Originally Posted by jillianleab
AJ
You seem to be missing the point about scientific claims and theories. A claim is not an accepted scientific theory until it has been subject to peer review. Your buddy didn't do this because he knew it would not hold up. There are a lot of well written and interesting books out there, it doesn't mean they hold scientific fact. I didn't say or imply he's lying about his findings, but if he admitted in open court, under oath, before God, that his findings were manipulated, that bears some consideration.
Standing before a large group of people was Jesus Christ. Standing near Him was Pontius Pilate. Also before the group was Barabus. Barabus was a hardened criminal while Jesus Christ was innocent of any wrong doing. Pilate even stated the fact. When put to a vote of the "peers" in the audience, Christ was chosen for crucifixion while Barabus was set free. The founders of the United States understood that "democracy" was "mobocracy" thus the country was founded on the principles of a Republic. Just because a majority of people say something is so doesn't make it so. The leaders of the Romish church during the dark ages believed the world was flat. Was the majority of "peers" correct? No sir/ma'am. Have you read the book? Have any of the scoffers jabbing and jeering read the book? No? Then how can you offer a critique of his work? I did read the book and it was well written. He offers numerous facts. Also, he HAS made headway in the scientific community. Many scientists who were afraid to speak up for fear of losing their jobs are beginning to stir.
I can do that too: A bunch of wishful thinking, theories and blind faith in religion is not science. See how that works?
Oh, I know how it works. I've been accused of it many times by the scoffers and jabbers. All I am saying is that it works both ways. See how that works?
I'm not saying you should change your way of thinking because of what the judge ruled, but you have obviously overlooked the fact that the man you are holding as your "science expert" admitted his findings had been manipulated. Just because a judge paraphrased it doesn't mean it isn't true.
What a gigantic and obvious generalization. You make it sound like every chapter and every point made in Behe's book was "manipulated" and that he basically admitted that the book was a fraud. LOL and LOL. The judge "paraphrased" a single statement concerning a single issue. Are you going to tell me that every word out of your mouth is flawless? Come now.
I don't dispute this guy is a scientist. BUT, he is also a religious theorist, and what he has presented as "science" is nothing more than "religion".
And secular humanists aren't "religious theorists?" First plank of the Humanist Manifesto I: "Religious Humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created." Firstly, Humanists regard themselves as religionists. Secondly, it takes as much faith to believe that man sprung forth from inorganic matter billions and billions and quadrillions of years ago as it does to believe that God created the universe in a lesser amount of time.
Let everything I say and do be recorded in Heaven, Hell, Pakistan, Mars or Omicron Persei 8, makes no matter to me.
Lets!
You are free to believe what you wish, and I'm in no way trying to convince you of another belief. However, when you claim a man has presented a scientific theory and hold him in such high regard, it is probably wise to know about him from more than one angle. I didn't expect my translation of the Wiki article to change your mind, but hoped it would help you understand this is a religious theory, not a scientific one. You are a person of faith, good for you. I am not. Good for me.
