Posted on 10/01/2005 5:09:16 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Professor focused on intelligent design as theology, not science, at Dover trial Friday.
HARRISBURG — If there is a God, then he could have made the monkey and the human with similar genetic material.
In the fifth day of Dover Area School District’s trial over intelligent design, John Haught, a Georgetown University theology professor, agreed that was true.
So, the idea that “we came from some monkey or ape is conjecture at this point?” Dover’s lead attorney Richard Thompson asked Haught under cross-examination.
Haught disagreed.
In a First Amendment battle in U.S. Middle District Court in Harrisburg, the Dover district is defending its decision last year to include intelligent design in its biology curriculum. Eleven parents filed suit against the district arguing the concept is a veiled attempt to force religion into science class.
On Friday, Thompson, in trying to cast doubt over the theory of evolution — referred to as the unifying concept of modern biology — raised the issue of common descent.
But Haught said that in the world of science, there is little debate that humans share a common ancestor.
The professor, who spoke deliberately and extensively on the philosophical differences between religion and science, was the day’s sole witness.
Questioned by plaintiffs’ attorney Alfred Wilcox, he said intelligent design’s basic premise — that the complexity of life defies all explanation but the existence of a designer — is essentially an old religious argument based on the 13th-century writings of St. Thomas Aquinas and the “watchmaker” analogy put forth in 1802 by British philosopher William Paley.
A person walking through a field stumbles upon a watch. It is carefully assembled and wouldn’t function without all its parts working together. The person’s inevitable conclusion? The watch must have a maker.
Under cross-examination, Thompson asked if there was a controversy in the scientific community over the idea of irreducible complexity — essentially, the watchmaker’s observation that if a single working part of an organism were to be removed, the entire system would cease to function.
Haught told him that there exists a controversy between Lehigh University biochemistry professor Michael Behe, who coined the term, and most of the scientific community.
“So, you agree there is a controversy?” Thompson asked.
While most of plaintiffs’ expert testimony this week focused on establishing that intelligent design is not science, Haught’s focused on why it’s theology.
Science asks, “How?” he said. Religion asks, “Why?”
As an example, Haught compared the differences to water boiling on the stove.
What causes it to boil?
Well, one could answer it’s because of rapidly vibrating water molecules.
Another answer could be because “I want a cup of tea,” Haught suggested.
Both are correct answers, but one doesn’t discount the other.
One doesn’t bring the subject of desiring tea into the study of molecular movement.
It’s also a mistake to say, Haught said, “It’s the molecular movement rather than I want tea.”
Wow. I obviously need a sarcasm detector this morning. I totally misread your post (silly as it may seem, I've seen creationists use those arguments).
I'd like to blame it on a general sense of euphoria - my Yankees just won the division, and I'm giddy with excitement. Oh, for an "edit" button....
My apologies.
Materialism and empiricism (2 cornerstones of neodarwinism) have been refuted many times over. Here is a refutation from C.S. Lewis:
"...no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which eplained evertything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid wold be utterly out of court. For that theory wold itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid, that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. It would have proved that no argument was sound..."
"...no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained everything else in the whole univere but which made it impossible to believe that our thinging was valid would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid, that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. It would have proved that no argument was sound -- a proof that there are no such things as proofs -- which is nonsense."
Unlike a desk which was created by an intelligent designer, a tree is a living thing that replicates though the biological process of evolution. The tree can independently decide to move its leaves to face the sun and grow thicker branches on the side where the sun shines daily. It can even shed it's leaves to save it's energy before the cold winter arrives and grow them back in the spring.
But if all thoughts are merely the result of some material thing, and have no independence from the material world, then we cannot know beforehand or afterward whether we can trust the stimulating forces to create proper conclusions.
Those who make improper conclusions are less likely to live long enough to mate leaving the ones who make proper conclusions to breed the next generation and that's a process that's been going on for a very long time. It's called natural selection and you can read Darwin for more information on how that works.
You can confirm the fallacy of composition that I listed in any good book on logic or logical fallacies. Oh, it's real.
You can confirm the fallacy of your argument the next time you do something that involves a Relational Database.
No. The chimp DNA theory concludes that similarity in DNA (a PART) proves common ancestory of the entire species (or WHOLE species). :)
No it isn't. Just because two species have similar DNA does not mean they share a common ancestor. Amazingly enough something so totally obvious and simple has not been overlooked by scientists.
Common ancestory is based on solid evidence such as the nested heirarchy of life, shared DNA errors, vestigal structures, and of course the fossil record.
I didn't invent the rules of logical reasoning. Besides, this fallacy is only one of the three or four fallacies inherent in the chimp DNA hypothesis. It is rife with fallacies.
At T(1), X and Y share attributes Z and Q doesn't exist.
At T(0), Q has attributes Z but X and Y don't exist.
Further, it had been observed that there are thousands (or more) of cases like this.
The "chimp DNA fallacy" is your own invention. The concept of common decent (which is by the way accepted by the more famous Intelligent Design advocates) is not simply based on two species sharing the same DNA.
Oooh, now there's some solid science! Not! The "nested heirarchy of life"? Tell me: Precisely how is information is added to the genome in the natural selection/mutation process that would allow for new body parts, new phyla, etc.? Where does the information come from?
Bad, strawman model.
But mathematicians realize that 1 x 10^-50 is actually zero for all intents and purposes.
No they don't. For the intent and purpose of division, you can't divide by zero.
Determining Common Ancestory of life is independent from the mechanism by which the change happened. That is why Behe, probably the most well known Intelligent Design advocate accepts the evidence for Common Descent of life on Earth.
I didn't invent the rules of logical reasoning.
I think you are applying at least on of them incorrectly.
Besides, this fallacy is only one of the three or four fallacies inherent in the chimp DNA hypothesis. It is rife with fallacies.
I suggest you write a paper pointing these fallacies out and submit it. Think of the fame you'll acquire. Or better yet, write a book. Maybe you can make a lot of money off of it.
If chimps and humans had a common ancestor, then we could make a workable logical formula from it - and we can't.
I believe in change over time, but new "kinds" have never evolved. All of the phyla appeared at one time as the Cambrian explosion clearly demonstrates. Evolutionists invent or interpret evidence in order to fit their preconceived presuppositions.
I named 3 or 4 fallacies in this thread. That's enough for now - until you people can solve those I need not list any more.
I think you are applying at least on of them incorrectly.
'on' should be 'one'.
Non sequitir. You didn't address the question.
No that's nonsense.
All of the phyla appeared at one time as the Cambrian explosion clearly demonstrates.
No they didn't. Not all phyla appeared in the cambrian, and certainly not all major animal groups. Birds did not exist in the cambrian, jawed fish did not exist in the cambrian, bears, cats, dogs and humans did not exist in the cambrian. Reptiles did not exist in the cambrian, frogs did not exist in the cambrian. Trees did not exist in the cambrian, grass did not exist in the cambrian, flowering plants did not exist in the cambrian. Etc.
You posed an off-topic question. We were talking about common ancestory, not natural selection. Common ancestory exists even under the pardigm of Intelligent Design. Common Design claims that mammals were designed based on reptiles, that humans and chimps were designed based on long ago ape-like creatures. That is common ancestory.
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.