Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Paleontologist)   Scientists find a million year old human tooth fossil put on earth by Satan to trick us into believing in evolution   (physorg.com) divider line 454
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

14880 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jun 2007 at 3:00 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



454 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-06-30 07:14:08 PM  
whiskerbisquit
Evolution is as flawed as your explanation is...why doesn't a fish have claws like a crab, or tentacles like a squid...? face it Crap doesn't JUST HAPPEN because its the best for that species, otherwise DR. Vagin-o-mite would have both sex organs!!!!!


You might want to look up the term hermaphrodite.

And your right, mutation dont just happen, there are causes behind them. Those causes, however they may happen, are not always successful, I think that is one thing you seem to be misunderstanding. Out of almost all of the mutations that have happened to creatures and plants very few of those are actually in any way beneficial, and most die as a result of them. This is where the term "survival of the fittest" comes from, because only those things with the most beneficial evolutionary aspects survive in the long run.


Honestly hope your just a poor troll, and not really this inanely ignorant on the subject.
 
2007-06-30 07:15:29 PM  
Darwin hated the church, and with that his revenge ended in "hopscotch" science...It can't be proven "as fact" that one species evolved from another...It can be proven though, that name calling and "SICKO" remarks come from the lesser intelects

Darwin was a devoted Christian, and a trained clergyman. He delayed publishing his data for years, and caused himself untold anguish, for fear of what it would do to him and to the church.

I have SEEN speciation. I have WITNESSED evolution by natural selection. I have READ about things. I also can spell 'intellects'.

You sir, FAIL at arguing. You still have not put forth any alternative to Evolution through natural selection.
 
2007-06-30 07:19:45 PM  
this thread is like the sound of one hand clapping.

you guys are really mastrabatory in your poo flinging. i didnt see any creationists posting in here at all.

/until i got here.
//God will smite you all for your heresy, and hell awaits. have a nice day.
 
2007-06-30 07:23:51 PM  
I'm agnostic, and have not read the whole Bible (love the language of it, many parts extremely moving...), so this is a serious question on my part:

To those who say you don't have to believe everything in the Bible, or take its stories literally:

- is this the official position of church leadership and its professional scholars?

- how common is this belief amongst Christians?

- is that what kids are taught at Sunday school?

- which parts of the bible is deemed true in every sense of the word? which part should be taken as allegory?

- and are there parts that people today think are just plain wrong?

I was wondering about these questions as I watch Romney twisting uncomfortably in the press when questioned about central beliefs of his faith: about when Jesus comes back it would be in America, how he will rule the earth for 1,000 years from the home base of Missouri, etc. And I think, it's really not fair to just ask Romney that. Why not ask the other candidates about all the miracles in the Bible? To me those stories don't sound any less fantastic.
 
2007-06-30 07:28:40 PM  
And your right, mutation dont just happen, there are causes behind them.

Why does a mutation (which is a flaw in itself) always end up in favor of the scientific perspective? To prove that a flaw in genetics is a plus and therefore should be seens as such begs the question "Why are we trying to cure disease?" Seems rather suspicious that you are spouting your own scientific religion and YOU shall not be detered...No room for debate...science by its very definition is the coagulation of hard cold proven mathematical facts (not concensus) as you have subscribed to.
 
2007-06-30 07:29:07 PM  
Man On Fire: Bevets left after the mainpage reformat.

I just have to point out that no, he didn't.
 
2007-06-30 07:29:09 PM  
Evolution and Science is better than Jesus and God.
Jesus and God is better than Zeus the the gods.
Zeus and the gods is better than the Sun and Moon


/We'll be mocking Evolutionists in a few hundred years or so.
 
2007-06-30 07:30:04 PM  
Baconwrappedbacon Satan Burger is one of my "new classics" (ripping off TNT, of course). Carlton Mellick III FTW!

/lent the book to a friend, who read it at work
//she got a talking-to by the boss
///NSFW, apparently.
 
2007-06-30 07:31:15 PM  
HEY INTELLIGENT DESIGNERS:
HAVE YOU EVER GIVEN ANY THOUGHT TO WHAT OCCURRED BEFORE THE "CREATION" THAT YOU BELIEVE IN HAPPENED?


BEFORE TIME...,

THE FATHER, SON AND THE SPIRIT WERE CONVERSING IN THEIR OMNIVERSE. SUDDENLY THE FATHER SAID, "I THINK THAT I'LL CREATE A UNIVERSE. IT'LL GROW TO BILLIONS OF LIGHT YEARS ACROSS (I GUESS THAT I'D BETTER CREATE LIGHT SO THAT THAT PHRASE MAKES SENSE) AND TOMORROW (AFTER I CREATE TIME), I'LL EXPLAIN PARALLEL UNIVERSES, ELEVEN DIMENSIONS, DARK MATTER, MEMBRANES AS RELATED TO THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING, AND THE PROPERTIES OF QUANTUM PHYSICS TO YOU. IN THAT UNIVERSE WILL BE A MINISCULE PLANET, WHICH WILL BE INHABITED BY A RACE OF PRIMITIVE MAMMALS. SINCE THEY WILL EVOLVE IMPERFECTLY, THEY WILL NOT OBEY WHEN I TELL THEM NOT TO EAT FRUIT FROM A CERTAIN TREE. THEN, AFTER THEY HAVE DISOBEYED ME, YOU (POINTING AT THE SON) WILL HAVE TO GO THERE AND LIVE AMONG THEM FOR THIRTY-THREE YEARS AND THEN BE TORTURED AND CRUCIFIED TO APPEASE ME (THEY'LL BE SO VIOLENT THAT THEY'LL INVENT CRUCIFIXION WITHOUT ANY OF MY HELP)."

SHOCKED, THE SON LOOKS AT THE FATHER AND SAYS, "I HAVE A BETTER IDEA, WHY DON'T YOU INVENT GOLF INSTEAD AND LET'S GO PLAY A COUPLE OF ROUNDS!
OH, AND ANOTHER THING, IF I HAVE TO BE TORTURED AND MURDERED TO APPEASE YOU FOR THE MAMMALS MERELY EATING A FORBIDDEN APPLE; WHAT WILL I HAVE DO TO APPEASE YOU FOR THEM MURDERING ME AFTER YOU COMMANDED THEM NOT TO KILL?"
 
2007-06-30 07:31:27 PM  
FarkinFarker: Man On Fire: Bevets left after the mainpage reformat.

I just have to point out that no, he didn't.


Yeah, I saw him hitting up a thread. He did a "one post and leave" kind of drive by approach. That made me sad.
 
2007-06-30 07:36:16 PM  
jayday: I can also pretty much guarantee that about 75% of the people that now have a problem with the idea of creationism would not have that problem if you removed the bible, and the idea of it being filled with unarguable truths, altogether from the context. As I said before, creationism isnt the problem, its the use of creationism in an effort to try to legitimize the bible that is the problem.....Just thank God, most people see creationism for the stoopididy it is.

I'm a graduate student in molecular evolution and Creationism - the Bible = Intelligent design and I have problems with that for a variety of reasons. Mostly because it isn't science and is intellectually vacuous and disinegenious in how it presents evolutionary theory and the way it attacks it. Creationism is itself a fundamental problem because the people advocating it are not doing so in an honest way. I mean if people want to plug their ears and pretend everything you see is wrong when you correct them on their misunderstandings fine but when you push it as public policy I get a little upset.



On another note I can see the trolls/people with no actual understanding of evolutionary biology other than what their pastor/neighborhood crackpot told them they thought it was are here
 
2007-06-30 07:37:42 PM  
KazamaSmokers: i53.photobucket.com

what the shiatting hell is that?

veseferus: the Anunnaki established civilization, taking upon themselves the role of "Gods".

So the Anunnaki were Goa'uld?
 
2007-06-30 07:40:05 PM  
some_random_guy [TotalFark]2007-06-30 07:37:42 PM
KazamaSmokers: i53.photobucket.com

what the shiatting hell is that?



It's an african fish that uses those teeth to scrape algae off of rocks.
 
2007-06-30 07:41:28 PM  
whiskerbisquit: And your right, mutation dont just happen, there are causes behind them.

Why does a mutation (which is a flaw in itself) always end up in favor of the scientific perspective? To prove that a flaw in genetics is a plus and therefore should be seens as such begs the question "Why are we trying to cure disease?" Seems rather suspicious that you are spouting your own scientific religion and YOU shall not be detered...No room for debate...science by its very definition is the coagulation of hard cold proven mathematical facts (not concensus) as you have subscribed to.


Mutation is not a flaw. There are many different types of mutations the most common that people think of being point mutations. A change in the nucleotide code of DNA that may or may not change the amino acid sequence of the protein coded for by the gene.

In turn these mutations may be deleterious and reduce the fitness of the organism (evolutionary biology predicts these are in the majority by the way and most become under purifying selection) while the smallest number may be beneficial. The rest fall in the neutral, or nearly neutral catagory.

Besides point mutations there is recombination, gene duplication, gene transversions, insertions and deletions, etc. Again some may be bad, some good, others neutral. Nevermind the fact that in prokaryotes we have extensive lateral gene transfers of genetic material between organisms that has probably been one of the main mechanisms of creating variety in biology.

All of these events are subject to a variety of constraints and pressures and an ever shifting fitness landscape, subject to selection and/or neutral drift and the vagaries of population genetics. Brush up on your science before you continue to spew garbage with no basis in reality and what evolutionary biology actually says.
 
2007-06-30 07:41:28 PM  
there's an amazonian one that looks like that too...
 
2007-06-30 07:41:29 PM  
If God knows everything, and Jesus IS God... did Jesus commit suicide??? Chew on that awhile...Was then the Roman soldier that pierced His heart "really" a murder or just an instrument of Gods own hand???? Will the soldier go to hell...Just keeping you "Freelovers" in thought Limbo
 
2007-06-30 07:47:05 PM  
queue the... ah fark it.

here's a tip. The creationists will believe what they want no matter what you tell them. I'm one, but I got a kick out of the submitters headline, so screw the argument
 
2007-06-30 07:49:57 PM  
entropic_existence

Amen!

/LOL
 
2007-06-30 07:50:39 PM  
whiskerbisquit
Why does a mutation (which is a flaw in itself) always end up in favor of the scientific perspective? To prove that a flaw in genetics is a plus and therefore should be seens as such begs the question "Why are we trying to cure disease?" Seems rather suspicious that you are spouting your own scientific religion and YOU shall not be detered...No room for debate...science by its very definition is the coagulation of hard cold proven mathematical facts (not concensus) as you have subscribed to.



Pssst learn to read.

jayday 2007-06-30 07:14:08 PM
And your right, mutation dont just happen, there are causes behind them. Those causes, however they may happen, are not always successful, I think that is one thing you seem to be misunderstanding. Out of almost all of the mutations that have happened to creatures and plants very few of those are actually in any way beneficial, and most die as a result of them. This is where the term "survival of the fittest" comes from, because only those things with the most beneficial evolutionary aspects survive in the long run.


And science a religion???
Science is based on tested and retested theories, all of which are updated as needed when they no longer hold true. At its base that is nothing at all similar to religion, which is based simply on blind following and faith in a belief. If you cant distinguish the simple difference between those two then misunderstanding natural selection is the least of your concern.
 
2007-06-30 07:53:42 PM  
Entropic_existence...Spewing is the non-linguistic science-babble that so effortlessly poured from your polluted mind into your keyboard....Fancy terms and definitions from your paragraphical sound-byte do not disuade me. I have not changed as a person from reading books and listening to PROFESSORS... although you my friend have fallen prey as a "John" does for a prostitute.
 
2007-06-30 07:57:18 PM  
entropic_existence

LOL....
Good luck with trying to explain mutations and its relation to evolution.
I didnt even get into the science of it and left it, only explaining it as the cause of how evolution occurs.
.....god knows you just made their head go 'sploded.
 
2007-06-30 08:03:41 PM  
"Fancy terms and definitions..."

They're not fancy if you bother to learn what they mean.

And just because you're too self-righteous to change your mind doesn't mean that the other guy is wrong.

/yes, I changed my mind. I'm a confirmed Episcopalian.
//not any more, of course, because I opened my eyes.
 
2007-06-30 08:05:27 PM  
whiskerbisquit: Entropic_existence...Spewing is the non-linguistic science-babble that so effortlessly poured from your polluted mind into your keyboard....Fancy terms and definitions from your paragraphical sound-byte do not disuade me. I have not changed as a person from reading books and listening to PROFESSORS... although you my friend have fallen prey as a "John" does for a prostitute.

No, I actually learned the science and mechanisms behind it that we know about from the chemistry on up. But you keep on believing what your pastor tells you and refuse to actually learn. If you can;t understand the language of science you will never understand science at all.

jayday: LOL....
Good luck with trying to explain mutations and its relation to evolution.
I didnt even get into the science of it and left it, only explaining it as the cause of how evolution occurs.
.....god knows you just made their head go 'sploded.


Yea, well I get a little picky because the really simplified explanation is actually so simple that it is wrong :) Just talking about mutation with selection acting on it and survival of the fittest and all. Not trying to sound elitist but since it is my field and all well I'm sure you understand :)
 
2007-06-30 08:07:27 PM  
whiskerbisquit
Fancy terms and definitions from your paragraphical sound-byte do not disuade me.

Dictionary, Mutherf***a! Can you read it?

I have not changed as a person from reading books and listening to PROFESSORS

Here's a thought, then... why don't you take a break from your trolling and wander outside for a few hours. Maybe take a trip to another country, set up shop for a while, watch the flora and fauna and report back to us in a few years. Or, take the short route and go visit prominent Scientists on both sides of the issue, pool together their specialized knowledge, then reach a conclusion. Whether you, yourself, actually giving a flying tooth-filled fish's ass about the topic, these comments go to those that do.

/Effectively an agnostic
//Has questions about Evolution, but accepts it as the best theory we have to offer, as far as I know
 
2007-06-30 08:07:46 PM  
MkFreeburg: Thanks a lot man! I really appreciate the gift, and I like Totalfark a lot! I'll probably be subscribing now.



Whatishisname:

RE: "If that's your logic, then what caused God?"

That's a fascinating question worth a lot of pondering. But I think that God is beyond our comprehension. It's easy to think that God's just like Jesus with superpowers and longer beard, but I think God is more like a thinking force of nature that is reflected in our built-in understanding of right and wrong. I don't pretend to have any answers, but that's a great question that led to a lot of my views.
 
2007-06-30 08:09:05 PM  
whiskerbisquit
I have not changed as a person from reading books and listening to PROFESSORS...

In other words, you haven't learned and you're proud of it.
 
2007-06-30 08:10:55 PM  
Here's the kicker...I do not have a Pastor, although I have entertained the idea. I just think that building your career on the backs of flawed and ever-changing science is a HOOT...Just look at the PROFESSOR Al Gore Deniable provability???
 
2007-06-30 08:17:24 PM  
entropic_existence
I'm a graduate student in molecular evolution and Creationism - the Bible = Intelligent design and I have problems with that for a variety of reasons. Mostly because it isn't science and is intellectually vacuous and disinegenious in how it presents evolutionary theory and the way it attacks it. Creationism is itself a fundamental problem because the people advocating it are not doing so in an honest way. I mean if people want to plug their ears and pretend everything you see is wrong when you correct them on their misunderstandings fine but when you push it as public policy I get a little upset.


No argument about any of that in any way. I think however your misunderstanding the point I was making. This being that all of the attacks being made on evolutionary theory are being done so in some half-assed attempt to try to make the square peg (evolution) fit in the round hole (The Bible). If this was to stop and instead evolution was simply credited to "God" (choose your form) without any attempt to try to make it fit to biblical "facts", and without any attempt to sway scientific reality in any way, then I really can't see very many people having a problem with this.

This is the point I was trying to make.
Given this is a very far and vague comparison to what presently is considered creationism, so my even using that term to describe what I'm referring to here is probably incorrect to start with. However I really didnt feel much in the mood to go into naming and explaining some "pseudo-creationism" theory early on a saturday, so please forgive me on that one.
:P
 
2007-06-30 08:18:16 PM  
whiskerbisquit
I just think that building your career on the backs of flawed and ever-changing science is a HOOT

As opposed to what? The unchanging theological beliefs in God? The beliefs that have changed since before and after the time of Jesus Christ? Like when Christianity transitioned between Christ and Catholicism, and Catholicism and Protestantism? How about the development of Moromonism, whether you accept that as a viable religion or not? A person's Faith may remain unchanged, but the faiths are not half as stable as you would make them out to be. Heard about Catholicism lately? The whole getting rid of Limbo?

Furthermore, the fact Science changes is a GOOD thing despite what our precious Politician Overlords would have you believe. God forbid evidence comes along that requires you to change notions created in absence of that evidence. It'd be FAR better if Science just ignored NEW evidence, right? Better if it were unchanging. Say, would you like to trade in your Desktop Tower or Laptop for one of those nifty Wall Mainframes? I hear they're the bomb. What about changing your color TV for a black-and-white model? Hell, if Science never changed, you wouldn't have a computer or a television. Forget the refrigerator too. Einstein's Relativity? Gone. Let's stick with Newtonian Law only. A round planet? We should have never changed over to this "spherical" idea. Utter bull, right?
 
2007-06-30 08:18:55 PM  
"Here's the kicker...I do not have a Pastor, although I have entertained the idea. I just think that building your career on the backs of flawed and ever-changing science is a HOOT...Just look at the PROFESSOR Al Gore Deniable provability???"

WTF? Is that supposed to say plausible deniability?

Science changes so that it can be corrected. Religion changes to back-pedal from being proven wrong. Which is better? Science.

here's an equation to get you started on your education:

FAITH = WILLFUL IGNORANCE
 
2007-06-30 08:20:18 PM  
whiskerbisquit
I just think that building your career on the backs of flawed and ever-changing science is a HOOT

Flawed? All methods to advance knowledge are somehow flawed, it doesn't mean we should remain ignorant. We do the best we can.

And ever-changing? Ever-learning. If science had all the answers it would be a hell of a boring career. It's precisely because it doesn't have all the answers that makes it worth going to work every day.

Were it not for people who wanted to innovate, to explore, to discover, we certainly wouldn't have computers, or electricity, or anything even resembling modern technology.
 
2007-06-30 08:23:41 PM  
I already know everything that both sides are going to say in this thread, so I just looked at all the pictures.

Let me know when you guys solve the riddles.
 
2007-06-30 08:27:45 PM  
AladinSane: no Farker would ever blindly take someone elses word for anything related to Science. Only those crazy Religious folk do that.

I agree with that statement.
 
2007-06-30 08:27:47 PM  
mr.crowley
Let me know when you guys solve the riddles.

If we solved the riddles, though, what would be the point to living? There's got to be at least one question we don't have an answer to, otherwise we'd stagnate. Just so happens this debate'll exist as long as Sol burns, and probably after that!
 
kab
2007-06-30 08:29:05 PM  
Remember kids, things that science hasn't discovered yet, simply don't exist.

Religion: This book says that this is how life began.

Science: This is unquestionably how life began, defend it fervently until the next discovery that makes us change our minds.
 
2007-06-30 08:31:51 PM  
kab
Remember kids, things that science hasn't discovered yet, simply don't exist.

Er, that's a false statement... I'm pretty sure Gravity existed before Newton wrote a Hypothesis about how it worked. And the whole "the planet sucks" theory probably took a few years for the "First Human(s)" to express in a meaningful fashion, too.
 
2007-06-30 08:32:23 PM  
yo subby
not even reading the previous comments, just wanted to say, lol headline. i see what you did there. well done and all that.
 
2007-06-30 08:34:47 PM  
SUM-DUMD-GUY lets spell correctly if we can...That is just to say Do unto others, etc,....Look the Bible is just one book translated in many ways, albeit...Look how many thousands, and thousands, and thousands of books have been written to dispute, disparage, denegrate and make fun of the more than 60 million people on earth who model their life after it. Thats quite a challenge for the scientific community...Don't you think? How many more tomes must be written before your scientists move on from trying to proving there is no God and and move on to proving humanity never needed one.
 
2007-06-30 08:34:48 PM  
whiskerbisquit: Entropic_existence...Spewing is the non-linguistic science-babble that so effortlessly poured from your polluted mind into your keyboard....Fancy terms and definitions from your paragraphical sound-byte do not disuade me. I have not changed as a person from reading books and listening to PROFESSORS... although you my friend have fallen prey as a "John" does for a prostitute.

You can't be proudly anti-intellectual and try not to sound like a moron when talking about science. Pick one. I recommend the former, it suits you better.
 
2007-06-30 08:37:47 PM  
Enough about religion, what I want to know is where the elements came from.
 
2007-06-30 08:38:36 PM  
i62.photobucket.com

Ok, after this there is NO WAY objectiveministries.org is real. Come on, I'm risking bannination just posting this.
 
2007-06-30 08:43:42 PM  
whiskerbisquit
Thats quite a challenge for the scientific community...Don't you think? How many more tomes must be written before your scientists move on from trying to proving there is no God and and move on to proving humanity never needed one.

1. Science doesn't give a damn about Religion
2. Scientists don't have a mandate to disprove Religion, or God
3. You, however, seem to feel it is necessary to disprove Science for whatever reason, whether you believe the nonsensical arguments you're spilling over this message board or you're a certified troll that needs to find a better hobby than pretending to "speak up" for the community that is not currently active in this thread, addressing its own concerns for debate.

In other words: Stop making stuff up.

PS: If you aren't a troll, why would you want Scientists (assuming they had this grand conspiracy against Religion) to "move on" to refuting Humanity ever needed a God in the first place? If you are a troll, then this would be where you reached too far.
 
2007-06-30 08:44:06 PM  
mediaho 2007-06-30 03:30:53 PM
Great Janitor: Don't worry, creationists will soon tell us that since we've detonated nuclear weapons, all carbon dating is completely wrong.

Some claim that the great flood (Noah and all that) screwed up carbon dating which is why it is inaccurate.


Carbon dating is not wrong, but it can only go back about a couple thousand years.
 
2007-06-30 08:45:59 PM  
mr.crowley
I already know everything that both sides are going to say in this thread, so I just looked at all the pictures.

Let me know when you guys solve the riddles.



Ohhhhh...Ohhh....I got the answer right here!!1!!1!1!!!

Most of humanity is a gathering of microbrained dunderheads and whackadoodles (those are scientific terminologies) that cause more problems then they capable of solving.

.....ie 95% of people are egomaniacal problem causing idiots and morons; also synonymous with religion.


.....There be your answer.
 
2007-06-30 08:51:54 PM  
bdub1977: Carbon dating is not wrong, but it can only go back about a couple thousand years.

We'll just let that be your little secret.
 
2007-06-30 08:54:20 PM  
Apparently I have reached far enough to rile the proudly scholastic, the Athiest, the Elitist, The ACLU symphathisers, the mundane pacifists, and the completly ignorant sycophants, that can't read and think...no matter how simple you try to make it for them...No-one backs off from what they "TRULY" believe and that is the product of intellectual diversity. "Touche" to the farkers in here that stuck with the arguements and would have defended their right to spend money on their quest for inconsequential knowledge that only serves their alma mater.
 
2007-06-30 08:56:21 PM  
whiskerbisquit: "Touche" to the farkers in here that stuck with the arguements and would have defended their right to spend money on their quest for inconsequential knowledge that only serves their alma mater.

Don't you have an observatory to burn down?
 
2007-06-30 08:56:22 PM  
bdub1977

Carbon dating is not wrong, but it can only go back about a couple thousand years.


About 60,000 years, about 10x the half-life of C14.

There are better dating methods that go back much farther (and don't have the problems of radiocarbon dating).
 
2007-06-30 09:00:14 PM  
Sum Dum Earth...Then why does science continually rely on the carbon-14 dating debacle that has had more scrutiny than Paris Hiltons Day-planner
 
2007-06-30 09:02:16 PM  
SkinnyHead

Lord Summerisle: Actually, I was somewhat shocked to realise that I have no problem with the idea of "intelligent design".

Many people are shocked to learn that ID is not creationism, and that it is compatible with belief in evolution. As Michael Behe has stated, ID is compatible with the view that "evolution occurred, but was guided by God."


No- it is creationism. It only exists in order to attack evolution. The main political proponent of "ID theory" is the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute, a religious right think-tank, is well-known for its strong opposition to evolutionary biology and its advocacy for "intelligent design." The institute's main financial backer, savings and loan heir Howard Ahmanson, spent 20 years on the board of the Chalcedon Foundation, "a theocratic outfit that advocates the replacement of American civil law with biblical law."

Phillip E. Johnson is the cheif propenent of ID theory and the architect of the current ID movement. He is NOT a scientist nor does he have any scientific background or credentials, but rather a retired Berkeley law professor who also happens to be a born again Christian. The only reason why Johnson, as co-founder of the Discovery Institute itself, started pushing ID in the first place was to attack what they describe as "materialism" and advance Christianity.


"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 Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating 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."


ID is Christianity. That is why it isn't permissible in public schools. Because it is an unconstitutional advocacy of Christian mythology in public schools.
 
Displayed 50 of 454 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report