• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Evolution eventually leads to....

Status
Not open for further replies.

Remus

Senior Member
Feb 22, 2004
666
30
55
Austin, TX
✟23,471.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This is your idea of "plastered all over the internet news sites"?

BTW, you never answered vossler's question:
vossler said:
I suppose when you say things like "Evolution works. It produces results that can be verified" it somehow makes me think you are not a Creationist. Are you telling me that you are a Creationist?

I wonder why you haven't answered this yet. Especailly when you are giving a hard time to "The ID people for the most part deny who they are."
 
Upvote 0

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Also, in yesterday’s testimony, Miller called attention to a factual error in Pandas. In today’s questioning, he conceded that the “elephant” edition of his own high school biology textbook contained an error, describing evolution as a “random and undirected process.” Miller said that that wasn’t a scientific statement, and it was removed from subsequent editions.
So here proof evolutionist equals athiesm and evolutionist are lying when they say they are not atheist. Miller tries to cover up his atheism what evolutionist really are by changing his biology books "ramdom and undirected process." blah, blah, blah .....

Seem evolutionist are guilty of the same thing. Everyone knows the first amendment is so badly abused.
 
Upvote 0

KerrMetric

Well-Known Member
Oct 2, 2005
5,171
226
64
Pasadena, CA
✟6,671.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Smidlee said:
So here proof evolutionist equals athiesm and evolutionist are lying when they say they are not atheist. Miller tries to cover up his atheism what evolutionist really are by changing his biology books "ramdom and undirected process." blah, blah, blah .....

Seem evolutionist are guilty of the same thing. Everyone knows the first amendment is so badly abused.

If you think that is the same thing then I suggest a dictionary. I'm sorry but that is a ridiculous analogy.

Almost every Christian I know accepts evolution in some form or another. Most biologists I know are Christians for instance.

The things that amazes me is that you will not bring yourself to condemn the 'creationist' side no matter what in this issue. Speaks volumes and shows why the ID crowd do it, they have no fear that their followers will care that they lie.
 
Upvote 0

KerrMetric

Well-Known Member
Oct 2, 2005
5,171
226
64
Pasadena, CA
✟6,671.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Remus said:
This is your idea of "plastered all over the internet news sites"?

2 weeks ago it was.

BTW, you never answered vossler's question:


I wonder why you haven't answered this yet. Especailly when you are giving a hard time to "The ID people for the most part deny who they are."

I did answer his question, I told him I wasn't TE.
 
Upvote 0

Remus

Senior Member
Feb 22, 2004
666
30
55
Austin, TX
✟23,471.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
KerrMetric said:
2 weeks ago it was.
Now it's 2 weeks?
It was less than a week ago and it's on a few pro-evolution websites. Of course I would expect some to take this to mean that it was "plastered all over the internet news sites".
Typical
I did answer his question, I told him I wasn't TE.
No, you stated that you weren't TE and then he asked the question. Why don't you answer his question? What are you avoiding here?
 
Upvote 0

KerrMetric

Well-Known Member
Oct 2, 2005
5,171
226
64
Pasadena, CA
✟6,671.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Remus said:
Now it's 2 weeks?
It was less than a week ago and it's on a few pro-evolution websites. Of course I would expect some to take this to mean that it was "plastered all over the internet news sites".
Typical

It was on many news sites. That's where I saw it through Google News updates.

No, you stated that you weren't TE and then he asked the question. Why don't you answer his question? What are you avoiding here?

Your attitude is very questionable. Yes I am a Creationist. OEC with some wrinkles.
 
Upvote 0

Remus

Senior Member
Feb 22, 2004
666
30
55
Austin, TX
✟23,471.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
KerrMetric said:
It was on many news sites. That's where I saw it through Google News updates.
Now it's "many".
Your attitude is very questionable.
My attitude? Perhaps you should read back in some of your own posts before questioning anyone else.
Yes I am a Creationist. OEC with some wrinkles.
Uh huh.
 
Upvote 0

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
KerrMetric said:
If you think that is the same thing then I suggest a dictionary. I'm sorry but that is a ridiculous analogy.
Even Miller admitted of changing his books because of the religious statement. It's this religious statement is why Kansas schools wants to included ID. The 38 nobel prize winners made the mistake when they wrote to Kansas schools writing "Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection." These nobel prizes winner didn't realize that Johnson show this to be a religious statement. This is when Miller and other started to reframe themselves from making this comment.
Almost every Christian I know accepts evolution in some form or another. Most biologists I know are Christians for instance.
So?
So in the same way If someone claims to be a creationist but agree with some parts of evolution then in your book they are liars becuase they are evolutionsit too.
The things that amazes me is that you will not bring yourself to condemn the 'creationist' side no matter what in this issue. Speaks volumes and shows why the ID crowd do it, they have no fear that their followers will care that they lie.
I'm not the one going around calling people liars. Glenn Morton used to be a YEC himself then he changed his position. Miller agreed with Johnson about the words "inguided, unplanned" shouldn't be used in textbooks.
Since some like Dembski doesn't beleive in universal common descent means he believe in creationism in the general sense. Well I'm a creationist who also believes in evolution is a general sense of the word. Usually when referring to creationist it meant YEC : 6 day creationist, world wide flood, etc.
 
Upvote 0

KerrMetric

Well-Known Member
Oct 2, 2005
5,171
226
64
Pasadena, CA
✟6,671.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Discovery Institute internal document said:
THE WEDGE STRATEGY

CENTER FOR THE RENEWAL OF SCIENCE & CULTURE

INTRODUCTION

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art

The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.

Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.

Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism.

The Center is directed by Discovery Senior Fellow Dr. Stephen Meyer. An Associate Professor of Philosophy at Whitworth College, Dr. Meyer holds a Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University. He formerly worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.

THE WEDGE STRATEGY

Phase I.


  • Scientific Research, Writing & Publicity
Phase II.


  • Publicity & Opinion-making
Phase III.


  • Cultural Confrontation & Renewal
THE WEDGE PROJECTS

Phase I. Scientific Research, Writing & Publication


  • Individual Research Fellowship Program
  • Paleontology Research program (Dr. Paul Chien et al.)
  • Molecular Biology Research Program (Dr. Douglas Axe et al.)
Phase II. Publicity & Opinion-making


  • Book Publicity
  • Opinion-Maker Conferences
  • Apologetics Seminars
  • Teacher Training Program
  • Op-ed Fellow
  • PBS (or other TV) Co-production
  • Publicity Materials / Publications
Phase III. Cultural Confrontation & Renewal


  • Academic and Scientific Challenge Conferences
  • Potential Legal Action for Teacher Training
  • Research Fellowship Program: shift to social sciences and humanities
FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY

The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

The Wedge strategy can be divided into three distinct but interdependent phases, which are roughly but not strictly chronological. We believe that, with adequate support, we can accomplish many of the objectives of Phases I and II in the next five years (1999-2003), and begin Phase III (See "Goals/ Five Year Objectives/Activities").

Phase I: Research, Writing and Publication

Phase II: Publicity and Opinion-making

Phase III: Cultural Confrontation and Renewal

Phase I is the essential component of everything that comes afterward. Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade. A lesson we have learned from the history of science is that it is unnecessary to outnumber the opposing establishment. Scientific revolutions are usually staged by an initially small and relatively young group of scientists who are not blinded by the prevailing prejudices and who are able to do creative work at the pressure points, that is, on those critical issues upon which whole systems of thought hinge. So, in Phase I we are supporting vital witting and research at the sites most likely to crack the materialist edifice.

Phase II. The pnmary purpose of Phase II is to prepare the popular reception of our ideas. The best and truest research can languish unread and unused unless it is properly publicized. For this reason we seek to cultivate and convince influential individuals in pnnt and broadcast media, as well as think tank leaders, scientists and academics, congressional staff, talk show hosts, college and seminary presidents and faculty, future talent and potential academic allies. Because of his long tenure in politics, journalism and public policy, Discovery President Bruce Chapman brings to the project rare knowledge and acquaintance of key op-ed writers, journalists, and political leaders. This combination of scientific and scholarly expertise and media and political connections makes the Wedge unique, and also prevents it from being "merely academic." Other activities include production of a PBS documentary on intelligent design and its implications, and popular op-ed publishing. Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Chnstians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture.

Phase III. Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula. The attention, publicity, and influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate with design theorists, and we will be ready. With an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences.

GOALS

Governing Goals


  • To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
  • To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
Five Year Goals


  • To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
  • To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
  • To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.
Twenty Year Goals


  • To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
  • To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
  • To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.



Kind of says it all.

Peace.
 
Upvote 0
C

Critias

Guest
shernren said:
Shouldn't this be taken to the main Origins Theology?

This originally was meant for here. I did after all start this and know my own intentions. It is Kerrmetric who has decided to make it into a debate.

So, the thread shouldn't be take out to the main Origins, Kerrmetrics problems with creation and ID should, or atleast started in another thread that actually stays on topic.
 
Upvote 0

KerrMetric

Well-Known Member
Oct 2, 2005
5,171
226
64
Pasadena, CA
✟6,671.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Critias said:
This originally was meant for here. I did after all start this and know my own intentions. It is Kerrmetric who has decided to make it into a debate.

So, the thread shouldn't be take out to the main Origins, Kerrmetrics problems with creation and ID should, or atleast started in another thread that actually stays on topic.

Agreed that it probably belongs someplace else - BUT it really isn't a debate about evolution/creationism. It's about the main ID group hiding the fact they are Creationists to avoid church/state issues and the laughter YEC's usually get.
 
Upvote 0

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
KerrMetric said:
Kind of says it all.

Peace.
DI reply:
Discovery Institute's “Wedge Document”: How Darwinist Paranoia Fueled an Urban Legend

In 1999 someone posted on the internet an early fundraising proposal for Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. Dubbed the “Wedge Document,” this proposal soon took on a life of its own, popping up in all sorts of places and eventually spawning what can only be called a giant urban legend. Among true-believers on the Darwinist fringe the document came to be viewed as evidence for a secret conspiracy to fuse religion with science and impose a theocracy. These claims were so outlandish that for a long time we simply ignored them. But because some credulous Darwinists


[More:]

seem willing to believe almost anything, we decided we should set the record straight. 1. The Background
  • In 1996 Discovery Institute established the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. Its main purposes were (1) to support research by scientists and other scholars who were critical of neo-Darwinism and by those who were developing the emerging scientific theory of intelligent design; and (2) to explore, in various ways, the multiple connections between science and culture.
  • To raise financial support for the Center, Discovery Institute prepared a fundraising proposal that explained the overall rationale for the Center and why a think tank like Discovery would want to start such an entity in the first place. Like most fundraising proposals, this one included a multi-year budget and a list of goals to be achieved.
2. The Rise of an Urban Legend
  • In 1999 a copy of this fundraising proposal was posted by someone on the internet. The document soon spread across the world wide web, gaining almost mythic status among some Darwinists.
  • That’s when members of the Darwinist fringe began saying rather loopy things. For example, one group claimed that the document supplied evidence of a frightening twenty-year master plan “to have religion control not only science, but also everyday life, laws, and education”!
  • Barbara Forrest, a Louisiana professor on the board of a group called the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association, similarly championed the document as proof positive of a sinister conspiracy to abolish civil liberties and unify church and state. Forrest insisted that the document was “crucially important,” and she played up its supposed secrecy, claiming at one point that its “authenticity…has been neither affirmed nor denied by the Discovery Institute.” Poor Prof. Forrest—if she really wanted to know whether the document was authentic, all she had to do was ask. (She didn’t.)
  • There were lots of ironies as this urban legend began to grow, but Darwinist true-believers didn’t seem capable of appreciating them:
    --Discovery Institute, the supposed mastermind of this “religious” conspiracy, is in fact a secular organization that sponsored programs on a wide array of issues, including mass transit, technology policy, the environment, and national defense.
    --At the time the “Wedge Document” was being used by Darwinists to stoke fears about Christian theocracy, the Chairman of Discovery’s Board was Jewish, its President was an Episcopalian, and its various Fellows represented an eclectic range of religious views ranging from Roman Catholic to agnostic. It would have been news to them that they were all part of a fundamentalist cabal.
    --Far from promoting a union between church and state, Discovery Institute sponsored for several years a seminar for college students that advocated religious liberty and the separation between church and state.
3. What the Document Actually Says
  • The best way to dispel the paranoia of the conspiracy-mongers is to actually look at the document in question. It simply doesn’t advocate the views they attribute to it.
    First and foremost, and contrary to the hysterical claims of some Darwinists, this document does not attack “science” or the “scientific method.” In fact, it is pro-science.
  • What the document critiques is “scientific materialism,” which is the abuse of genuine science by those who claim that science supports the unscientific philosophy of materialism.
  • Second, the document does not propose replacing “science” or the “scientific method” with “God” or “religion.” Instead, it supports a science that is “consonant” (i.e., harmonious) with theism, rather than hostile to it. To support a science that is “consonant” with religion is not to claim that religion and science are the same thing. They clearly aren’t. But it is to deny the claim of scientific materialists that science is somehow anti-religious.
Following are the document’s major points, which we still are happy to affirm:
  1. “The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization is built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West’s greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.” As a historical matter, this statement happens to be true. The idea that humans are created in the image of God has had powerful positive cultural consequences. Only a member of a group with a name like the “New Orleans Secular Humanist Association” could find anything objectionable here. (By the way, isn’t it strange that a group supposedly promoting “theocracy” would praise “representative democracy” and “human rights”?)
  2. “Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very throughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment.” This statement highlights one of the animating concerns of Discovery Institute as a public policy think tank. Leading nineteenth century intellectuals tried to hijack science to promote their own anti-religious agenda. This attempt to enlist science to support an anti-religious agenda continues to this day with Darwinists like Oxford’s Richard Dawkins, who boldly insists that Darwinism supports atheism. We continue to think that such claims are an abuse of genuine science, and that this abuse of real science has led to pernicious social consequences (such as the eugenics crusade pushed by Darwinist biologists early in the twentieth century).
  3. "Discovery Institute’s Center... seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.” It wants to “reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." We admit it: We want to end the abuse of science by Darwinists like Richard Dawkins and E.O. Wilson who try to use science to debunk religion, and we want to provide support for scientists and philosophers who think that real science is actually “consonant with… theistic convictions.” Please note, however: “Consonant with” means “in harmony with.” It does not mean “same as.” Recent developments in physics, cosmology, biochemistry, and related sciences may lead to a new harmony between science and religion. But that doesn’t mean we think religion and science are the same thing. We don’t.
  4. “Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade.” It is precisely because we are interested in encouraging intellectual exploration that the “Wedge Document” identified the “essential” component of its program as the support of scholarly “research, writing and publication.” The document makes clear that the primary goal of Discovery Institute’s program in this area is to support scholars so they can engage in research and publication Scholarship comes first. Accordingly, by far the largest program in the Center’s budget has been the awarding of research fellowships to biologists, philosophers of science, and other scholars to engage in research and writing.
  5. “The best and truest research can languish unread and unused unless it is properly publicized.” It’s shocking but true—Discovery Institute actually promised to publicize the work of its scholars in the broader culture! What’s more, it wanted to engage Darwinists in academic debates at colleges and universities! We are happy to say that we still believe in vigorous and open discussion of our ideas, and we still do whatever we can to publicize the work of those we support. So much for the “secret” part of our supposed “conspiracy.”
A final thought: Don’t Darwinists have better ways to spend their time than inventing absurd conspiracy theories about their opponents? The longer Darwinists persist in spinning such urban legends, the more likely it is that fair-minded people will begin to question whether Darwinists know what they are talking about.
Now That's said it all.
 
Upvote 0

KerrMetric

Well-Known Member
Oct 2, 2005
5,171
226
64
Pasadena, CA
✟6,671.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Critias said:
Maybe you are unaware, but you are the instigator here who keeps egg others on.

It is no excuse if the thread was dead or not. You still derailed it. Please start another thread, thanks!

Mmm. I will desist but you don't own threads Critias even if you start them, nor are you a Moderator. So any poster can basically take your requests with the proverbial pinch of salt.

Peace.
 
Upvote 0

KerrMetric

Well-Known Member
Oct 2, 2005
5,171
226
64
Pasadena, CA
✟6,671.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Smidlee said:
DI reply:
Now That's said it all.

Yes it does, LOL. Did you actually read it, LOL. I'm sorry but I'm cracking up at what you obviously missed in that piece.


Peace. I'll leave this thread and start another on this soon.
 
Upvote 0

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
KerrMetric said:
Yes it does, LOL. Did you actually read it, LOL. I'm sorry but I'm cracking up at what you obviously missed in that piece.


Peace. I'll leave this thread and start another on this soon.
yes, I've read it so what's your point?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.