Posted on 09/25/2015 7:10:33 AM PDT by Heartlander
You believe the respondents on the thread do not know the difference?
Jim in 17 disagreed.
Don’t know. You just have to be precise in how you’re using it. Evolution within an animal group is not genuinely disputed. Evolution between animal groups is what Darwinism requires and is unfounded, scientific heresy.
The fact remains that Intelligent Design does not disprove evolution unless you can prove that it's impossible for the ability to evolve to be part of the design. Have you proved that it is impossible for evolution between animal groups to be part of the design?
“Again don’t confuse truth with lies.”
It’s not a question of truth vs lies. it’s a question of how deeply one delves into the designer’s nature and by what means.
When an earthquake happens do you just accept that it’s the way the designer designed things and leave it at that or do you spend efforts figuring out how the designer put things together to cause that earthquake to happen. And then to try to find ways to mitigate the design so the consequences to humans are reduced?
And if you opt for the latter, will how we do science change? What about religion?
Well, there is MUCH evidence of ID and basically NO evidence of transference between animal groups. In that sense, ID doesn’t so much disprove Darwinism as it presents compelling evidence of the alternative.
Are you doing research or dressing up dogma in a lab coat?
Your previous post expressed worry that teaching ID might send us back into the Dark Ages. That’s nonsense and I’ve tried to explain why.
Your hypo about earthquakes is a good example. Although an earthquake is legally considered “an act of God”, that viewpoint certainly has not stopped science from investigating the hows and whys and mitigation of consequences. Truth, and investigation and discovery, are not mutually exclusive.
Another example is medical science. Medical science has never, is not now, nor never will be, hindered by the belief that man is a created being.
It’s evidence that demands a verdict. Take it or leave it.
Evidence doesn't make demands. Reaching a verdict while we're still gathering evidence is called a "rush to judgment". Do not want.
No my FReind. Almost two hundred years of settled scientific theory of the second law of thermodynamics, 2000 or more years of stated evidence of ID, and 150 years of refuted Darwinism is hardly “a rush to judgment.”
It is a case where there is no genuine dispute of a material fact and deserves summary judgement. Sure new evidence to bring up a new case can always be presented if it is material and relevant, but at this point in time there’s no valid case for Darwinism over ID.
Next.
“Well, there is MUCH evidence of ID and basically NO evidence of transference between animal groups.”
How do we tell the difference?
“Evidence doesn’t make demands. Reaching a verdict while we’re still gathering evidence is called a “rush to judgment”. Do not want.”
Well said.
Would that the dogmatic evolutionists held to that, but they never have and do so less and less.
What is the difference between intelligent design and common descent?
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is only valid in a closed system, and we are not in a closed system.
Not sure what to do about that, but I'm pretty sure just doing the same thing but with different dogma is it.
Again, I find ID quite plausible. Who knows, there may be a being who is to us what we are to an amoeba (or to a computer)
However it cannot be denied that religious zealots (and organized religion in general) would be tempted to use evidence of ID to revive their old hold on society. It wasn’t long ago that Galileo was castigated by the church for daring to explore how nature works. And Islam to this day frowns upon scientific research, including medical research.
I’m only raising a warning against that.
Of course atheists have the opposite problem. They automatically dismiss the possibility of a designer and in doing so they’re limiting the range of what’s possible.
Personally I have no problem with exploring the theory of a designer and trying to determine his nature and his creation by whatever means are available to us.
I share Stephen Myers attitude toward this.
Darwinism postulates a closed system.
Theocracy is not anywhere an issue today and can only occur if the government establish a state church. The feds constantly violate the Constitution, but not in that direction, in the opposite direction,constant abridging of our free exercise of religion and speech rights.
Seems unlikely. A closed thermodynamic system would disallow any external energy source, and I'm pretty sure Darwin was aware of sunlight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.