down to the samurai crab.

since 1100 it has developed a face on it back for survival.

Evolution intelligence design for survival.

322 Salamantis  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:14:10pm

re: #145 bj1126

Ideally I think there should be schools that don't and do teach it and parents should be able to choose which type of school their child goes to. It's too hard to dictate the tone and presentation of both and its not possible to please everyone. I will say that it doesn't benefit even staunch creationists to be ignorant of evolution.

It's that way now; it's called public vs. private school.

323 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:14:14pm

re: #308 goddessoftheclassroom

Got to get ready for the drama camp showcase. Have a great evening, dear Lizard!

{goddess}

324 bitsy  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:14:33pm

re: #209 faraway

I believe science books tout a theory that we came from monkeys.

You weren't reading those books very closely, were you?

325 Steve  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:14:53pm

"The trouble is, Sancho," said Don Quixote, "you are so afraid that you cannot see or hear properly; for one of the effects of fear is to disturb the senses and cause things to appear other than they are."

Miguel De Cervantes


I think that about covers both sides of the issue.
Steve

326 faraway  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:14:56pm

re: #307 Sabnen

If we were descended from monkeys there would no longer be monkeys, get it?

Breed a big dog with a little dog and you get a middle sized dog, get it?

Look, maybe they don't have logic where you are. You breed a big dog and a little dog. OK, great. Now their offspring produce a new breed. What about the other 50 million big and little dogs out there humping away? Sheesh.

327 cliffster  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:16:18pm

Salamantis is on the prowl again

328 Racer X  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:16:44pm

re: #318 VegasRick

Ted Nugent.

Its a Free For All

329 DeafDog  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:17:05pm

Beer O'clock!

So long

330 faraway  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:17:05pm

Friday Night Fights

331 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:17:14pm

re: #318 VegasRick

Ted Nugent.

Meow.

332 BBev  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:18:02pm

I have always thought that God gave us the ability through science to figure this all out he gave us the large brain through evolution to get to where we are now and where we should be going.

333 VegasRick  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:18:23pm

re: #320 MandyManners

Duh.

Talk about evolving!

334 SFGoth  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:18:56pm

I have come to the conclusion that ID is partially correct. God must have created the plants because marijuana is something so wonderful that it could not have randomly evolved. We should thank Her for it and be happy we evolved to have THC receptors in our brains!

335 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:19:10pm

re: #307 Sabnen

If we were descended from monkeys there would no longer be monkeys

As a matter of fact, no, I do NOT get it. Would you please explain it in terms of monkeys, not dogs or cows.

336 opnion  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:19:32pm

Alright, let me inject a little sanity here. All you honkies , listen up.
You all came out of a botched lab experiment by a Black scientist.
I know ths for a fact , from Minister Farahkan.

337 Charles  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:19:45pm

re: #209 faraway

I believe science books tout a theory that we came from monkeys. Can this also please stay out of the classroom?

Now, some of you may have come from monkeys. But, I prefer not to teach my kids they are monkeys.

Human beings did not "come from monkeys."

The species Homo Sapiens evolved from a line of primate creatures that probably originated in Africa. Genetic studies have shown that our closest living relatives in the animal world are chimpanzees, which indicates that they probably had a common ancestor before diverging into a different branch on the evolutionary tree.

There are mountains of evidence to support these assertions. Of course, you can choose to deny it all if you like.

338 ContraJihadi  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:20:00pm

I tell you what, itellu < bad, bad pun >. I am rereading Hegel's Logic right now; you can be sure he has something to say about the finitude of the ontology of the empirical method vs. the infinity of mind. But after I finish, I'll try to find Dennett in the library, maybe ask my son "the doctah, already" (he's an empirical science kind of guy) what he thinks about this stuff. Then we and maybe some other lizards can revisit this issue.

But for now, I have to go.

Be brave, lizards, but be polite.

339 angst  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:20:45pm

re: #231 eschew_obfuscation

I'm sure there is some of that thinking and that it's not entirely bad logic.

I'm not suggesting this about people here because I haven't seen evidence of it, but there is a tendency in some circles to 'worship' science as the be-all and end-all of human understanding. While it is one of the best tools we have for understanding our environment, it has not yet led us to perfect understanding.....leaving at least some of what we 'know' open to question along with all that we don't know.

Religion may lead us to understanding in non-scientific ways that is just as true as if it had been discovered scientifically.

Science is a tool for understanding the universe, but morality has to guide its use. Science without moral guidance as to its application is a pretty damned dangerous thing, and that's where people of faith need to be focused, not puttering around with the nuts and bolts.

It's two different kinds of understanding.

340 Steve  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:20:47pm

re: #334 SFGoth

I have come to the conclusion that ID is partially correct. God must have created the plants because marijuana is something so wonderful that it could not have randomly evolved. We should thank Her for it and be happy we evolved to have THC receptors in our brains!


All things are lawful but not profitable. Be careful what you choose!

341 VegasRick  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:21:22pm

re: #328 Racer X

Its a Free For All

re: #334 SFGoth

I have come to the conclusion that ID is partially correct. God must have created the plants because marijuana is something so wonderful that it could not have randomly evolved. We should thank Her for it and be happy we evolved to have THC receptors in our brains!

Keep smokin', dude.

342 Racer X  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:21:37pm

re: #334 SFGoth

Pass the bong down here.

343 cliffster  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:22:07pm

*ding* *ding*

The sound of people getting off work and slowly making their way chronologically through the Intelligent Design threads.

344 BBev  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:22:26pm

re: #336 opnion


Dam I knew there was something wrong with me.

345 bitsy  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:22:57pm

re: #276 MandyManners

mid-october ... probably a libra. I wonder how he will get along with all the scorpios and leos in my family.

346 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:23:49pm

re: #333 VegasRick

[Link: www.youtube.com...]

Talk about evolving!

Yes!

347 xtraBilly  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:23:54pm

a movie moment - who said (IMOW)
There are some who say Man is derived from an ape. There are some who will tell you that I'm derived from and ape. But, tell me , who will say that Robert E. lee is derived from an ape?

348 Salamantis  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:24:05pm

re: #195 faraway

The problem with evolutionists is they can't roll anything back to the beginning.

Whatever the beginning is... where did that come from? It's a simple question.

/obviously I wasn't there, so I don't know either

It's also a question that is not addresssed by evolutionary theory, which only considers the diversification and speciation of already-present life.

349 ladycatnip  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:24:18pm

#309 FamHistoryGuy

When people have a belief that is tightly entwined with their self-concept it tends to make any opposition to that belief considered a direct attack on their person. This tends to result in the extreme reactions to what others consider normal give and take of difference of opinions.

Thank you! It only took you two sentences to say what I've been trying to say in a multitude of posts. Succinct, and right on the mark.

350 freetoken  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:24:23pm

re: #130 ladycatnip

For those here who believe that ID should be in the same cracked pot as global warming - here's some good news on that: American Physical Society has reversed their stand on GW.

De-bunk away!

No, they have not. The following is a copy of what I posted in the spinoff links yesterday.

The headlines of the DailyTech article, and especially that of Drudge, is in error.

Among the APS there are forums that are open to various members who are interested in various specialties.

One of these forums is Physics and Society, which deals with how science affects the greater society.

The editor of the forum has spoken of his intent here:

Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion.


Since the editors of the forum recognize the importance of the debate to society, they thought it important to have a discussion of the objection raised by a few that the effect of CO2 is less than that used in the latest IPCC summary. Lord Monckton is one of those. Thus the editors are opening a debate between Lord Monckton and a couple of physicists who represent the majority opinion.

Note that Lord Monckton will not be arguing that CO2 has no affect, but rather that the effect is smaller and in his judgement harmless.

The APS itself has not changed its opinion on global warming, which can be found here. Indeed, the APS has put on its front page it reaffirmation of its statement.

351 grumpy old codger  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:24:33pm

re: #203 HoosierHoops

Paging Bishop Usher, paging Bishop Usher!

352 BBev  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:24:34pm

Well this was my last day at my old job nd the boss offered me huge money to stay. I'm still going or should I say I'm gone.

353 VegasRick  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:24:55pm

re: #346 MandyManners

Yes!

Listening to it now.

354 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:24:59pm

re: #347 xtraBilly

a movie moment - who said (IMOW)
There are some who say Man is derived from an ape. There are some who will tell you that I'm derived from and ape. But, tell me , who will say that Robert E. lee is derived from an ape?

Tom Berenger, playing the role of Longstreet in "Gettysburg"

355 vapig  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:25:01pm

Good evening, lizards! Tyme to drinketh the nectar of the hops and barley!

356 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:25:20pm

re: #334 SFGoth

I have come to the conclusion that ID is partially correct. God must have created the plants because marijuana is something so wonderful that it could not have randomly evolved. We should thank Her for it and be happy we evolved to have THC receptors in our brains!

Dude. That's like, deep or sumpin'.

357 xtraBilly  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:26:07pm

re: #352 BBev

Well this was my last day at my old job nd the boss offered me huge money to stay. I'm still going or should I say I'm gone.

a Johnnie Paycheck fan?

358 theheat  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:26:20pm

re: #153 eschew_obfuscation

On what basis do you assume that home schooling is based on parents desire to keep their children away from science class!

How about the fact the parents themselves told me so? Does that work for you? I am speaking from what I know first-hand, not a chapter from the brownshirt handbook.

Case in point, once child came home one day saying the neighbor kids teased her when she told them dinosaur bones were planted by scientists to "go against the bible". Her parents told her this, of course, as was the mantra of the particular Fundie sect they belonged to.

That was the last day of public school for that girl. She and the rest of her siblings were homeschooled from that day forward. In fact, the church they attended recommended homeschooling to all its parents because so many things taught in public school are not congruent with their biblical interpretations, natural history being one subject in particular.

It's the same kind of narrow-minded paranoid isolationism as the FLDS practice i.e. child abuse. And, yes, anti-science (ID) does play a part of that.

359 Racer X  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:26:29pm

iirc Homo Sapiens evolved from Neanderthals primarily due to a larger brain. What made the brain larger? Eating protein - meat.

I love Ted Nugent.

360 VegasRick  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:26:30pm

re: #347 xtraBilly

a movie moment - who said (IMOW)
There are some who say Man is derived from an ape. There are some who will tell you that I'm derived from and ape. But, tell me , who will say that Robert E. lee is derived from an ape?

ummm......Richard Simmons?

361 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:26:33pm

re: #356 MandyManners

Dude. That's like, deep or sumpin'.

Oh fer sure, fer sure!

/gag me with a snow shovel

362 Salamantis  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:26:37pm

re: #201 steve

Last I heard, Evolution was still a theory!

Last I heard, the word 'theory', in scientific parlance (as opposed to its common parlance connotation of 'weak') meant something extremely well supported by a plethora of empirical evidence.

363 xtraBilly  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:26:45pm

re: #354 pre-Boomer Marine brat

no close but let's move on.

364 BBev  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:26:51pm

re: #357 xtraBilly

a Johnnie Paycheck fan?

Ya. thats cool

365 angst  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:27:11pm

re: #352 BBev

Well this was my last day at my old job nd the boss offered me huge money to stay. I'm still going or should I say I'm gone.

Most of the time they're missing the fact that if money were the answer you'd have been pushing for a raise. You'd be gone even if you stayed.

Good luck on your new endeavors.

366 tgibson1962  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:27:23pm

re: #316 Sharmuta

I think that for some Christians- Genesis must be literal due to Man's fall from Grace in order for Jesus to atone for our sins. Without Original Sin, there was no need for Jesus to be the Sacrificial Lamb. Hope that helps, but also bear in mind it's just my opinion.

That's at least part of it, although I've heard Original Sin called one of the most denied and best attested doctrines in human history.

The rub, for me at least, is that Christ took Genesis seriously in the Gospels. He didn't back away it, nor did He attempt to correct people's ideas regarding what it taught. Neither did the Apostle Paul.

367 opnion  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:27:29pm

re: #344 BBev

Dam I knew there was something wrong with me.


There ya go

368 Charles  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:27:51pm

re: #350 freetoken

That was what I learned yesterday too, as I looked into this story, and it's why I didn't jump on the bandwagon and post this as some kind of devastating blow to the global warming crowd. It isn't. It may become one, if the science holds up, but at this time Monckton's paper hasn't even been peer reviewed as far as I know.

Unfortunately, there are politics on both sides of this issue, and nothing can be taken at face value -- especially not anything the media says.

369 xtraBilly  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:27:55pm

re: #360 VegasRick

ummm......Richard Simmons?

Man you are so not there.

370 Steve  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:27:59pm

re: #352 BBev

Well this was my last day at my old job nd the boss offered me huge money to stay. I'm still going or should I say I'm gone.


what is it worth to you? ;P

371 USBeast  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:28:05pm

re: #9 Charles

The big question, though, is why does Charles Krauthammer hate God?

cough

Well, if God made you to resemble Howard Handupme wouldn't you be the least little bit miffed?

372 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:28:18pm

re: #337 Charles

Human beings did not "come from monkeys."

The species Homo Sapiens evolved from a line of primate creatures that probably originated in Africa. Genetic studies have shown that our closest living relatives in the animal world are chimpanzees, which indicates that they probably had a common ancestor before diverging into a different branch on the evolutionary tree.

There are mountains of evidence to support these assertions. Of course, you can choose to deny it all if you like.

I have to part with that. I believe God created humans uniquely. I believe we have a soul, a sense of consciousness, that other primates don't have. Maybe our direct ancestors did, too, and maybe God picked out a particular set of them to have souls and the like. But, I have no idea.

373 cliffster  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:29:30pm

re: #352 BBev

Well this was my last day at my old job nd the boss offered me huge money to stay. I'm still going or should I say I'm gone.

I had a similar situation and my boss gave me big money and a nice promotion. I wouldn't have taken it if it was just the money but big raise and good new job description has made it worth staying on.

374 VegasRick  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:29:34pm

re: #359 Racer X

iirc Homo Sapiens evolved from Neanderthals primarily due to a larger brain. What made the brain larger? Eating protein - meat.

I love Ted Nugent.

Thanks! That is AWESOME!

375 Salamantis  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:30:13pm

re: #209 faraway

I believe science books tout a theory that we came from monkeys. Can this also please stay out of the classroom?

Now, some of you may have come from monkeys. But, I prefer not to teach my kids they are monkeys.

So, you'd prefer not to teach your kids the empirically verifiable facts that humans and great apes diverged from common ancestors?

[Link: www.newyorker.com...]

I guess that makes you kinda like that liar god that all those YEC's seem to have fallen in love with...

376 VegasRick  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:30:25pm

re: #369 xtraBilly

Man you are so not there.

The pressure was on! I just threw that out!

377 DistantThunder  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:30:57pm

re: #12 Ringo the Gringo

Then you probably won't like this quote by a long time LGF favorite:

The fact is that this is a planet overwhelmingly dominated and shaped by one species, and our kith and kin – whether gibbons or pumpkins – basically fit in in the spaces between. That’s pretty much the world the Psalmist outlined in the Old Testament thousands of years ago. By comparison, the evolutionists’ insistence that we’re just another “animal” seems perverse and irrational and refuted by a casual glance out the window. I am coming round to the view that hyper-rationalism is highly irrational.

~ Mark Steyn


(found at this link)

There are more bugs than people, and for millennia, bugs have had their way with us, and in most parts of the world, they still do. Our friend living in Belize says there is a type of fire ant that takes over the whole house. It swarms, and moves through like a wave. They cover the roof and enter all the rooms - he had to move out for a few days.

378 Catttt  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:30:59pm

re: #266 Cognito

I'm sorry, but that last bit is starting to get under my skin. Newton's law of universal gravitation is just that: a law.

Arguable.

379 Wendya  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:31:27pm

re: #96 bj1126


I guess my major problem with your posts lately Charles is the tone not the content. Creationists aren't the John Birch Society and you're not Buckley. I don't see a reason for your efforts to insult and deride creationists. I think you could better make your point through a more sympathetic tone.

You're imagining the tone you want to see. That's my major problem with IDers and Creationists. They want us to pander to their feelings and reinforce their belief. I'm not going to do that and it doesn't make me anti-Christian in the least.

380 ladycatnip  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:32:02pm

#350 freetoken

The APS itself has not changed its opinion on global warming, which can be found here. Indeed, the APS has put on its front page it reaffirmation of its statement.

Thanks for the correction, and I did get my info off Drudge. At least the APS is open to debate, which is encouraging, as there are those pushing this that would be willing to criminalize dissenters. I believe GW to be the biggest hoax perpetrated on mankind yet.

381 xtraBilly  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:32:28pm

re: #376 VegasRick

The pressure was on! I just threw that out!

Don't feel bad. Life is a journey.

382 itellu3times  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:32:41pm

re: #295 ContraJihadi

I guess we'll have to leave this as an open question for now. I read a fellow some time ago--it might have been Dennett--who did not convince me that the methods of natural science, which consider substances solely as externalities, could adequately explain the subject-interiority of consciousness. He said something like we don't really see red, we see wave lengths. I found this assertion unpersuasive, or at least trivial.

That could have been Dennett, he does tend to wave off the subjectivity of "qualia", as they call it, maybe just a little too soon.

The alternative is to privilege the phenomenological, and ask questions like, "What is it like to be a bat?". There is endless discussion in philosophy of mind, and the related topic of artificial intelligence, about what it is like, to have a pain? Could a computer have a pain, or see red, or be conscious? The related question is, could humans? An alternate question is, can a dog?

For that matter, it is hard to answer the "other minds" question, which is, how do you know that I am conscious, or see red, the same way you do? When it turns out that such simple questions are very nearly unanswerable, it puts the grander questions into a different perspective.

383 Sharmuta  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:32:57pm

re: #366 tgibson1962

Well- I did say it was just my opinion.

384 VegasRick  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:33:09pm

re: #381 xtraBilly

Don't feel bad. Life is a journey.

Don't stop belivin?

385 Pshawalaw  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:33:20pm
How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God.

-CK

And how equally ridiculous it is to make God the enemy of evolution. A new discipline that illustrates those two concepts is a new curriculum for our schools which I could get behind. And, given the level this discussion takes, it is a discipline which should be taught; clearly there is far too little understanding about the parameters of both religion and science, or that one another need not be construed to cancel out the other entity.

386 faraway  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:33:46pm

re: #337 Charles

Human beings did not "come from monkeys."

The species Homo Sapiens evolved from a line of primate creatures that probably originated in Africa. Genetic studies have shown that our closest living relatives in the animal world are chimpanzees, which indicates that they probably had a common ancestor before diverging into a different branch on the evolutionary tree.

There are mountains of evidence to support these assertions. of course, you can choose to deny it all if you like.

The latest genetic studies show that we originated from a small band of humans in Africa. See Human Genome Project

Separate teams of researchers from Stanford and the University of Michigan have found convincing evidence locked inside the human genome that much of the world today is populated by descendants of a small band of migrants who left Africa for the Middle East some 100,000 years ago.

Is there evidence of a "common ancestor"? Do you have a link for pics of the bones of this thing?

What was this "common ancestor"? More man or more monkey? (maybe lizard?)

387 itellu3times  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:33:47pm

re: #359 Racer X

iirc Homo Sapiens evolved from Neanderthals primarily due to a larger brain. What made the brain larger? Eating protein - meat.

I do not believe that anyone says homo sapiens evolved from neanderthals.

388 Sabnen  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:34:14pm

re: #326 faraway

There you go you're starting to think like an evolutionist!

Yes! Now we have 50 million dogs "humping away" (crude, but I'll use it) and then certain traits favorable or unfavorable are created, perpetuated or discarded as per the Theory of Evolution.

Man has intervened and bred certain dogs for certain traits and we've provided them with an environment in which they can thrive and reproduce those traits we find favorable and perpetuated.

Those short-legged, badger-hunting dachshunds have always fascinated me!
They're so cute!

Okay, back to topic . . . the down-side with all the breed specificity we have is, in-breeding. Some breeds of dog are not as genetically vigorous as they used to be and they have massive health problems. But then, if they can't reproduce, those negative health problems/traits are discarded.

Dog breeding is such a great bit of evolution writ small. Get it?

389 Salamantis  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:34:20pm

re: #195 faraway

The problem with evolutionists is they can't roll anything back to the beginning.

That's not their job; evolutionary theory doesn't consider the beginnings of all life.

Whatever the beginning is... where did that come from? It's a simple question.

/obviously I wasn't there, so I don't know either

Which beginning? The biological beginning? The cosmological beginning? There is no such thing as 'before the Big Bang', btw...

But under the turtle on the bottom is usually the top of a post.

390 BBev  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:34:26pm

re: #370 Steve

what is it worth to you? ;P

Well the new job pays more so, yes...

391 xtraBilly  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:34:35pm

re: #384 VegasRick

Don't stop belivin?

true that

392 angst  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:34:45pm

re: #358 theheat

A lot of people homeschool to get a better education for their kids than what's available. We did.

In fact, homeschoolers are vastly over-represented among the regional science fair winners here. I've been judging it for fifteen years and some of these parents are just highly motivated to educate their kids. There's also a pretty good network here that offers all kinds of sports, etc. so they aren't stuck at home.

Many of these parents are religious- and creationists- but by no means all, or even a majority, and I live in a pretty religious part of the country.

393 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:34:48pm

No one's been deleted on this thread?
Wow!

394 grumpy old codger  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:34:54pm

re: #347 xtraBilly

395 wolfie  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:35:04pm

re: #28 Maine's Michael

Krauthammer is drawing upon Jewish teachings in this regard.

God lives above the natural world, and the glory of God is seen in the complexity/beauty/elegance/ugliness/impo derability (totality) of his creations. Those creations include systems such as physics, evolution, chemistry etc.

There is no conflict. Period.

I'm not picking on you personally, MM, but the statement that "there is no conflict," which I read so often on these threads, is a theological proposition. I happen to agree with it, but I am not the Imperial Arbiter of Christian orthodoxy.

Roman Catholics (along w/ the Orthodox) base their doctrine on Apostolic authority, the catholic (universal) tradition, Scripture, and reason. But there are Protestant denominations which, partly in revolt against the perceived rationalism of the medieval Catholic Church, base their teaching solely on Scripture, and on the "literal-historical" interpretation at that. For them, there is indeed a conflict.

That difficulty will not be solved by denying it.
It certainly won't be solved by telling them that the naughty Papists have a few things right after all.
It won't be solved by telling them they can always chuck the Bible out the window and become Episcopalians of the What-Me-Worry Synod.
These Protestants are going to have to figure it out on their own, with "fear and trembling," I should say.

It is my opinion that the Disco Institute people, as a whole, are exploiting the situation for their own glory and gain. They are offering the literalists snake oil, and some are foolish enough to buy it. It's not a pretty picture.

396 tgibson1962  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:35:13pm

re: #383 Sharmuta

Well- I did say it was just my opinion.

No, I wasn't disagreeing or correcting, just adding a little bit.

397 jaunte  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:35:28pm

re: #380 ladycatnip

This is OT, but you might enjoy reading this piece, which does a good job of revealing some of the problems with the Kyoto accords:

"Kiwis believed joining the Kyoto Protocol - as Australia did earlier this year - would lead to carbon earnings of $500 million. Instead, the poor little place (which only generates 0.2 per cent of the world's human-caused CO2) faces a Kyoto bill of around $1 billion.

The really cool part is that - under the Byzantine Kyoto protocol - most of the $1 billion will go to Russia, which generates about 6 per cent of CO2 (more than Japan and India).

So a clean, non-polluting small country has to pay a gigantic smogtropolis. Makes sense."


[Link: www.news.com.au...]

398 Throbert McGee  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:35:37pm

re: #178 Kosh's Shadow

And Psalm 90: "A thousand years are like a day in Thy sight, like a watch that passes in the night." So who says it has to be 6 24-hour periods, as we know them?

Buuuut... even allowing that the "days" in the first chapter of Genesis were actually "ages" of indeterminate length, the sequencing is still wrong as wrong can be:

Day 1: God creates light, thus illuminating the already existing ocean, and also separates the day from the night.

Day 2: God creates the sky.

Day 3: God separates dry land from the oceans and also creates plants.

Day 4: God creates the Sun and the Moon and the stars.

Day 5: God creates aquatic animals and birds.

Day 6: God creates land-dwelling, non-flying animals and also human beings.

So -- plant life appeared at roughly the same time that the continents were formed, and both are older than the Sun, Moon, and stars; flying birds came along before land-dwelling animals, but at about the same time as oceanic life; humans are roughly contemporaneous with all the other animals inhabiting dry land.

I'm not trying to make fun of the Bible, here, because you can certainly read the first chapter of Genesis as being a divinely-inspired, highly non-literal way of hinting at the gradual evolutionary development of life on Earth, revealed to people who weren't ready for the scientific details.

I'm just saying, though, that it seems a complete waste of time trying to argue that yom COULD HAVE meant millions of years rather than a 24-hour day -- because even granting that point, we're still left with the awkward fact that according to Genesis, fruit trees were around before there was a Sun.

399 cliffster  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:35:44pm

re: #387 itellu3times

I do not believe that anyone says homo sapiens evolved from neanderthals.

No, they coexisted. Humans won. Some of them are still around though, evidenced by Al Gore.

400 BBev  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:36:00pm

I don’t get it, why is this even being discussed I don’t mean here on LGF but t all. I grew up in the 70's (High school) and this was never a problem science was science and that was that. Why would we want our schools as bad as they may be to revert to something out of the middle ages?

401 grumpy old codger  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:36:11pm

re: #354 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Tom Berenger, playing the role of Longstreet in "Gettysburg"

I believe it was the actor protraying General Pickett.

402 MandyManners  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:36:19pm

re: #388 Sabnen

Some breeds of dog are not as genetically vigorous as they used to be and they have massive health problems.

We know where this will end.

403 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:37:14pm

re: #387 itellu3times

I do not believe that anyone says homo sapiens evolved from neanderthals.

There have been a few who went the other way.

404 opnion  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:37:35pm

Serious question, & I may offend Christians & Jews at the same time , altough I have no wish to.
The God of the Old Testement & as I understand the Torah, commanded Abraham to slay his own son in order to prove his obedience to God. Abraham hose to obey & at the last minute God reprieved the boy. Is that about right?
My question is, what kind of a loving god , would play gotcha like that?
I ask this in all seriousness.

405 Arbalest  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:37:56pm

#191 Racer X

Thanks.


#190 itellu3times

Some people see it as challenging the idea that we really are who we are, . . .”

Thanks. Usually, I hear some old dude pound on Scripture, acting like he wants a slice of me, yet he can never point to a NT passage that is undermined by Evolution.

The various proponents of ID always seem to be hiding something, and their explanations for observable objects never work right (unless they use a generally-accepted scientific explanation). They usually seem to retreat to Scripture quickly, bit never point to specific passages . . .


#316 Sharmuta

I understand your point. But it strikes me that the events and Message of the New Testament are still necessary, and not affected by the Theory of Evolution, whether Genesis is to be taken literally or not.

406 jcm  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:38:05pm

OT

BAWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Rather Calls Obama 'Osama Bin Laden,' Will Media Notice?

RATHER: ...with Jesse Jackson, and I realize this is not popular to say with a lot of people, but I have a respect for Jesse Jackson. That he was an important figure in paving the way for an Osama bin Laden to appear.
407 ibmkeyboard  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:38:07pm

re: #393 pre-Boomer Marine brat

No one's been deleted on this thread?
Wow!

Charles is changing from a lizard into a butterfly.
heh.

//dodges banning stick under table

408 wrenchwench  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:38:12pm

re: #388 Sabnen

But then, if they can't reproduce, those negative health problems/traits are discarded.

Unless silly humans intervene, as in the case of Pugs. I've read that they are all bred by artificial insemination and born by Caesarian.

409 Charles  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:38:39pm

re: #386 faraway

The latest genetic studies show that we originated from a small band of humans in Africa. See Human Genome Project...

Yes, and that small band of humans evolved from a line of primate creatures. (Actually, the "small band of 10,000 protohumans" idea is just one hypothesis and it has not been proven.)

Is there evidence of a "common ancestor"? Do you have a link for pics of the bones of this thing?

There's nothing secret about any of this information. You can find it yourself if you're interested enough to look. Yes, there are lots of fossil examples of human ancestors.

410 xtraBilly  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:38:41pm

re: #392 angst

A lot of people homeschool to get a better education for their kids than what's available. We did.

In fact, homeschoolers are vastly over-represented among the regional science fair winners here. I've been judging it for fifteen years and some of these parents are just highly motivated to educate their kids. There's also a pretty good network here that offers all kinds of sports, etc. so they aren't stuck at home.

Many of these parents are religious- and creationists- but by no means all, or even a majority, and I live in a pretty religious part of the country.

I think you may be an exception to the rule

411 jcm  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:38:46pm

re: #393 pre-Boomer Marine brat

No one's been deleted on this thread?
Wow!

Go for it...
Tell Charles what he should post....

I double dog dare you!
/ ;-P

412 Steve  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:38:55pm

re: #390 BBev


Enjoy your new job. I will expect great thing from you.

I quit a very well paying job once to go back to school. everybody that I worked with except one said that I was being stupid. The pne person congratulated be on being willing to take a leap of faith and to seek out my dreams. I have never forgot this man.

413 tgibson1962  Fri, Jul 18, 2008 3:39:10pm

re: #401 grumpy old codger

I believe it was the actor protraying General Pickett.

Later the same actor played Thomas Jackson in "Gods & Genera