Posted on 10/24/2005 5:27:52 PM PDT by gobucks
PRAGUE, Czech Republic -- Hundreds of supporters of "intelligent design" theory gathered in Prague in the first such conference in eastern Europe, but Czech scholars boycotted the event insisting it had no scientific credence.
About 700 scientists from Africa, Europe and the United States attended Saturday's "Darwin and Design" conference to press their contention that evolution cannot fully explain the origins of life or the emergence of highly complex species.
"It is a step beyond Darwin," said Carole Thaxton of Atlanta, a biologist who lived with her husband, Charles, in Prague in the 1990s and was one of the organizers of the event.
"The point is to show that there in fact is intelligence in the universe," she said. The participants, who included experts in mathematics, molecular biology and biochemistry, "are all people who independently came to the same conclusion," she said.
Among the panelists was Stephen C. Meyer, a fellow at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that represents many scholars who support intelligent design.
He said intelligent design was "based upon scientific evidence and discoveries in fields such as biochemistry, molecular biology, paleontology and astrophysics."
Many leading Czech thinkers, however, boycotted the conference, insisting the theory - which is being debated in the United States - is scientifically groundless.
Intelligent design holds that life is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying a higher power must have had a hand. Critics contend it is repackaged creationism and improper to include in modern scientific education.
Vaclav Paces, chairman of the Czech Academy of Sciences, called the conference "useless."
"The fact that we cannot yet explain the origin of life on Earth does not mean that there is (a) God who created it," Paces was quoted as telling the Czech news agency CTK.
Ok, what's the OP?
(Every once in a while you guys could drop the at-war attitude and answer a question. You are treating me as the enemy and I don't really think of myself as such. You may, but I don't.)
Interesting indeed. Do you think that a mutation is required or simply that the trait was included in the bird's genome and favored by the environment? (left behind so to speak because he couldn't fly)
Not sure where you came up with the idea that ID agrees that man evolved from simple organisms which is evolutionist speculation. Your table makes no sense but neither does macro evolution.
More-IDiocy-on-display placemarker.
That would come from public statemade by Behe and Denton and Dembsky, the leading advoctes of ID.
ID does not propose that man descended from simple organisms. ID deals with design. ID is macro evolution's worst nightmare. Nice try.
Michael Denton, author of "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis, has written a new book, "Nature's Destiny," on intelligent Design. In it he says this:
"it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes.This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law.
Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies."
Behe, the chief defence witness at Dover, has this to say about evolution:
I didn't intend to "dismiss" the fossil record--how could I "dismiss" it? In fact I mention it mostly to say that it can't tell us whether or not biochemical systems evolved by a Darwinian mechanism. My book concentrates entirely on Darwin's mechanism, and simply takes for granted common descent.
Perhaps you should study ID instead of accepting it on faith.
Are you dumb, ignorant or just a liar?
The mousetrap man
Interview with Mike Behe, the mousetrap1 man
by Carl Wieland
Dr Michael Behe is associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, Pennsylvania, USA. His book Darwin’s Black Box has caused quite a stir among Darwinists for its profound attack on ‘blind watchmaker’ evolution. It highlights ‘intelligent design’ as an obvious, logical explanation for the intricacy of biochemical systems found in living things.
Although biblical creationists have been able to make good use of his powerful arguments, Dr Behe does not claim to be on our side. When I spoke to him briefly on the phone for this article, he confirmed that ‘if there was good evidence for it [life coming about through some sort of evolutionary process], I would just accept that.’ A Roman Catholic, he says he does not have ‘any theological difficulties’ with the idea that we came from fish via ape-like ancestors.
‘No … well, I think it should be decided on the evidence. The idea of common descent has support, and also some problems. Right now, I’m willing to accept it as a reasonable working hypothesis, but I could always change my mind.’
Was Adam or Eve the original carrier of syphilis?
"Dr Behe does not claim to be on our side."
And this is the guy the creo's are following? AIG looks absollutely stellar compared to the zealots here.
Apparently you don't know the difference between ID and Creationism. They are like two overlapping circles. There are some Creationists who abhor ID because it focuses on science and design and is agnostic about Christian theology. There are different flavors of Creationists as well. I have little use or patience with Young-earth Creationists for example.
I do. That is why I am so amazed at how creationists can support teaching children that God may be dead.
Those opposed to ID are reluctant to face the fact that they look at the world from a peculiar perspective that dates to Leipnitz or Hume. In other words, they don't even know the philosphical foundation of their science. At least they don't even bother to argue that all knowledge is empirical, as if that were self evident. But men like Einstein and Goedel disagreed with them on this point.
ID doesn't purport God is dead. ID is agnostic about who the designer is. Whether Behe personally accepts macro evolution is irrevelant. ID is not synonymous with macro evolution. ID focuses on patterns to show design. Your points make no sense. AMF
You've got that mixed up. Evolution/science is neutral on God, ID strives to teach children that God may be dead.
Then you can't support ID. In fact, isn't ID supporting a "false god"? hmmm.
Are you saying that what Behe says is irrelevant to ID? Time to come out of your hole.
Behe agreed that was true.
Rothschild paused.
"Is that what you want to teach school students, Mr. Behe?" he asked.
As part of a curriculum making students aware of intelligent design, Behe said, "Yes, I think that's a terrific thing to point out.
OP=original post. "At war attitude" from me? You don't think your OP to me was combative? If you know so little about the theory of evolution that you aren't aware of its numerous predictions, including the ones that I had already outlined when you asked me to cite some, then how do you feel competent to talk so disparagingly about it?
Whether Behe personally accepts macro evolution as a working hypothesis is irrevelant. And it was quite a lukewarm acceptance, wasn't it? :-) ID is independent of the means to carry out a design by a creator. Many Catholics can accept guided macro evolution. There are a number of permutations of all these theories.
That'll be "lukewarm" as in complete and explicit acceptance and agreement. Both Darwin's Black Box and Behe's sworn testimony confirms this.
"Just as a detective doesn't have a case against someone without motive, means, and opportunity, ID doesn't stand a scientific chance without some kind of model of what happened and why."
Interesting analogy, and maybe useful for ID proponency without meaning to be. A forensic approach, rather than a classic scientific one, may be more appropriate for accepting or rejecting ID. What would a study of the "evidence" left produce to a jury? Would life as it is today, and in the fosil record, be seen as a totally chance occurrence (naturalistic evolution) or as a result of a deliberate act by some designer? Examine the total body of evidence from a "legal" point of view. Where would this lead?
ID says designer not creator. In fact, ID says the designer may be dead.
About 700 scientists from Africa, Europe and the United States attended Saturday's "Darwin and Design" conference to press their contention that evolution cannot fully explain the origins of life or the emergence of highly complex species.
That's all they could get for an international; conference on such an important issue? Just 700...a questionable number of questionable credentials, for a worldwide conference on such an important issue.
I could probably get 70 for a skins game in December in Illinois.
ID is focused on design and independent of the creator and designer. So theoretically the designer and creator could be dead as far as ID is concerned because it is agnostic about the nature of the designer. That does not mean that ID says that God is dead or that ID supports macro evolution. So the stupid little table that started this discussion is incorrect.
No. ID says that man has evolved WITHOUT the assistance of an ID and that we should teach the children that God may be dead.
Item |
Evolution |
ID |
Earth is billions of years old |
Yes |
Yes |
Man evolved from simple organisms |
Yes |
Yes |
God had no influence in evolution |
Unknown |
Yes |
Teach children God may be dead |
No |
Yes |
That would mean that you would be opposed to ID, then?
Then you are concluding that the ID is not God?
Of course not. How did you arrive at such a nonsensical conclusion? The God of the Christian Bible designed and created me and you. But again, one can believe in ID while accepting or not accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Why? Because ID is focused on whether creation was designed or not and is independent of who that designer was. Comprende?
Yes. Thanks. Your explanation is clear. The 'creator' is not necessarily God.
New information has shown that DNA is so complex that scientists can't figure it out.
And here's a few interesting snippets re: dna, etc. with link:
DEVASTATING MATH PROBABILITIES
The possibilities of it occurring by chance are devastating.
"Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 1050. Such a number, if written out, would read:
480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
"There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store in the Encyclopedia Britannicas."—*R. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pp. 115-116.
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/08dna04.htm
There are companies now that make DNA, insert it into cell nuclei, and make living bacteria. Your sources are wrong.
Also chemistry is not random. Point out a long chain oxygen molecule for me. If you can.
“Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to bend their observations to fit in with it.”—*H. Lipson, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138
And that's kind of like what you are doing, "bending to fit."
And you must believe that rain only falls to the ground one-sixth of the time. There's 5 other directions it can travel, right??
What's the problem. You mortimers have been telling us all along that Evolution presents no problem to the Creation story. Why then is ID such a problem....
BTW, Evolution and Creation are in direct contention with one another. They're incompatible. And the approach here is an underlining of that fact.
There was no such application of Darwin to biological systems at the Time Darwin posited his fraud and asked science to go out looking for evidences to support his conclusion.
ID was arrived at by review of evidences and is now getting a start. So, your observation means precisely doodly squat.
Evolution is a collection of theories stacked up to pose as an umbrella concept. So far, the only thing evolving in Evolution is evolution theory. And the only thing science has been able to prove consistently is that subtheories of evolution are wrong and must be regularly replaced with new theories.
Indeed, how many cans of organic material in a closed system to you open every day to find no new life forms inhabiting.
And it doesn't get any better when you add energy, it kills the cells - it's a neat invention called cooking the food.
The food industry involves itself in billions of tests every year to make sure that the closed systems of their food packages aren't giving rise to new life. They add energy to those closed systems in every manner and form. Go home and open a closed system called a gerber baby food jar - No new life - just food arrived at from adding energy to organic material. lol.
Of course, the absence of abiogenisis observations from all experimentation results means that it must take millions of years.
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.