Intelligent Design Grounded in Science

CBN ^ | November 2005 | By Gailon Totheroh

[elbucko]

I don't see age restrictions with regards to the Bill of Rights, but I have not eliminated your comments from my mind.

Thank you for the considered and polite reply. I would like to Post Script the end of our discussion with the following for your consideration:

Article 1, Section 2, Para. 2 "No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years...

Article 1, Section 3, para 4,.."No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained the age of thirty years.."

Article 2, Section 1, Para 6,...."neither shall any person be eligible to that office [President] who shall not have attained the age of thirty five years.."

The Founding Fathers were obviously aware of age and its effect upon judgement. With the Zeitgeist of "rights" so prevalent in American since the Sixties, and the Left's exploitation of youth and their immaturity, I find it a relief that the Constitution is on the side of "adulthood" in regards to the eligibility of persons regarding the official "public square" (the Clinton's, notwithstanding).

I think the age limits contained in the body of the Constitution to be a long over looked resource to furthering the conservative movement.

[Dimensio]

Okay, you're so wrapped up in "winning" now that you're not even keeping up with the discussion. At the bottom of my last note was a link to an example, but it looks like you didn't even read the note before starting to write.

Please explain how a court ruling stemming from a lawsuit filed by a Catholic and Mormon family stating that public school equipment may not be used for religious purposes reinforces your point.

None? Not one? That's not credible. You reject my "many if not most," but don't hesitate to assert an absolute of your own.

It's just as credible as yours in that it's purely anecdotal with no supporting evidence offered behind the claim at all.

More kindergarten theology.

What, recognizing that the God that you worship is not the only deity worshipped throughout humanity is "kindergarten theology"? Well, I'm sorry that your knowledge of theology isn't even that good.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Not just your God, but all possible deities. Trying to turn it into some kind of personal attack on your religion specifically indicates that you are paranoid, ignorant or both.

Secretly taping classroom activities and student counseling sessions.

So you've come up with the "perfect" argument. You declare any method that would potentially demonstrate the validity of your claims are illegal, immoral or both and then declare that your position shoudl be accepted as default because of that.

Possibly, but I don't take the easier path. I try to find the truth, even when it requires me to admit that I have been wrong. You should try it some time.

I do try it. When someone makes an unsubstantiated claim that sounds extremely dubious, I question them and ask them to support it. For example, if someone claimed that "many, if not most" atheists asserted that the theory of evolution somehow demonstrated the nonexistence of deities I would ask them to support the claim. And if they balked and said that I should do my own research to back up their claims without providing a single fact in support of their claim I would be highly suspicious.

You know, the practice of misrepresenting carefully considered and mature opinions as "starting biases" interferes with the seach for the truth.

Like I said, by starting with the assumption that atheism stems from evil.

Oh, and it is also indicative of the influence of evil.

Support this claim.

Or will you tell me to do your own research again?

You are in the position of a person sitting in a windowless room in midtown Manhattan on busy weekday, who, when told that if he goes out on the street he will see many people on the sidewalk, answers, "No, I'm not moving. You prove it to me."

False analogy. You haven't even offered a starting point by which I could investigate your claim. I can look at a sidewalk. You won't tell me where to find atheists who make the claim that evolution disproves deities, and I've certainly not heard that claim from any of the atheists that I've met.

Interesting. When you said your experience was different from mine, I accepted that at face value. I didn't call you a liar. You, on the other hand, discount mine.

I didn't offer my experience as an authoratitave representation of reality. You did.

That's pretty sad.

I'm sorry that it upsets you so much that science doesn't automatically assume that you are right and that you don't have to support your claims with actual evidence.

[Dimensio]

You need to check out the link. It's silly for me to copy and paste for you.

I checked the link. The link regards the alleged "improbability" of DNA forming. Ignoring the demonstratable errors in the reasoning involved, it's irrelevant to the subject of evolution, which does not concern itself with how life ultimately came to exist. Moreover, you are completely ignoring the fact that you are wrong when you claim that "theory" is synonymous for "guess".

[Sun]

No matter how many scientists agree, or write papers, or WHATEVER, a theory is still just a theory. The evolution theory has not been proven.

[Dimensio]

No matter how many scientists agree, or write papers, or WHATEVER, a theory is still just a theory. The evolution theory has not been proven.

Just like atomic theory has not been proven.
Just like gravitational (relativity) theory has not been proven.
Just like germ theory has not been proven.
Just like no theory ever has been proven.

Do you have a point, or are you singling out evolution as being unproven even though it's no different than any other scientific theory because you don't have an actual rational argument to offer? It's clear that you don't understand the significance of a "theory" in the context of science, and given the extensive explanation that you've been given I strongly suspect that it's because you just don't want to understand because you find it much easier to pretend that words mean something other than what they do, and demanding that everyone abide by your ignorant and incorrect definitions is the only way that you can "win" at this discussion.

[RunningWolf]

So there it is Sun, the demented one gives you the false linkage with these other phenomena of the physical world, one piece of the evo subterfuge gambit.

Takeout the word theory and you've got it that evolution is as strong as the force of gravity from these guys, not fact and not proven, but just as much a reality as gravity.

Only it is not.

It is not as important if one of these demented cultists of the cosmo-evo evo-cosmo flying spaghetti monster cult declare whether you have won or not. But more importantly is for everyone else to see the abuse of science that goes on in the name of evolution, and how far off the deep end they have went.

Wolf

[Sun]

How about the ID theory. Has that been proven?

(I hope I haven't been too subtle for you to understand what I'm getting at.)

[Sun]

Darwin seems more reasonable than the people who defend him:

Darwin: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

[RunningWolf]

Darwin seems more reasonable than the people who defend him

LOL!! The understatement of the year!!

There it is from Darwin himself. Why have we not seen this from the cultists? .. snicker.., snort.

Wolf

[Sun]

Where'd they all go? I guess they're hiding. :)

[RunningWolf]

By Darwin's own caveat his theory breaks down, except in the minds of the evo-cultists.

Wolf

[Dimensio]

How about the ID theory. Has that been proven?

ID isn't a theory. ID fails to meet the requirements to be labeled a theory. You have been told this before. Why do you keep ignoring this.

(I hope I haven't been too subtle for you to understand what I'm getting at.)

No, you have made it abundantly clear that you either do not understand or do not care about how science operates or about how certain scientists must be before they declare an explanation to be a "theory".

[Dimensio]

Darwin: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Yes, and thus far no such organ has been found to exist. Why do you think that you've proven anything here?

[Sun]

Why do you keep ignoring that a theory is a theory, and a fact is a fact?

[Sun]

"Yes, and thus far no such organ has been found to exist. Why do you think that you've proven anything here?"


Here's your answer:

Intelligent Design position statement

The Challenge of Irreducible Complexity

Every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines.

By Michael J. Behe Black box: a system whose inner workings are unknown.

Scientists use the term "black box" for a system whose inner workings are unknown. To Charles Darwin and his contemporaries, the living cell was a black box because its fundamental mechanisms were completely obscure. We now know that, far from being formed from a kind of simple, uniform protoplasm (as many nineteenth-century scientists believed), every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines.

Does natural selection account for complexity that exits at the molecular level?

How can we decide whether Darwinian natural selection can account for the amazing complexity that exists at the molecular level? Darwin himself set the standard when he acknowledged, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Irreducibly complex systems: systems that seem very difficult to form by successive modifications.
Some systems seem very difficult to form by such successive modifications -- I call them irreducibly complex. An everyday example of an irreducibly complex system is the humble mousetrap. It consists of (1) a flat wooden platform or base; (2) a metal hammer, which crushes the mouse; (3) a spring with extended ends to power the hammer; (4) a catch that releases the spring; and (5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back. You can't catch a mouse with just a platform, then add a spring and catch a few more mice, then add a holding bar and catch a few more. All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working so irreducibly complex biological systems pose a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory.

Irreducibly complex systems appear very unlikely to be produced by numerous, successive, slight modifications of prior systems, because any precursor that was missing a crucial part could not function. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, so the existence in nature of irreducibly complex biological systems poses a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory. We frequently observe such systems in cell organelles, in which the removal of one element would cause the whole system to cease functioning. The flagella of bacteria are a good example. They are outboard motors that bacterial cells can use for self-propulsion. They have a long, whiplike propeller that is rotated by a molecular motor. The propeller is attached to the motor by a universal joint. The motor is held in place by proteins that act as a stator. Other proteins act as bushing material to allow the driveshaft to penetrate the bacterial membrane. Dozens of different kinds of proteins are necessary for a working flagellum. In the absence of almost any of them, the flagellum does not work or cannot even be built by the cell. Constant, regulated traffic flow in cells is an example of a complex, irreducible system.
Another example of irreducible complexity is the system that allows proteins to reach the appropriate subcellular compartments. In the eukaryotic cell there are a number of places where specialized tasks, such as digestion of nutrients and excretion of wastes, take place. Proteins are synthesized outside these compartments and can reach their proper destinations only with the help of "signal" chemicals that turn other reactions on and off at the appropriate times. This constant, regulated traffic flow in the cell comprises another remarkably complex, irreducible system. All parts must function in synchrony or the system breaks down. Still another example is the exquisitely coordinated mechanism that causes blood to clot. Molecular machines are designed.

Biochemistry textbooks and journal articles describe the workings of some of the many living molecular machines within our cells, but they offer very little information about how these systems supposedly evolved by natural selection. Many scientists frankly admit their bewilderment about how they may have originated, but refuse to entertain the obvious hypothesis: that perhaps molecular machines appear to look designed because they really are designed.
Advances in science provide new reasons for recognizing design.
I am hopeful that the scientific community will eventually admit the possibility of intelligent design, even if that acceptance is discreet and muted. My reason for optimism is the advance of science itself, which almost every day uncovers new intricacies in nature, fresh reasons for recognizing the design inherent in life and the universe.


http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

[Dimensio]

Why do you keep ignoring that a theory is a theory, and a fact is a fact?

I don't ignore it. You are lying when you say that I do ignore it. I simply clarify what is meant by "theory", and then you ignore what "theory" really means so that you can dishonestly misrepresent evolution.

[Sun]

I'm starting to feel sorry for you.

You try so hard to prove that a theory is a fact.

[Dimensio]

You try so hard to prove that a theory is a fact.

I have repeatedly told you that I understand that "theory" and "fact" are not synonyms, yet you continue to act as though I have asserted that they are one in the same. Why are you continually lying about my position? Do you really think that others here are so stupid as to not notice that I do not make the claims that you ascribe to me?

[Sun]

I'm glad that you finally came to your senses.

[Dimensio]

I'm glad that you finally came to your senses.

I have never denied that theories and facts are the same.