| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"words of truth" |
| Date: |
29 Sep 2005 04:27:34 PM |
| Object: |
Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution? |
http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2910
Einstein Versus Darwin: Intelligent Design Or Evolution?
By Tom Barrett
Would you be surprised to know that millions of scientists around the
world do not blindly accept Darwin's THEORY of evolution? Would it
shock you to know that many of these professors and researchers are not
religious, but they embrace the theory of Intelligent Design, which
holds that our intricate universe could not have come about by chance?
Would it blow you away to find that Albert Einstein was one of them?
It is well documented that these famous scientists strongly disagreed
on this important question. It is also well known that they, along with
all credible scientists throughout history, strongly believed that all
theories should be heard, all should be tested, and none should be
ridiculed. This is the only way that science itself can be credible.
Yet many politically active scientists today are desperately
maneuvering to censor any mention of the theory of Intelligent Design
in our schools, textbooks and media. Their accomplices in this blatant
censorship are liberal politicians, atheists, most of the media and the
national teacher's union (the Nation Education Association or NEA).
Darwin's theory is just that - a theory. It has never been proven,
and cannot be proven. But the censors mentioned above want Darwin's
THEORY taught as FACT, and they want no other theories even mentioned.
Einstein is just one of millions of prominent scientists over the years
that have supported the theory of Intelligent Design, but he is perhaps
the best known. In an article in "Science, Philosophy and Religion, A
Symposium," (see LINK below) Einstein said, "Science without
religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
In the last paragraph of his essay, "The World as I See It,"
Einstein wrote, "I am satisfied with the mystery of life's eternity
and with a knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence
- as well as the humble attempt to understand even a tiny portion of
the Reason that manifests itself in nature." While Einstein referred
to the Designer as "Reason" rather than "God," his writings
make it very clear that he believed that an intelligent Designer
crafted our universe and all that is within it.
On the other hand, Darwin postulated that all life somehow crawled out
of primordial ooze and miraculously became differentiated as mammals,
reptiles, fish, fowl and so on. It seems that such a far-fetched theory
would require much more faith than simply believing that God did what
He said He did in Genesis: He created everything according to His plan.
On page 293 of his book, "The Origin of the Species," Darwin stated
that his THEORY would ultimately be proven by the fossil record. This
has never happened. If the theory were true, at least some of the
millions of fossils discovered by scientists would have provided a
"missing link", a fossil that was clearly part one species as well
as part another. Although there have been several attempts over the
years to fake evidence to prove Darwin's theory, the "missing
link" has never been found.
Scientists in China have discovered ancient bacteria that cast doubt on
Darwin's theory, and have published papers stating this. One of them,
Jian Yuan Chan, said, "In China, we can criticize Darwin, but we
cannot criticize the government. In the US you can criticize the
government, but you cannot criticize Darwin."
The issue of Intelligent Design came to national attention recently
because of an ongoing debate in Dover, Pennsylvania. (See LINK,
"What's the Big Secret?" below.) The school board in Dover
announced a year ago that high-school biology teachers would inform
their students that other theories existed besides evolution. A New
York Times article states, "A statement is read to biology students
asserting that Darwin's theory 'is not a fact,' urging them 'to
keep an open mind' and pointing them to the seminal book on
intelligent design, 'Of Pandas and People.' Students are allowed to
leave class when it is read."
Of course Dover liberals are incensed. They want to hide from the
children the fact that other valid theories are accepted by large
portions of the scientific community. They are not satisfied that
students are allowed to leave class during the short statement. They
want the discussion to be held (if at all) in humanities classes. Of
course this would send a clear signal to students that the theory is
unscientific; otherwise, why would it not be discussed in science
classes?
It should be noted that many proponents of Intelligent Design are not
religious; they are simply intellectually honest scientists who see the
flaws in evolutionary theory. Without calling the Designer "God",
they recognize that the complex organisms that populate our universe
could not have resulted from anything other than systematic design by
an intelligent being. Unfortunately, these scientists are hounded by
their evolutionist peers, often losing their jobs because of their
beliefs.
Scientists who would censor or intimidate others with differing
theories are not worthy of the title "Scientist." A Wall Street
Journal Editorial (see LINK below) recently exposed the decades-long
persecution of scientists who support the theory of Intelligent Design
(ID). It used as an example a scientist at the Smithsonian's National
Museum of Natural History in Washington, Richard Steinberg. Steinberg,
who holds two PhD's in biology, was the editor of a Museum
publication that printed an article on ID which had been reviewed by
scientific peers prior to publication. He was demoted and a concerted
effort is underway to ruin his career.
Steinberg's immediate supervisor was asked by top Museum officials,
"Is he religious?", as if being religious was something of which he
should be ashamed. "Is he a right-wing conservative?" One's
political beliefs should not be an issue in the scientific community.
But since the great majority of faculty members at US universities are
far-left liberals, it is always an issue.
The Editorial concludes, "Darwinism...is an essential ingredient in
secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The
Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion
persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of
its churches - like the National Museum of Natural History."
The Journal Editor got it right. Darwinism stems from dialectical
materialism, the philosophy of Marxism. Communism/socialism is a
religion that demands blind faith and obedience. Darwinism is an
offshoot of that false religion. It, too, demands blind faith, and its
disciples persecute anyone who believes differently.
Our children deserve better than being brainwashed by their schools
into believing a false religion is based on fact. They deserve to be
told that evolution is nothing more than a theory that has never been
proven, and allowed to consider alternatives to that theory.
INTERNET RESEARCH:
What's the Big Secret?
http://www.pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=BreakPoint1&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=16042
Wall Street Journal Editorial Exposes Witch Hunt in Scientific
Community
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1242
Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center
http://www.ideacenter.org
Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher about Evolution
http://www.iconsofevolution.com/tools/questions.php3
A Finely-Tuned Universe: What Are the Odds?
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/127/story_12717_1.html
The World As I See It- An Essay by Albert Einstein
http://leiwen.tripod.com/worldisi.htm
Newsweek: Intelligent Design, "A NEW Idea"! Or is it?
http://www.alcaidecafe.com/archives/000136.html
Science, Philosophy and Religion, a Symposium
http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/Einstein2b.html
Tom Barrett has been an ordained minister for over 30 years. He pastors
a church in South Florida. Tom has written for local and national
publications for most of his life, and has authored several non-fiction
books. He has been interviewed on many TV and radio programs, and
speaks at seminars nationwide. Tom is the editor and publisher of
Conservative Truth, an email newsletter and website. His articles,
which focus on moral and political issues from a Biblical viewpoint,
are read by over a quarter million people each week on websites and in
print newspapers.
.
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution? |
29 Sep 2005 06:41:40 PM |
|
|
"words of truth" <wordsoftruth21@lycos.com> wrote in
news:1128029254.102780.53810@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Einstein Versus Darwin: Intelligent Design Or Evolution?
Evidence for common descent:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Project Steve
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/
Clergy supporting the theory of evolution:
http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm
Over 8,000 clergy so far.
Klazmon.
By Tom Barrett
<SNIP rambling of an ignoramous>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution? |
29 Sep 2005 05:35:56 PM |
|
|
"words of truth" <wordsoftruth21@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1128029254.102780.53810@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2910
Einstein Versus Darwin: Intelligent Design Or Evolution?
By Tom Barrett
Would you be surprised to know that millions of scientists around the
world do not blindly accept Darwin's THEORY of evolution?
No scientist accepts evolution "blindly". They accept it because the
evidence for it is overwhelming.
Would it
shock you to know that many of these professors and researchers are not
religious, but they embrace the theory of Intelligent Design, which
holds that our intricate universe could not have come about by chance?
Yes, I would be shocked to know that anybody with a brain can accept
something as stupid as Intelligent Design.
Would it blow you away to find that Albert Einstein was one of them?
No, I am never surprised by the lies of the religionists. Einstein was not
one of them.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "HMS Beagle" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution? |
29 Sep 2005 08:21:39 PM |
|
|
Oh look... it's [words of truth] again spewing his pasted material and
not replying to any of us. How cute.
On 29 Sep 2005 14:27:34 -0700, "words of truth"
<wordsoftruth21@lycos.com> wrote:
http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2910
Einstein Versus Darwin: Intelligent Design Or Evolution?
By Tom Barrett
Would you be surprised to know that millions of scientists around the
world do not blindly accept Darwin's THEORY of evolution? Would it
shock you to know that many of these professors and researchers are not
religious, but they embrace the theory of Intelligent Design, which
holds that our intricate universe could not have come about by chance?
Would it blow you away to find that Albert Einstein was one of them?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution? |
29 Sep 2005 05:24:17 PM |
|
|
On 29 Sep 2005 14:27:34 -0700, "words of truth"
<wordsoftruth21@lycos.com> wrote:
In the last paragraph of his essay, "The World as I See It,"
Einstein wrote, "I am satisfied with the mystery of life's eternity
and with a knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence
- as well as the humble attempt to understand even a tiny portion of
the Reason that manifests itself in nature." While Einstein referred
to the Designer as "Reason" rather than "God," his writings
make it very clear that he believed that an intelligent Designer
crafted our universe and all that is within it.
Einstein explicitly stated that he did not believe in a personal God;
his awe at the intricacy of the universe did not extend to the belief
that it was designed.
---
"This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause"
- Padme Amidala, Episode III
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution? |
29 Sep 2005 06:11:37 PM |
|
|
On 29 Sep 2005 14:27:34 -0700, in alt.atheism , "words of truth"
<wordsoftruth21@lycos.com> in
<1128029254.102780.53810@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2910
Einstein Versus Darwin: Intelligent Design Or Evolution?
By Tom Barrett
Would you be surprised to know that millions of scientists around the
world do not blindly accept Darwin's THEORY of evolution?
Not at all. I would be upset if any one *blindly* accepted it. Now
accepting it because it fits the evidence, that is a different thing.
Would it
shock you to know that many of these professors and researchers are not
religious, but they embrace the theory of Intelligent Design, which
holds that our intricate universe could not have come about by chance?
Surprise? Yep.
Would it blow you away to find that Albert Einstein was one of them?
Yes since I have read his writings. What would not blow me away is a
dishonest presentation of Einstein's views.
It is well documented that these famous scientists strongly disagreed
on this important question.
I dare you to show what Einstein said about evolution or Darwin.
It is also well known that they, along with
all credible scientists throughout history, strongly believed that all
theories should be heard, all should be tested, and none should be
ridiculed. This is the only way that science itself can be credible.
Absolutely. And when a theory is refuted and there is no new evidence
it should be ignored. Creationism was refuted before Darwin. ID was
shown to be empty by David Hume before Paley resurrected the ideas. No
scientific suggestion has been presented since.
Yet many politically active scientists today are desperately
maneuvering to censor any mention of the theory of Intelligent Design
in our schools, textbooks and media.
Intelligent Design is not science. It is easy to show I am wrong: give
me a way to test Intelligent Design. Tell me some observation that
could contradict design by some unknown designer.
Their accomplices in this blatant
censorship are liberal politicians, atheists, most of the media and the
national teacher's union (the Nation Education Association or NEA).
Darwin's theory is just that - a theory.
As are Einsteins'. It takes a particular kind of deliberate ignorance,
and deliberate ignorance is a form of dishonesty, to use Einstein as
an authority and attack science theories.
It has never been proven,
and cannot be proven.
Nor can Einstein's theories.
But the censors mentioned above want Darwin's
THEORY taught as FACT, and they want no other theories even mentioned.
Teach the theory as theory and fact as fact.
Einstein is just one of millions of prominent scientists over the years
that have supported the theory of Intelligent Design, but he is perhaps
the best known. In an article in "Science, Philosophy and Religion, A
Symposium," (see LINK below) Einstein said, "Science without
religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
Which is not Intelligent Design.
In the last paragraph of his essay, "The World as I See It,"
Einstein wrote, "I am satisfied with the mystery of life's eternity
and with a knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence
- as well as the humble attempt to understand even a tiny portion of
the Reason that manifests itself in nature." While Einstein referred
to the Designer as "Reason" rather than "God," his writings
make it very clear that he believed that an intelligent Designer
crafted our universe and all that is within it.
Which is still not Intelligent Design. Quite specifically he is saying
nothing at all about whether or not there are scientific explanations
for some biological phenomena.
On the other hand, Darwin postulated that all life somehow crawled out
of primordial ooze
Most life does not crawl, most life does not have limbs. What Darwin
did was say how (not "somehow") life differentiated since that
"primordial ooze".
and miraculously became differentiated as mammals,
Nope, unlike the ID proponents he did not propose any miracles. He
gave actual testable explanations for what happened.
reptiles, fish, fowl and so on. It seems that such a far-fetched theory
would require much more faith than simply believing that God did what
He said He did in Genesis: He created everything according to His plan.
It take remarkable arrogance to claim to know God's plan.
[snip]
The issue of Intelligent Design came to national attention recently
because of an ongoing debate in Dover, Pennsylvania. (See LINK,
"What's the Big Secret?" below.) The school board in Dover
announced a year ago that high-school biology teachers would inform
their students that other theories existed besides evolution.
ID is not a theory. The some total of ID notions, said in full, is:
"some unknown entity or entities at some unknown time or times did
some unknown thing or things for some unknown reason or reasons giving
some unknown result or results". That's it. That is as specific as
they get. Do you really think it is a good idea to teach this?
But here is the key point for all you creationists to pay close
attention to. The essay I am responding to, as so many others, connect
religion to ID. It is clear to them and to me, and likely to you, that
ID is simply Biblical creationism with the name of God removed. And it
is clear to all of us that the reason they removed the name of God was
that the U.S. courts banned teaching a religious viewpoint in the
public schools. No matter how you cut this, it is a dishonest approach
to the subject. So, ask yourself, do you really want to support lying
for God? Do you think that God will forgive you and them for doing
this?
[snip]
It should be noted that many proponents of Intelligent Design are not
religious;
Name 5.
they are simply intellectually honest scientists who see the
flaws in evolutionary theory.
Name 5 that are non-religious biologists. Name 3 that are doing
research on ID.
[snip]
Scientists who would censor or intimidate others with differing
theories are not worthy of the title "Scientist." A Wall Street
Journal Editorial (see LINK below) recently exposed the decades-long
persecution of scientists who support the theory of Intelligent Design
(ID). It used as an example a scientist at the Smithsonian's National
Museum of Natural History in Washington, Richard Steinberg. Steinberg,
who holds two PhD's in biology, was the editor of a Museum
publication that printed an article on ID which had been reviewed by
scientific peers prior to publication. He was demoted and a concerted
effort is underway to ruin his career.
He evaded the rules to publish a terrible paper in order to promote
his religious views.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pramod Subramanyan" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution? |
30 Sep 2005 06:05:41 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 29 Sep 2005 14:27:34 -0700, in alt.atheism , "words of truth"
<wordsoftruth21@lycos.com> in
<1128029254.102780.53810@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2910
Einstein Versus Darwin: Intelligent Design Or Evolution?
By Tom Barrett
Would you be surprised to know that millions of scientists around the
world do not blindly accept Darwin's THEORY of evolution?
Not at all. I would be upset if any one *blindly* accepted it. Now
accepting it because it fits the evidence, that is a different thing.
Would it
shock you to know that many of these professors and researchers are not
religious, but they embrace the theory of Intelligent Design, which
holds that our intricate universe could not have come about by chance?
Surprise? Yep.
Would it blow you away to find that Albert Einstein was one of them?
Yes since I have read his writings. What would not blow me away is a
dishonest presentation of Einstein's views.
It is well documented that these famous scientists strongly disagreed
on this important question.
I dare you to show what Einstein said about evolution or Darwin.
It is also well known that they, along with
all credible scientists throughout history, strongly believed that all
theories should be heard, all should be tested, and none should be
ridiculed. This is the only way that science itself can be credible.
Absolutely. And when a theory is refuted and there is no new evidence
it should be ignored. Creationism was refuted before Darwin. ID was
shown to be empty by David Hume before Paley resurrected the ideas. No
scientific suggestion has been presented since.
Yet many politically active scientists today are desperately
maneuvering to censor any mention of the theory of Intelligent Design
in our schools, textbooks and media.
Intelligent Design is not science. It is easy to show I am wrong: give
me a way to test Intelligent Design. Tell me some observation that
could contradict design by some unknown designer.
Their accomplices in this blatant
censorship are liberal politicians, atheists, most of the media and the
national teacher's union (the Nation Education Association or NEA).
Darwin's theory is just that - a theory.
As are Einsteins'. It takes a particular kind of deliberate ignorance,
and deliberate ignorance is a form of dishonesty, to use Einstein as
an authority and attack science theories.
It has never been proven,
and cannot be proven.
Nor can Einstein's theories.
But the censors mentioned above want Darwin's
THEORY taught as FACT, and they want no other theories even mentioned.
Teach the theory as theory and fact as fact.
Einstein is just one of millions of prominent scientists over the years
that have supported the theory of Intelligent Design, but he is perhaps
the best known. In an article in "Science, Philosophy and Religion, A
Symposium," (see LINK below) Einstein said, "Science without
religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
Which is not Intelligent Design.
In the last paragraph of his essay, "The World as I See It,"
Einstein wrote, "I am satisfied with the mystery of life's eternity
and with a knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence
- as well as the humble attempt to understand even a tiny portion of
the Reason that manifests itself in nature." While Einstein referred
to the Designer as "Reason" rather than "God," his writings
make it very clear that he believed that an intelligent Designer
crafted our universe and all that is within it.
Which is still not Intelligent Design. Quite specifically he is saying
nothing at all about whether or not there are scientific explanations
for some biological phenomena.
On the other hand, Darwin postulated that all life somehow crawled out
of primordial ooze
Most life does not crawl, most life does not have limbs. What Darwin
did was say how (not "somehow") life differentiated since that
"primordial ooze".
and miraculously became differentiated as mammals,
Nope, unlike the ID proponents he did not propose any miracles. He
gave actual testable explanations for what happened.
reptiles, fish, fowl and so on. It seems that such a far-fetched theory
would require much more faith than simply believing that God did what
He said He did in Genesis: He created everything according to His plan.
It take remarkable arrogance to claim to know God's plan.
[snip]
The issue of Intelligent Design came to national attention recently
because of an ongoing debate in Dover, Pennsylvania. (See LINK,
"What's the Big Secret?" below.) The school board in Dover
announced a year ago that high-school biology teachers would inform
their students that other theories existed besides evolution.
ID is not a theory. The some total of ID notions, said in full, is:
"some unknown entity or entities at some unknown time or times did
some unknown thing or things for some unknown reason or reasons giving
some unknown result or results". That's it. That is as specific as
they get. Do you really think it is a good idea to teach this?
But here is the key point for all you creationists to pay close
attention to. The essay I am responding to, as so many others, connect
religion to ID. It is clear to them and to me, and likely to you, that
ID is simply Biblical creationism with the name of God removed. And it
is clear to all of us that the reason they removed the name of God was
that the U.S. courts banned teaching a religious viewpoint in the
public schools. No matter how you cut this, it is a dishonest approach
to the subject. So, ask yourself, do you really want to support lying
for God? Do you think that God will forgive you and them for doing
this?
[snip]
It should be noted that many proponents of Intelligent Design are not
religious;
Name 5.
they are simply intellectually honest scientists who see the
flaws in evolutionary theory.
Name 5 that are non-religious biologists. Name 3 that are doing
research on ID.
[snip]
Scientists who would censor or intimidate others with differing
theories are not worthy of the title "Scientist." A Wall Street
Journal Editorial (see LINK below) recently exposed the decades-long
persecution of scientists who support the theory of Intelligent Design
(ID). It used as an example a scientist at the Smithsonian's National
Museum of Natural History in Washington, Richard Steinberg. Steinberg,
who holds two PhD's in biology, was the editor of a Museum
publication that printed an article on ID which had been reviewed by
scientific peers prior to publication. He was demoted and a concerted
effort is underway to ruin his career.
He evaded the rules to publish a terrible paper in order to promote
his religious views.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
Good post.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution? |
30 Sep 2005 10:49:52 AM |
|
|
On 30 Sep 2005 04:05:41 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Pramod Subramanyan"
<pramod.sub@gmail.com> in
<1128078341.024819.8650@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 29 Sep 2005 14:27:34 -0700, in alt.atheism , "words of truth"
[snip]
Good post.
Thanks.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution? |
29 Sep 2005 08:58:09 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet words of truth (wordsoftruth21
@lycos.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Einstein Versus Darwin: Intelligent Design Or Evolution?
By Tom Barrett
Would you be surprised to know that millions of scientists around the
world do not blindly accept Darwin's THEORY of evolution?
Who fucking cares?
Evolution is fact, like the fact that the earth revolves around the sun.
Do you think the sun gives a rat's ***** if you believe the opposite because
reality disagrees with your moronic religion? The same holds true about
evolution.
We materialists feel sorry for you creationists, who have to deny reality
because it doesn't agree with your beliefs.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
http://home.comcast.net/~vickman/
Plonked by Raytard
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "-Alan aa#1608 BAAWA" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution? |
29 Sep 2005 08:08:29 PM |
|
|
Snerk! What a steaming pile of rubbish.
-Alan
aa#1608 BAAWA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution? |
29 Sep 2005 10:50:05 PM |
|
|
Something about evolution is right. Its not all wrong. What's right
about it makes it part
of the design.
I say evolution is order not randomness; and order requires an Orderer.
If the body is not actually spirit then the body
doesn't need to be created the same way
God created the Spirit of man.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution? |
30 Sep 2005 09:56:40 AM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
Something about evolution is right. Its not all wrong.
I submit that you are unqualified to opine knowledgeably
on the subject of evolution.
What's right
about it makes it part
of the design.
I say evolution is order not randomness;
It isn't randomness.
and order requires an Orderer.
Because?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robi" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution? |
30 Sep 2005 05:21:25 AM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
Something about evolution is right. Its not all wrong. What's right
about it makes it part
of the design.
I say evolution is order not randomness; and order requires an Orderer.
Its possible that I misundertand ID but this, as I understand it, is
what it is suggesting.
Isn't there heresy in this statement though?
If creation took place place over hundreds of millions of years, with a
little nudge here and there from a god planning the eventual emergence
of humans; if that was the process, doesn't that contradict the god of
the bible? How do you make the leap from the patient god that created
the universe, slowly but surely, to make it into what it is now to the
god of Judaeism/Christianity/Islam.
I really don't understand how the idea of ID is remotely helpful to
Christians.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution? |
30 Sep 2005 06:15:03 AM |
|
|
I say evolution is order not randomness; and order requires an Orderer.
************************
The Orderer is......cybernetic principles. And it created itelf. Cy
is the only discipline that can handle self-reference for it is defined
self-referentially! Which makes for a complete and consistent system!
Defeating that spoiler Godel! Round and round she goes, forever and
ever, ...Amen.
God is the Universe.
Religion = Science
Have a nice day. Address your issues.
- Ralph
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution? |
30 Sep 2005 05:01:26 PM |
|
|
God isn't the universe.
What Einstein was really saying is that he could see God through the
creation.
He was a creation scientist:
I want to know how God created this universe.
I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution? |
30 Sep 2005 05:05:25 PM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128117686.530527.234590@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
God isn't the universe.
What Einstein was really saying is that he could see God
through the
creation.
He was a creation scientist:
I want to know how God created this universe.
I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details.
But the devil is in the details.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution? |
30 Sep 2005 05:11:53 PM |
|
|
Baloney!!!
The devils in fallen people. nowhere else!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution? |
30 Sep 2005 05:14:09 PM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128118313.834796.12670@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Baloney!!!
The devils in fallen people. nowhere else!
The Devil tempts fallen people. The Devil is
*in* possessed people. But the small-d devil
is in the details.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution? |
30 Sep 2005 06:42:23 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:05:25 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in <FEi%e.2999$Fc4.297@twister.nyc.rr.com> wrote:
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128117686.530527.234590@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
God isn't the universe.
What Einstein was really saying is that he could see God
through the
creation.
He was a creation scientist:
No, Einstein was not a creation scientist. That is quite a deceptive
use of the term. He did not at any time assert that "God did it" was
an explanation, he did not think that God acted in the Universe in
ways that differed from natural processes. He also thought that the
Universe was very old and came up with much of the basic understanding
behind radiodating. It is funny and ironic to see the dishonest
creationists using Einstein's name for support and then objecting to
carbon dating and such. That take a special kind of mind.
I want to know how God created this universe.
I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details.
But the devil is in the details.
Ah, so in order to follow God we have to stop looking at how the world
works. So why do you use computers produced by people who did look
into those details?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Monist__" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution? |
01 Oct 2005 09:26:14 PM |
|
|
On 30 Sep 2005 15:01:26 -0700, "Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote:
I want to know how God created this universe.
But that will not be a final answer, because then we will want to know
how God was created.
The better approach may be to assume that God and the Universe are one
and the same.
Process Physics and Pantheism seems compatible with this idea:
Cheers,
Peter
Some relevant links:
Process Physics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_Physics
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html
Evolutionary Christianity
http://www.evolutionarychristianity.org/
Judaic Pantheism
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/I/Is/Israel_ben_Eliezer.htm
Islamic Pantheism
===========
The pantheistic Ibn Arabi preached a universal religion which
comprises all religions and unites all beliefs.
He is discussed in:
The Rational and Mystical Interpretations of Islam by A. E. Affifi
http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1656&C=1640
On Christian Pantheism
==============
The Epilogue of "Out of My Life and Thought"
Albert Schweitzer
http://www.chapman.edu/schweitzer/sch.reading3.html
Does the Universe Care?
Brother William SSF
http://www.sof-in-australia.org/doestheu.htm
The Environmental Crisis: A Challenge to Classical Christianity
Lloyd Geering
http://www.pirm.org.nz/pe2_christnature.html
The Confluence of Religions
Teilhard de Chardin
http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1970/v27-1-article5.htm
Recovering Christian Pantheism as the Lost Gospel of Creation
http://www.christianecology.org/ConsiderLillies.html
A Christian Derivation of Pantheism
http://www.pantheist.net/society/fader.html
Christianity and Pantheism
http://www.pantheist.net/society/christianity_and_pan_fox.html
On Christian Panentheism
===============
Original Blessing Not Original Sin
Matthew Fox
http://www.nfgcc.org/mattfox.htm
The Coming of the Cosmic Christ
Review of Matthew Fox's book by the same name
http://www.frimmin.com/books/cosmicchrist.html
A Call for a New Reformation
John S. Spong
http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/reform.html
A Theology of Joy: God in Process Thought
http://www.christianecology.org/TheologyJoy.html
Devotion to Truth
http://www.pantheist.net/society/devotion_to_truth.html
The God of Pantheism
http://www.pantheist.net/society/god_of_pantheism.html
Home page of the Universal Pantheist Society
http://www.pantheist.net/
Home page of the World Pantheist Movement
http://www.pantheism.net/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution? |
01 Oct 2005 06:20:03 PM |
|
|
On 30 Sep 2005 15:01:26 -0700, "Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote:
God isn't the universe.
What Einstein was really saying is that he could see God through the
creation.
He was a creation scientist:
I want to know how God created this universe.
I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details.
Albert Einstein
In an article for The New York Times (Nov. 9, 1930), Einstein wrote
about his views on religion, and wonder at the cosmic mysteries: "This
insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, also
has given rise to religion. To know that what is impenetrable to us
really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most
radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their
primitive forms--this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of
true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong in
the ranks of devoutly religious men."
Confusion over his beliefs stemmed from such comments as his public
statement, reported by United Press in April 25, 1929, that: "I
believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony
in being, not in God who deals with the facts and actions of men."
Einstein's famous "God does not play dice with the Universe"
metaphor--meaning nature conforms to mathematical law--fueled more
confusion.
At a symposium, he advised: "In their struggle for the ethical good,
teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of
a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in
the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their
labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are
capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in
humanity itself. This is, to be sure a more difficult but an
incomparably more worthy task. . . ." ("Science, Philosophy and
Religion, A Symposium," published by the Conference on Science,
Philosophy and Religion in their Relation to the Democratic Way of
Life, Inc., New York, 1941). D. 1955.
“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his
creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own--a God, in short,
who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that
the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls
harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. It is enough
for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating
itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure
of the universe which we can dimly perceive, and to try humbly to
comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested
in nature.”
-- Albert Einstein, column for The New York Times, Nov. 9, 1930
(reprinted in The New York Times obituary, April 19, 1955)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution? |
30 Sep 2005 10:51:05 AM |
|
|
On 30 Sep 2005 04:15:03 -0700, in alt.atheism ,
donstockbauer@hotmail.com in
<1128078903.831443.180570@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
I say evolution is order not randomness; and order requires an Orderer.
Yep. In the case of the order of orbits the Orderer is gravity and
momentum. In the case of evolution the Orderer is natural selection.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Watch Dog" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution? |
29 Sep 2005 04:46:35 PM |
|
|
To believe your version of Intelligent Design (which, with your
reference to the God of Genesis, is simply a restating of Creationism),
you have to believe that an immensely complicated, intelligent entity -
far more complicated than mankind and all the life that ever live on
earth - came from ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. It just - existed. Forever. And
then, at some mysterious moment no different from the moment that came
before, decided to CREATE something.
If we find God in the universe, isn't that something far more
complicated than any watch we ever find? And therefore, doesn't it
require a watchmaker to make God?
It may, indeed, be true, that God existed forever. That God is a
complex entity with no creator. That the rules that you insist applies
to everything in the universe ("all complexity requires a creator")
doesn't apply to God, getting us out of the infinite loop by a form of
special pleading. But I certainly don't find that "simpler" than
evolution - more satisfying, maybe, but not simpler. In any case, it is
not a hypothesis that science can decide, entertain, or proceed from.
The assumption that "God did it" is the end of scientific inquiry
wherever it is assumed (since science does not apply to God). History
shows us that sicence ferrets out the workings of the universe much
better by never making that assumption.
This does not mean that God does not exist. Just that He should not be
used as a explanation in a scinece classroom.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution? |
01 Oct 2005 12:06:27 PM |
|
|
YOUR carbon atom WILL fall into the black hole.
IF you think it wount your just ignorant.
EVRY carbon atom you recorded all you know on will fall into that black
hole.
No amount of ignorance will ever change it.
GOD told you so.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "HMS Beagle" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution? |
30 Sep 2005 12:33:14 AM |
|
|
[words of truth] does not respond to you, so why do you respond to
him?
His pastings from some website that he himself did not even write are
full of absolute lies and fabrications.
Stop feeding the trolls.
If you want to argue against these falsehoods, send an email directly
to the writer:
On 29 Sep 2005 14:27:34 -0700, "words of truth"
<wordsoftruth21@lycos.com> wrote:
http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2910
Einstein Versus Darwin: Intelligent Design Or Evolution?
By Tom Barrett
Would you be surprised to know that millions of scientists around the
world do not blindly accept Darwin's THEORY of evolution? Would it
shock you to know that many of these professors and researchers are not
religious, but they embrace the theory of Intelligent Design, which
holds that our intricate universe could not have come about by chance?
Would it blow you away to find that Albert Einstein was one of them?
It is well documented that these famous scientists strongly disagreed
on this important question. It is also well known that they, along with
all credible scientists throughout history, strongly believed that all
theories should be heard, all should be tested, and none should be
ridiculed. This is the only way that science itself can be credible.
Yet many politically active scientists today are desperately
maneuvering to censor any mention of the theory of Intelligent Design
in our schools, textbooks and media. Their accomplices in this blatant
censorship are liberal politicians, atheists, most of the media and the
national teacher's union (the Nation Education Association or NEA).
Darwin's theory is just that - a theory. It has never been proven,
and cannot be proven. But the censors mentioned above want Darwin's
THEORY taught as FACT, and they want no other theories even mentioned.
Einstein is just one of millions of prominent scientists over the years
that have supported the theory of Intelligent Design, but he is perhaps
the best known. In an article in "Science, Philosophy and Religion, A
Symposium," (see LINK below) Einstein said, "Science without
religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
In the last paragraph of his essay, "The World as I See It,"
Einstein wrote, "I am satisfied with the mystery of life's eternity
and with a knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence
- as well as the humble attempt to understand even a tiny portion of
the Reason that manifests itself in nature." While Einstein referred
to the Designer as "Reason" rather than "God," his writings
make it very clear that he believed that an intelligent Designer
crafted our universe and all that is within it.
On the other hand, Darwin postulated that all life somehow crawled out
of primordial ooze and miraculously became differentiated as mammals,
reptiles, fish, fowl and so on. It seems that such a far-fetched theory
would require much more faith than simply believing that God did what
He said He did in Genesis: He created everything according to His plan.
On page 293 of his book, "The Origin of the Species," Darwin stated
that his THEORY would ultimately be proven by the fossil record. This
has never happened. If the theory were true, at least some of the
millions of fossils discovered by scientists would have provided a
"missing link", a fossil that was clearly part one species as well
as part another. Although there have been several attempts over the
years to fake evidence to prove Darwin's theory, the "missing
link" has never been found.
Scientists in China have discovered ancient bacteria that cast doubt on
Darwin's theory, and have published papers stating this. One of them,
Jian Yuan Chan, said, "In China, we can criticize Darwin, but we
cannot criticize the government. In the US you can criticize the
government, but you cannot criticize Darwin."
The issue of Intelligent Design came to national attention recently
because of an ongoing debate in Dover, Pennsylvania. (See LINK,
"What's the Big Secret?" below.) The school board in Dover
announced a year ago that high-school biology teachers would inform
their students that other theories existed besides evolution. A New
York Times article states, "A statement is read to biology students
asserting that Darwin's theory 'is not a fact,' urging them 'to
keep an open mind' and pointing them to the seminal book on
intelligent design, 'Of Pandas and People.' Students are allowed to
leave class when it is read."
Of course Dover liberals are incensed. They want to hide from the
children the fact that other valid theories are accepted by large
portions of the scientific community. They are not satisfied that
students are allowed to leave class during the short statement. They
want the discussion to be held (if at all) in humanities classes. Of
course this would send a clear signal to students that the theory is
unscientific; otherwise, why would it not be discussed in science
classes?
It should be noted that many proponents of Intelligent Design are not
religious; they are simply intellectually honest scientists who see the
flaws in evolutionary theory. Without calling the Designer "God",
they recognize that the complex organisms that populate our universe
could not have resulted from anything other than systematic design by
an intelligent being. Unfortunately, these scientists are hounded by
their evolutionist peers, often losing their jobs because of their
beliefs.
Scientists who would censor or intimidate others with differing
theories are not worthy of the title "Scientist." A Wall Street
Journal Editorial (see LINK below) recently exposed the decades-long
persecution of scientists who support the theory of Intelligent Design
(ID). It used as an example a scientist at the Smithsonian's National
Museum of Natural History in Washington, Richard Steinberg. Steinberg,
who holds two PhD's in biology, was the editor of a Museum
publication that printed an article on ID which had been reviewed by
scientific peers prior to publication. He was demoted and a concerted
effort is underway to ruin his career.
Steinberg's immediate supervisor was asked by top Museum officials,
"Is he religious?", as if being religious was something of which he
should be ashamed. "Is he a right-wing conservative?" One's
political beliefs should not be an issue in the scientific community.
But since the great majority of faculty members at US universities are
far-left liberals, it is always an issue.
The Editorial concludes, "Darwinism...is an essential ingredient in
secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The
Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion
persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of
its churches - like the National Museum of Natural History."
The Journal Editor got it right. Darwinism stems from dialectical
materialism, the philosophy of Marxism. Communism/socialism is a
religion that demands blind faith and obedience. Darwinism is an
offshoot of that false religion. It, too, demands blind faith, and its
disciples persecute anyone who believes differently.
Our children deserve better than being brainwashed by their schools
into believing a false religion is based on fact. They deserve to be
told that evolution is nothing more than a theory that has never been
proven, and allowed to consider alternatives to that theory.
INTERNET RESEARCH:
What's the Big Secret?
http://www.pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=BreakPoint1&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=16042
Wall Street Journal Editorial Exposes Witch Hunt in Scientific
Community
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1242
Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center
http://www.ideacenter.org
Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher about Evolution
http://www.iconsofevolution.com/tools/questions.php3
A Finely-Tuned Universe: What Are the Odds?
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/127/story_12717_1.html
The World As I See It- An Essay by Albert Einstein
http://leiwen.tripod.com/worldisi.htm
Newsweek: Intelligent Design, "A NEW Idea"! Or is it?
http://www.alcaidecafe.com/archives/000136.html
Science, Philosophy and Religion, a Symposium
http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/Einstein2b.html
Tom Barrett has been an ordained minister for over 30 years. He pastors
a church in South Florida. Tom has written for local and national
publications for most of his life, and has authored several non-fiction
books. He has been interviewed on many TV and radio programs, and
speaks at seminars nationwide. Tom is the editor and publisher of
Conservative Truth, an email newsletter and website. His articles,
which focus on moral and political issues from a Biblical viewpoint,
are read by over a quarter million people each week on websites and in
print newspapers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robi" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution? |
30 Sep 2005 05:26:40 AM |
|
|
HMS Beagle wrote:
[words of truth] does not respond to you, so why do you respond to
him?
I think its worth responding in case someone reads the response,
understands the argument, and is swayed by it. That probably won't
happen but you never know. In any case you can't just let the lies sit
there unchallenged.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution? |
30 Sep 2005 06:25:10 AM |
|
|
What happens is this usergroup is so full of total foul mouthed shits
like Amdro-cheese and "Uncle Idiot Al" that people wind up posting
their views and never reading the responses. The Copenhagen
Interpretaion - what you dont observe doesnt exist. The other choice
is to read your responses and be drawn into useless name calling. So
sci.phyics is a microcosm of what's wrong with the world, dissonance,
hatred, noncooperation. So you do like the American Military - you
attack and then withdraw to a safe haven, spineless. And like you say
someone may read what you have to say and benefit from it.
The3-year-old level of name calling here is absolutely pathetic. And
the obscene phone caller effect comes into play. The more you complain
about it the more these lost little children act out their behavior. I
dont see any solution for it except for General James E. Cartwright to
go ahead and push the "End all life on Earth" button from underneath
Cheyenne Mountain. That's the only solution I can see? Any debate on
that???? I'll never see it.
Have a very nice day. Address your issues. Please engage in no
inappropriate behavior.
- Uncle Ralph
.
|
|
|
| User: "bigmick" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution? |
30 Sep 2005 08:36:57 AM |
|
|
im sorry this thread is so long but its worth a read i promise :)
if we could look at ID, evolution and so forth in a purely SCIENTIFIC
view we may make some progress. should ID be taught in schools? thats
something for a political thread.
as for [HMS Beagle]: as for [words of truth] "not replying to any of
us" i must point out that all posts from the first to this one have all
been posted on the same day. your post came only four hours after that
of [words of truth]. i reckon its awesome that the internet can bring
together so many people to communicate...look how many ppl have shared
views in the space of one day in one tiny obscure usenet group thread!
so we should give [words of truth] a few days to reply i reckon.
anyway...
i doubt all scientists who choose evolution over ID see evolution as
the magic be-all-and-end-all solution. but it is not simply a "theory",
it has survived the test of time and experience to be considered more
than just a theory. its a pretty good explanation, and seems better
than most. i certainly dont believe everything that science has told us
is 100% true, its just has a "very good chance" of providing the best
explanation.
the world is a place of grey areas, where there exists blurred lines
between one thing and the next. few things are in black and white!
[words of truth] and [el bleacho]: answer me this...
what is life? when u go further and further down the chain to the
simplest forms of life (remember "life" is a concept that is very
vaguely defined when you break it down) and get to the most simple form
of "living" material, compare it to a dead specimen of the same
organism. it would be nice to use the simplest organism that ever
existed, but for the point of the argument use the simplest organism we
know.
make sure the living organism
- can reproduce
- can grow or repair itself
- is capable of locomotion
- can adapt to the environment
- metabolises "food" that it has taken in
(these are the five requirements to be considered living, and there are
exceptions... e.g. a mule is born sterile! it cannot procreate)
now compare this simplest life form to its dead specimen. what are the
actual differences? is it a different mix of chemicals? have certain
vital proteins broken down due to whatever killed it? with hypothetical
perfect technology, does there exist a way to bring the organism back
to life? again, keep in mind that "life" is a vaguely, poorly described
condition, invented in the minds of men. now, if there exists the
smallest possibility that a few chemical or physical changes could
bring the dead specimen back to what we consider "living" (yet again,
its a blurry line here!) then it is indeed possible that a random event
could have lead to the rising of life from non-life.
as for the progression of life after this wonderful event, perhaps
evolution is correct in describing it, perhaps something else.
now for "intelligent design". it is perhaps true that an alien came to
earth and "designed" everything. but this designer had to come from
somewhere! is the designer not subject to the same "where did it come
from" questions that brought us evolution and ID in the first place?
PLEASE read the article on ID by howstuffworks.com
(http://people.howstuffworks.com/intelligent-design.htm) and arm urself
with the knowledge as to where ID comes from! they do have convincing
arguments, but they still leave holes, just as evolution does.
ID works on the principles of...
* To disprove Darwinism
- Irreducible complexity
- Specified complexity
- Law of Conservation of Information
* To prove design
- Three-stage "Explanatory Filter"
but unfortunately the explanatory filter only rules out chance and
rule, and just assumes that if it isnt chance or rule it must be
design. this isnt strong enough to be a worthy competitor with
evolution! so theyre not "both just theories anyway". Freud made some
very beleivable inferences about how the human mind works, but because
they CANNOT BE PROVEN FALSE they cant be considered scientific theory.
perhaps ID is the same, it makes very convincing points
philosophically, but u cant get out the test tube and bunsen burner to
confirm or refute ID!
so to summarise...
- "life" is a very blurry concept, not black and white
- make urself as knowledgeable as possible about each side of the
argument, it makes for better discussion
- dont pick fights!
- if someone combats ur scientific viewpoint with hot air and anger,
its probably cuz they know ur right!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robi" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution? |
30 Sep 2005 08:57:50 AM |
|
|
bigmick wrote:
as for [HMS Beagle]: as for [words of truth] "not replying to any of
us" i must point out that all posts from the first to this one have all
been posted on the same day. ...
so we should give [words of truth] a few days to reply i reckon.
Its actually a fair comment. He never does reply.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution? |
30 Sep 2005 10:16:57 AM |
|
|
bigmick wrote:
im sorry this thread is so long but its worth a read i promise :)
if we could look at ID, evolution and so forth in a purely SCIENTIFIC
view we may make some progress.
should ID be taught in schools? thats
something for a pol itical thread.
as for [HMS Beagle]: as for [words of truth] "not replying to any of
us" i must point out that all posts from the first to this one have all
been posted on the same day. your post came only four hours after that
of [words of trut h]. i reckon its awesome that the internet can bring
together so many people to communicate...look how many ppl have shared
views in the space of one day in one tiny obscure usenet group thread!
so we should give [words of truth] a few days to reply i reckon.
anyway...
i doubt all scientists who choose evolution over ID see evolution as
the magic be-all-and-end-all solution. but it is not simply a "theory",
it has survived the test of time and experience to be considered more
than just a theory. its a pretty good explanation, and seems better
than most.
What do you mean, "more than _just_ a theory"?| A theory is
an explanation:
In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess"
or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are
explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from
testable observations and hypotheses. --National Academy
of Science
[...]
PLEASE read the article on ID by howstuffworks.com
(http://people.howstuffworks.com/intelligent-design.htm) and arm urself
with the knowledge as to where ID comes from! they do have convincing
arguments, but they still le ave holes, just as evolution does.
ID works on the principles of...
* To disprove Darwinism
- Irreducible complexity
- Specified complexity
- Law of Conservation of Information
Irreducible complexity is bogus. "Law of Conservation
of Information" is bogusly applied to evolution. Please
learn something about evolution that doesn't come from
theistic anti-evolutionists
* To prove design
- Three-stage "Explanatory Filter"
but unfortunately the explanatory filter only rules out chance
Evolution isn't chance.
and
rule, and just assumes that if it isnt chance or rule it must be
design. this isnt strong enough to be a worthy competitor with
evolution!
It isn't a competor with evolution since it isn't a scientific theory.
[...]]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thore \Tocis\ Schmechtig" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution? |
29 Sep 2005 10:33:50 PM |
|
|
words of truth wrote:
Darwin's theory is just that - a theory. It has never been proven,
and cannot be proven.
And that's all you need to read to know that the rest of the long posting
isn't worth reading.
--
Regards
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution? |
30 Sep 2005 07:11:38 AM |
|
|
words of truth wrote:
Would you be surprised to know that millions of scientists around the
world do not blindly accept Darwin's THEORY of evolution?
Not at all, most accept it on the evidence
Would it
shock you to know that many of these professors and researchers are not
religious, but they embrace the theory of Intelligent Design, which
holds that our intricate universe could not have come about by chance?
Millions, yes. though not so much shock, as suspect this is a lie
Would it blow you away to find that Albert Einstein was one of them?
Again, I would doubt this
It is also well known that they, along with
all credible scientists throughout history, strongly believed that all
theories should be heard, all should be tested, and none should be
ridiculed. This is the only way that science itself can be credible.
Anyyhing can be ridiculed. "All theories should be tested" is nonsense.
If something has not been tested, it is not a theory
Yet many politically active scientists today are desperately
maneuvering to censor any mention of the theory of Intelligent Design
in our schools, textbooks and media. Their accomplices in this blatant
censorship are liberal politicians, atheists, most of the media and the
national teacher's union (the Nation Education Association or NEA).
More like than honest scientist with integrity want to keep the lies of
the ID movement out of the science classes, where they don't belong
Darwin's theory is just that - a theory. It has never been proven,
and cannot be proven. But the censors mentioned above want Darwin's
THEORY taught as FACT, and they want no other theories even mentioned.
Same with Newton's laws of motion, his laws of gravity, Maxwell's laws
of electromagnetism and Einstien's theory of relativity. NONE of them
have been proven
At this point I tired, but the rest was no more accurate or honest than
the first few paragraphs
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Or Darwin? Design Or Evolution? |
29 Sep 2005 10:33:21 PM |
|
|
words of truth wrote:
http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2910
Einstein Versus Darwin: Intelligent Design Or Evolution?
By Tom Barrett
Would you be surprised to know that millions of scientists around the
world do not blindly accept Darwin's THEORY of evolution? Would it
shock you to know that many of these professors and researchers are not
religious, but they embrace the theory of Intelligent Design, which
holds that our intricate universe could not have come about by chance?
Would it blow you away to find that Albert Einstein was one of them?
What expertise does Einstein have in biology? Bohr disagreed with
Einstein about quantum mechanics.
It is well documented that these famous scientists strongly disagreed
on this important question. It is also well known that they, along with
all credible scientists throughout history, strongly believed that all
theories should be heard, all should be tested, and none should be
ridiculed. This is the only way that science itself can be credible.
Yet many politically active scientists today are desperately
maneuvering to censor any mention of the theory of Intelligent Design
in our schools, textbooks and media. Their accomplices in this blatant
censorship are liberal politicians, atheists, most of the media and the
national teacher's union (the Nation Education Association or NEA).
Darwin's theory is just that - a theory. It has never been proven,
and cannot be proven. But the censors mentioned above want Darwin's
THEORY taught as FACT, and they want no other theories even mentioned.
Einstein is just one of millions of prominent scientists over the years
that have supported the theory of Intelligent Design, but he is perhaps
the best known. In an article in "Science, Philosophy and Religion, A
Symposium," (see LINK below) Einstein said, "Science without
religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
And what evidence did he have of this?
In the last paragraph of his essay, "The World as I See It,"
Einstein wrote, "I am satisfied with the mystery of life's eternity
and with a knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence
- as well as the humble attempt to understand even a tiny portion of
the Reason that manifests itself in nature." While Einstein referred
to the Designer as "Reason" rather than "God," his writings
make it very clear that he believed that an intelligent Designer
crafted our universe and all that is within it.
And what justification did he have for that belief?
On the other hand, Darwin postulated that all life somehow crawled out
of primordial ooze and miraculously became differentiated as mammals,
reptiles, fish, fowl and so on. It seems that such a far-fetched theory
would require much more faith than simply believing that God did what
He said He did in Genesis: He created everything according to His plan.
Miraculously? Hmm. . .
On page 293 of his book, "The Origin of the Species," Darwin stated
that his THEORY would ultimately be proven by the fossil record. This
has never happened. If the theory were true, at least some of the
millions of fossils discovered by scientists would have provided a
"missing link", a fossil that was clearly part one species as well
as part another. Although there have been several attempts over the
years to fake evidence to prove Darwin's theory, the "missing
link" has never been found.
And given a fossil, how would one know that it is part of two species? A
fossil may yield morphological clues about an organism, but in the
absence of the organism's DNA, how can we tell that the organism is a
member of two speciea?
Indeed, it is unlikely that two organisms, one of which is the
grandparent of the other, would be in separate species. Given an
organism, it might require hundreds of generations before one obtains a
descendant that is in a different species.
Scientists in China have discovered ancient bacteria that cast doubt on
Darwin's theory, and have published papers stating this. One of them,
Jian Yuan Chan, said, "In China, we can criticize Darwin, but we
cannot criticize the government. In the US you can criticize the
government, but you cannot criticize Darwin."
Could you provide a link to these papers? I wasn't able to find one on
Google.
The issue of Intelligent Design came to national attention recently
because of an ongoing debate in Dover, Pennsylvania. (See LINK,
"What's the Big Secret?" below.) The school board in Dover
announced a year ago that high-school biology teachers would inform
their students that other theories existed besides evolution. A New
York Times article states, "A statement is read to biology students
asserting that Darwin's theory 'is not a fact,' urging them 'to
keep an open mind' and pointing them to the seminal book on
intelligent design, 'Of Pandas and People.' Students are allowed to
leave class when it is read."
Of course Dover liberals are incensed. They want to hide from the
children the fact that other valid theories are accepted by large
portions of the scientific community. They are not satisfied that
students are allowed to leave class during the short statement. They
want the discussion to be held (if at all) in humanities classes. Of
course this would send a clear signal to students that the theory is
unscientific; otherwise, why would it not be discussed in science
classes?
It should be noted that many proponents of Intelligent Design are not
religious; they are simply intellectually honest scientists who see the
flaws in evolutionary theory. Without calling the Designer "God",
they recognize that the complex organisms that populate our universe
could not have resulted from anything other than systematic design by
an intelligent being. Unfortunately, these scientists are hounded by
their evolutionist peers, often losing their jobs because of their
beliefs.
Scientists who would censor or intimidate others with differing
theories are not worthy of the title "Scientist." A Wall Street
Journal Editorial (see LINK below) recently exposed the decades-long
persecution of scientists who support the theory of Intelligent Design
(ID). It used as an example a scientist at the Smithsonian's National
Museum of Natural History in Washington, Richard Steinberg. Steinberg,
who holds two PhD's in biology, was the editor of a Museum
publication that printed an article on ID which had been reviewed by
scientific peers prior to publication. He was demoted and a concerted
effort is underway to ruin his career.
Steinberg's immediate supervisor was asked by top Museum officials,
"Is he religious?", as if being religious was something of which he
should be ashamed. "Is he a right-wing conservative?" One's
political beliefs should not be an issue in the scientific community.
But since the great majority of faculty members at US universities are
far-left liberals, it is always an issue.
The Editorial concludes, "Darwinism...is an essential ingredient in
secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The
Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion
persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of
its churches - like the National Museum of Natural History."
The Journal Editor got it right. Darwinism stems from dialectical
materialism, the philosophy of Marxism. Communism/socialism is a
religion that demands blind faith and obedience. Darwinism is an
offshoot of that false religion. It, too, demands blind faith, and its
disciples persecute anyone who believes differently.
Our children deserve better than being brainwashed by their schools
into believing a false religion is based on fact. They deserve to be
told that evolution is nothing more than a theory that has never been
proven, and allowed to consider alternatives | |
