Santorum 2002 on intelligent design

[JScott]

Wrong. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with evolution.

Nothing?? really?? isn't the very base of the idea??

Don't bother discussing science with a libtard... they subscribe to green cults and their supreme leader is Al Gore.

What does evolution mean to you?

 

[occupied]

I think it pretty likely that this universe is a physics experiment in a laboratory that we cannot comprehend by cold minds that infinitely dwarf ours.

 

[The T]

Evolution has mountains of evidence, intelligent design does not.

Really?

Interesting that men who as a group are united in their conviction that religious beliefs are primitive should find themselves suggesting theories that include aliens, special universes in which natural law does not apply, multiple dimensions and imaginary particles, based on an eerie mix of technical sophistication and philosophical incompetence. Take the paper by distinguished cosmologists Ellis, Kirchner and Stoeger, that posits that there may be myriad universes with every possible combination and permutation of natural law, yet their essay includes “…the very existence of [the Landscape] is based on an assumed set of laws…which all universes…have in common.”
Journal of Cosmology

Cant teach old dogs...

Or young ones...they know everything...just ask the nearest OWS clown.

 

[JScott]

"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin 1902 edition.

“…I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw & holes as sound parts.” Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) pp. 456, 475.

Darwin went on to say,"The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

So what you did is took his words out of context.

o Darwin was admitting HE was as flawed as his theory.

Nice.

Im not sure where you got that but ok....

 

[Inthemiddle]

Please correct me if I am in error as this is not one of my areas of specialty, but to a large degree that is correct but it's not absolute. Darwin's theory goes beyond just observed phenomena and attempts to speculate. To my understanding there are many facets of evolution that are scientifically observable and irrefutable yet some other are not. By comparison intelligent design has very little that meets the same criteria but that does not eliminate the possibility of a "creator" by whatever name you wish to call Him/Her/It.

All scientific hypothesis involve a degree of speculation in the early stages, as various parts of the hypothesis are either confirmed or refuted with the addition of new information via scientific study. Darwin's theory was not entirely novel. The concept of nature producing new and different forms dates back to antiquity. Darwin presented his ideas as an explanation for adaptation between different species. He freely admitted that his theory was not the whole story. But an understanding of genetics and heredity was not well within our grasps at the time. Darwin collected extensive evidence to support his theory across his lifetime.

 

[JScott]

Really?

Interesting that men who as a group are united in their conviction that religious beliefs are primitive should find themselves suggesting theories that include aliens, special universes in which natural law does not apply, multiple dimensions and imaginary particles, based on an eerie mix of technical sophistication and philosophical incompetence. Take the paper by distinguished cosmologists Ellis, Kirchner and Stoeger, that posits that there may be myriad universes with every possible combination and permutation of natural law, yet their essay includes “…the very existence of [the Landscape] is based on an assumed set of laws…which all universes…have in common.”
Journal of Cosmology

Cant teach old dogs...

Or young ones...they know everything...just ask the nearest OWS clown.

You believe in aliens or bigfoot or multiple dimensions or other crazy stuff like that?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I said I'd give it to you at the BB, but it has nothing to do with the evolution of life beyond that being the time when all physical laws were laid down. There's nothing inevitable about humans. If we were a waterworld, we could have ended up being highly intelligent dolphins.

Not lot of science involved if you have to say IF ... to prove your point. I would think scientists were deeper thinkers and am a little dissapointed that the theory of evolution is so vague and can only go back so far which in turn disproves itself.

So which is the better theory, from a SCIENTIFIC standpoint?

Evolution, for which there are mountains of evidence?

or Intelligent Design, for which there is absolutely no evidence?

The choice is yours, carby...
...but remember, both are largely based on faith.

 

[Dot Com]

If the Education Board of Ohio does not include intelligent design in the new teaching standards, many students will be denied a first-rate science education.

Illiberal Education in Ohio Schools

Have to laugh to stop from crying as the anti-science wing of the GOP hands four more years to Obama.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If a complex living being cannot occur without being designed by another intelligent being,

then God cannot exist unless he was in fact designed by an intelligent being,

unless of course you do not believe that God is a complex living being.

The theory of intelligent design refutes itself by its very nature.

Before you get all wound up, realize that many scientists today agree that the events and parameters necessary to get to where we are today require a confluence that is mathematically improbable...

If you have the time, the article in Harper's Mag should be required reading. In part:

" …the great question, of course, is why these fundamental parameters happen to lie within the range needed for life. Does the universe care about life? Intelligent design is one answer. Indeed, a fair number of theologians, philosophers, and even some scientists have used fine-tuning and the anthropic principle as evidence of the existence of God. For example, at the 2011 Christian Scholars’ Conference at Pepperdine University, Francis Collins, a leading geneticist and director of the National Institutes of Health, said, “To get our universe, with all of its potential for complexities or any kind of potential for any kind of life-form, everything has to be precisely defined on this knife edge of improbability…. [Y]ou have to see the hands of a creator who set the parameters to be just so because the creator was interested in something a little more complicated than random particles.”
The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith?By Alan P. Lightman (Harper's Magazine)


I challenge anyone to read this piece and still be rock sure about the beliefs in this thread.


If I may go beyond topic...the insistence on a scientific explanation for the universe, and for evolution, is fundamental to a neo-Marxist attack on religion and morality.

I'd be happy to expand on that....

 

[BluePhantom]

If I may go beyond topic...the insistence on a scientific explanation for the universe, and for evolution, is fundamental to a neo-Marxist attack on religion and morality.

I'd be happy to expand on that....

I am curious. I think I know where you are going with this but I am interested nonetheless.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Really?

Interesting that men who as a group are united in their conviction that religious beliefs are primitive should find themselves suggesting theories that include aliens, special universes in which natural law does not apply, multiple dimensions and imaginary particles, based on an eerie mix of technical sophistication and philosophical incompetence. Take the paper by distinguished cosmologists Ellis, Kirchner and Stoeger, that posits that there may be myriad universes with every possible combination and permutation of natural law, yet their essay includes “…the very existence of [the Landscape] is based on an assumed set of laws…which all universes…have in common.”
Journal of Cosmology

Indeed... I thoroughly believe these folks suffering from some severe mental trauma. They make up the weirdest shit, and then talk about God as a silly superstition.. yet mother ships and special universes makes perfect sense.

They're nuts.

Wow, who on these boards talk about about crap like this?

Are you familiar with Watson and Crick?
Crick subscribed to a theory that aliens visited and that's how life began.

"[Some scientists offer theories] including imagining ‘aliens’ were responsible for the origin of life on earth: “An alternative to Earthly abiogenesis is “exogenesis”, the hypothesis that primitive life may have originally formed extraterrestrially, either in space or on a nearby planet such as Mars. Such ideas have had many eminent supporters over the years, including Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, and the astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle among others.” Exogenesis - The Beginnings of Life - The Physics of the Universe

 

[BluePhantom]

Are you familiar with Watson and Crick?
Crick subscribed to a theory that aliens visited and that's how life began.

"[Some scientists offer theories] including imagining ‘aliens’ were responsible for the origin of life on earth: “An alternative to Earthly abiogenesis is “exogenesis”, the hypothesis that primitive life may have originally formed extraterrestrially, either in space or on a nearby planet such as Mars. Such ideas have had many eminent supporters over the years, including Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, and the astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle among others.” Exogenesis - The Beginnings of Life - The Physics of the Universe

I have yet to read that report but it depends on how one defines "alien life". Certainly the building blocks that developed into life on this planet were brought here by asteroids, space debris, etc but of course everything on the planet got here that way. I mean that's how the planet formed to begin with. Prior to the existence of Earth all the matter that is here was part of something else: a sun, another planet, chunks of rock floating through space, whatever. So in that sense yes life here would be of an extraterrestrial origin. I would be pretty hesitant to endorse a theory that little green men put us here though, but let me read the link and get back to you.

 

[konradv]

Indeed... I thoroughly believe these folks suffering from some severe mental trauma. They make up the weirdest shit, and then talk about God as a silly superstition.. yet mother ships and special universes makes perfect sense.

They're nuts.

Wow, who on these boards talk about about crap like this?

Are you familiar with Watson and Crick?
Crick subscribed to a theory that aliens visited and that's how life began.

"[Some scientists offer theories] including imagining ‘aliens’ were responsible for the origin of life on earth: “An alternative to Earthly abiogenesis is “exogenesis”, the hypothesis that primitive life may have originally formed extraterrestrially, either in space or on a nearby planet such as Mars. Such ideas have had many eminent supporters over the years, including Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, and the astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle among others.” Exogenesis - The Beginnings of Life - The Physics of the Universe

When were they on the board?!?!

 

[Inthemiddle]

Before you get all wound up, realize that many scientists today agree that the events and parameters necessary to get to where we are today require a confluence that is mathematically improbable...

And before you get all wound up, realize that scientists across the board agree that the what we know of the universe, and all the extra terrestrial star systems we've been able to study from afar shows us that life as it exists on our planet is a mathematically rare phenomena. The fact that something is improbable does not in any way necessitate or imply an intentional action by some actor. If you put the numbers 1-100 in a bowl, and pull one out, and it says 27, it was mathematically improbable that that number would be the one to come out. That doesn't mean that it was anything more than chance that it happened.

 

[BluePhantom]

Are you familiar with Watson and Crick?
Crick subscribed to a theory that aliens visited and that's how life began.

"[Some scientists offer theories] including imagining ‘aliens’ were responsible for the origin of life on earth: “An alternative to Earthly abiogenesis is “exogenesis”, the hypothesis that primitive life may have originally formed extraterrestrially, either in space or on a nearby planet such as Mars. Such ideas have had many eminent supporters over the years, including Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, and the astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle among others.” Exogenesis - The Beginnings of Life - The Physics of the Universe

I have yet to read that report but it depends on how one defines "alien life". Certainly the building blocks that developed into life on this planet were brought here by asteroids, space debris, etc but of course everything on the planet got here that way. I mean that's how the planet formed to begin with. Prior to the existence of Earth all the matter that is here was part of something else: a sun, another planet, chunks of rock floating through space, whatever. So in that sense yes life here would be of an extraterrestrial origin. I would be pretty hesitant to endorse a theory that little green men put us here though, but let me read the link and get back to you.

Ok I read the article....yes it's pretty much what I said above and is to me not only plausible but likely.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wow, who on these boards talk about about crap like this?

Are you familiar with Watson and Crick?
Crick subscribed to a theory that aliens visited and that's how life began.

"[Some scientists offer theories] including imagining ‘aliens’ were responsible for the origin of life on earth: “An alternative to Earthly abiogenesis is “exogenesis”, the hypothesis that primitive life may have originally formed extraterrestrially, either in space or on a nearby planet such as Mars. Such ideas have had many eminent supporters over the years, including Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, and the astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle among others.” Exogenesis - The Beginnings of Life - The Physics of the Universe

When were they on the board?!?!

I can see why a dolt would require that any evidence other than that which they supply should be banned....

....and that would be your thinking?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are you familiar with Watson and Crick?
Crick subscribed to a theory that aliens visited and that's how life began.

"[Some scientists offer theories] including imagining ‘aliens’ were responsible for the origin of life on earth: “An alternative to Earthly abiogenesis is “exogenesis”, the hypothesis that primitive life may have originally formed extraterrestrially, either in space or on a nearby planet such as Mars. Such ideas have had many eminent supporters over the years, including Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, and the astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle among others.” Exogenesis - The Beginnings of Life - The Physics of the Universe

I have yet to read that report but it depends on how one defines "alien life". Certainly the building blocks that developed into life on this planet were brought here by asteroids, space debris, etc but of course everything on the planet got here that way. I mean that's how the planet formed to begin with. Prior to the existence of Earth all the matter that is here was part of something else: a sun, another planet, chunks of rock floating through space, whatever. So in that sense yes life here would be of an extraterrestrial origin. I would be pretty hesitant to endorse a theory that little green men put us here though, but let me read the link and get back to you.

Ok I read the article....yes it's pretty much what I said above and is to me not only plausible but likely.

In this country your allowed to have FAITH in any idea you so choose.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If I may go beyond topic...the insistence on a scientific explanation for the universe, and for evolution, is fundamental to a neo-Marxist attack on religion and morality.

I'd be happy to expand on that....

I am curious. I think I know where you are going with this but I am interested nonetheless.

Familiar with the Frankfurt School?

If you've gone to college in the last forty years or so, you've been exposed....indoctrinated...with same.

1. In 1923 Georg Lukacs helped establish a Marxist research center at the University of Frankfurt under the sponsorship of Felix Weil. Like Marx’s benefactor, Friedrich Engels, Weil was the son of a wealthy capitalist and an ardent Marxist who had earned a Ph.D. in political science from Frankfurt University. These rich slackers used family money to fund the Institute for Social Research, best known as the institutional home of the Frankfurt School and critical theory. http://www.lust-for-life.org/Lust-F...turalMarxismAndPoliticalCorrectness-part2.pdf

a. …the Institute attracted gifted scholars not only in economics but also in philosophy, history, psychology, sociology… convinced that the major impediment to the spread of Marxism was Western culture. In particular, they despised traditional Judeo/Christian ethics and morality, which they believed prevented the widespread acceptance of Marxism.

b. The Frankfurt School propagated a revisionistic Neo-Marxist interpretation of Western culture called Critical Theory, an aggressive promotion of a radical left-wing socio/political agenda. In essence, Critical Theory was a comprehensive and unrelenting assault on the values and institutions of Western civilization. Based on utopian social and political ideals, Critical Theory offered no realistic alternatives, but it was nonetheless a devastating critique of the history, philosophy, politics, social and economic structures, major institutions, and religious foundations of Western civilization.

2. The attack is widespread and generalized, and influences careers in academia and every area of dissemination of information.

a. The Critical Theorists held a common commitment to Neo-Marxism and the belief that Western civilization has been an imperialistic and repressive force in human history – especially, Western Christianity. In their view, Western civilization was built on aggression, oppression, racism, slavery, classism and sexual repression.

b. Thus, there is a straight line from the Frankfurt School to the formation in many colleges and universities of programs, and departments of African-American Studies, Ethnic Studies, Feminist Studies, Peace Studies, and LGBT (Lesbian/Gay/Bi-sexual/Transgender) Studies

"..the major impediment to the spread of Marxism was Western culture. In particular, they despised traditional Judeo/Christian ethics and morality,..."
It is essential, for the success of this belief, that the basis of morality, i.e., a belief in God, is eradicated.


3. . Based on their influence on the New Left from the ‘60’s, these neo-Marxists have largely succeeded in terms of secularizing American culture and undermining traditional values and institutions, and much of its ideology, inspiration and tactics were gleaned from the Frankfurt School’s Institute of Social Research.

a. A key component of Critical Theory was its integration of Marxism with Darwinism and Freudianism, which, based on the idea of sexual repression, could be used against Judeo-Christian morality. Wilhelm Reich combined Darwin and Freud, and propounded the idea that humans are no different than any other animals in terms of sex, and therefore, there need be no sexual restrictions, and the blame should be placed on the authoritarian structure of the traditional family.

b. "...no different than any other animals in terms of sex,..."
Yesterday, there was a thread about a pre-law student at Georgetown who demanded the pill so that she could continue to have unrestrained sex.

 

[BluePhantom]

In this country your allowed to have FAITH in any idea you so choose.

Sure, absolutely. Perhaps I am misinterpreting your comment but I don't think I am disagreeing with you on much, if anything really.

 

[BluePhantom]

Familiar with the Frankfurt School?

If you've gone to college in the last forty years or so, you've been exposed....indoctrinated...with same.......

I won't repost the whole thing. Well actually I teach at a college and while I certainly agree that there is some serious liberal indoctrination going on I have yet to see any evidence of a grand conspiracy. More is that the vast majority of professors are liberals who teach from a liberal perspective and with a liberal bias. If there is a grand conspiracy I certainly haven't been invited to the meeting about it....of course everyone knows I am a Republican so I wouldn't be.