tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673758362916429937.post3291388929196364244..comments2024-03-22T20:18:45.865+11:00Comments on Jack Lacton: 10 Institutions That Ruin The World - #10Jack Lactonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07297939283546740918noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673758362916429937.post-83152159468293338132007-02-25T15:21:00.000+11:002007-02-25T15:21:00.000+11:00Well, despite really enjoying the previous 9 Insti...Well, despite really enjoying the previous 9 Institutions that Ruin the World, I have to say I respectfully disagree with your choice for #10 for a couple of reasons. <BR/>First, it has always been my impression that the recent Intelligent Design movment, at least in the U.S.A. did not, in fact, get it's start from Creation Science or Christianity at all. My understanding was that the ID movement began with a collection of scientists (many were not religious at all), largely from relatively newer sciences such as molecular/cellular biology, genetics, quantum mechanics and others that have developed largely after WW2. <BR/>Apparently, some of their findings called into question some of the assumptions long taken for granted by evolutionists in the older sciences of geology and paleontology (sp opps?). They tried bringing up some of these questions only to be uninvited at conventions and to be suppressed. As a result, they began to launch out on their own, publishing books like, "Darwin's Black Box" which I have read and found intriguing - though some of the science goes over my head. <BR/>It IS true that ID has found a welcome ally in Creation Science and evangelical Christians but how does that weaken the questions that they are asking?<BR/>I feel that science ought to never make itself unquestionable by the very "priests" (meaning other scientists) that make it so exalted. I get suspicious whenever someone is told to "shut up you're a loon" by the establishment - especially when the establishment doesn't, in fact, answer the objection or question - it just yells loud and nasty to end the discussion. VERY scientific! Makes me think they have something to hide or something to lose. <BR/>If ID is a joke - debate it openly in front of everyone and prove it! That's what I would like to see. If evolutionists are correct, what do they have to be so afraid of? The whole tempest seems kind of screwy to me...Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04801605653181653173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673758362916429937.post-13861469700179235532007-02-24T07:20:00.000+11:002007-02-24T07:20:00.000+11:00As a young earth creationist, I think the biggest ...As a young earth creationist, I think the biggest problem is how the debate has been carried out for the most part incorrectly, on both/all sides' parts.<BR/><BR/>Specifically, the problem is the role of the ACLU in establishing evolutionism in the public education system. It did not really use science to achieve its goal, but the Constitutional requirement that the government not teach religious doctrine. That's really quite fair, except for the part that government schools now have the implicit authority to dictate what is and is not a religious belief, which means the schools get away with implicitly condemning any religious belief that conflicts with a nonreligious belief without having to actually back up their position. I don't mean just evolution here, but the PC crap as well.<BR/><BR/>The problem is also the evangelical Christians who think the solution is to scientifically prove creationism until it can be forced into the public schools. That is unlikely to happen. They have made some interesting discoveries in such areas as the RATE project, but anyone with a healthy level of skepticism isn't going to change sides just because the other guys also have evidence.<BR/><BR/>The real question ought to be what business the government has in running our schools in the first place, if they indeed are legally crippled from delivering a proper education.<BR/><BR/>Competition has a certain place in science, which is sometimes obstructed when the academic mob develops a strong adherence to one position. When that happens the only way to preserve competition is to build a parallel system of education, research, and funding. It won't be until the competitive nature of this issue is embraced by both sides, when they start setting common goals and see who can get to them first, that real scientific progress will occur. Who knows, maybe then the creationist education/research/funding machine will implode from humiliation, with only the most fanatical splinters remaining.Geoarrgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02427326023169295918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673758362916429937.post-71361015632115125232007-02-21T11:52:00.000+11:002007-02-21T11:52:00.000+11:00As a Christian, I do believe in creation, but I'm ...As a Christian, I do believe in creation, but I'm not a young earth creationist, nor do I distrust science. Many times I wonder why the two have been divorced. Do I believe in evolution? Well I think Darwin figured out part of how God did things but I don't think life is a cosmic joke and we play the fool.<BR/><BR/>And ID vs Darwin belongs in the debate section of school not science anyway... <BR/><BR/>PS I liked the et, blah part as well...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673758362916429937.post-19832130955449055002007-02-19T19:51:00.000+11:002007-02-19T19:51:00.000+11:00Heh. I laughed at "et blah", too, when I wrote it....Heh. I laughed at "et blah", too, when I wrote it. It seemed really appropriate.<BR/><BR/>You're quite right about the 'science' being dead wrong. I took it as writ that the fact was well known.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the feedback.Jack Lactonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07297939283546740918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673758362916429937.post-53316676080468686252007-02-19T19:45:00.000+11:002007-02-19T19:45:00.000+11:00"et blah" is funny. But I think you overlook a fun..."et blah" is funny. But I think you overlook a fundamental reason why the Discovery Institute is dangerous. Namely: It's DEAD WRONG. Its content is not fact, not science, not true, not teachable in a proper science classroom -- and yet it wants people to believe take these non-facts on faith and believe them instead of believing what we've learned scientifically. It wants American children to believe a bunch of non-truths. That's worse than making people snicker at Christianity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com