The "science/Darwinists" know that quite well. We point it out often. "ID" is a Trojan Horse for creationism.
Posted on 01/30/2006 10:27:35 PM PST by Sweetjustusnow
The two scariest words in the English language? Intelligent Design! That phrase tends to produce a nasty rash and night sweats among our elitist class.
Should some impressionable teenager ever hear those words from a public school teacher, we are led to believe, that student may embrace a secular heresy: that some intelligent force or energy, maybe even a god, rather than Darwinian blind chance, has been responsible for the gazillions of magnificently designed life forms that populate our privileged planet.
Ooops! Sorry, but you can no longer appeal to ID as an alternative, since you've already eliminated it, if your argument against natural selection is valid.
You said...
"natural selection" is but a post facto, ad hoc label of non-empirical significance
And yet ID relies -- exclusively -- on the purported insufficiency of natural selection (and/or other step-wise evolutionary mechanisms) in order to "infer" ID. If, as you suggest, natural selection has no empirical consequences and makes no empirical demands, then it is impossible to infer ID.
Again, your document dumps are tedious. You are never able to keep on point. You must have taken lessons from the Clintons.
Perhaps you could begin by defining the terms transitional form and intermediate form. They convey the imagery of evolution yet there is so much confusion surrounding them. If you want to believe in something, the easiest solution is to assert its existence, and, when that fails, to define it such that it cannot help but exist..
Again, define your use of terms. Evolutionists consistently change the meaning of a term and go into their little dialectic to reach a consensus and when that's exposed they simply redefine the same term again and again. Anotherwords, you guys are always chasing the tail.
One evolutionists , Cracraft, says that every species is an intermediate form, while another, Halstead, says that not one species is intermediate. Both authors try to get wround this pointed issue by redefining the terminology to make it effectively useless.
More commonly, evolutionists define intermediate form as a species that has characteristics from two seperate groups. One objection to that definition is that it intertwines intermediate forms with supraspecific groups. Intermediate forms are used as evidence for ancestor-descendant relationships, but supraspecific groups are unacceptable as ancestors and descendants.
So, to follow the dumbed down logic of these "great scientific minds" intermediate form would have essentiall the same definition as convergent form. Convergences and intermediates would be observed in the same way. But the difference would be how they are explained
If the situation can be explained by common descent, then it is an intermediate form. If not, then it is convergence. These are two different ways of looking at the same data.
Thus intermediates reflect the whims of phylogenetic speculation. Many of today's convergent forms were once thought to be intermediates..
So all your links are worthless. They are, if studied, carefully illusions.
Creationists argue that there are no intermediate forms, and evolutionists respond with your time-worn counter-attack: They claim that creationists misunderstand science!!
We read the terminology with common sense. An intermediate or transition form is determined by lineage. Once a clear lineage is identified between organisms X and Y, then the intermediate forms are self evident
But a real scientists says we misunderstand the meaning of transition in taxonomic science. Nahigian, an evolutionists, states. "I was taught that a transitonal form is one that shows morphological genetic traits connecting two distinct groups. To myu knowledge, biologists never insist that the "intermediate form" must fall on a direct line of ancestry.
Typical transitions are chimeras or mosaics, combining significant characteristics from two groups.
So if evolutionists want to use terms correctly, they could use terminology like chimeric form, mosaic. or mosaic form - Why don't they? Perhaps because the words intermediate and transitional form convery the illusions of evolution.
So if you really want to discuss this issue, please try and define your terms correctly and start with one point at a time...rather than go on another trip to the dumpster dive.
Answering these unanswerable questions nearly drove me bonkers, as I'm sure you can imagine. And of course, because there is no answer, the EPA can find a producer and pipeline in noncompliance at will. Nifty trick.
The ID fight was never about science. The sooner the science/Darwinists realize that, the better off they'll be.
Gee, really? Let's check your tally, shall we?
In #719 you expect us to believe that you really are using a FREEPER whom was conspired against and banned as the excuse to continually spam these threads with identical multi-page posts, in lieu of links? The same FREEPER who is not around to defend himself, that you and some of your childish peers love to giggle about. He's the reason? Really?
No, nor did I ever say it was the reason, nor anything which anyone sane could have mistaken for my having said that. Stop treating your hallucinations as if they were reality.
All I did was post the actual quotes which longshadow had alluded to. Period. I didn't even provide any comment of my own. All the rest is your own ability to "read" things into non-existent commentary I never even made, and then accuse me of making a "most unbelievable and without a doubt untrue assertion" FOR NOT HAVING SAID ANYTHING.
Seek help. Seriously.
As for your assertion that Gore3000 was "conspired against and banned", you are again hallucinating. We didn't get Gore3000 banned, with or without a conspiracy. He was banned for being insane enough to personally attack Jim Robinson, repeatedly. My favorite bit of craziness was when Gore3000 accused JimRob of having an "anti-Christian agenda", among other things, and chided him for "not being God". Read this and the thread it links to get a clue. We didn't "conspire against" Gore3000, he self-destructed when his stupidity and emotional problems peaked at the same time.
As for your whine that I mentioned him when he's "not around to defend himself", all I did was repost two of his older posts, verbatim. Are you suggesting that it's cruel of me to let his own words speak for themselves? Are you saying that he needs to "defend himself" from his own posts?
Fascinating.
I don't know what your problem is, but stop using it as an excuse to browbeat me for no damned good reason, 'kay?
Here are two simple examples that are common in the literature.
Now all we have to do is sit around and wait for ID to produce an empirically sound idea.
In The Wedge Strategy the author(s) state:
The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.So I guess you're right. ID was always about religion. (The judge in Dover reached the same conclusion.)
Then don't read them. You don't anyway, so quit whining.
You are never able to keep on point.
Hold that thought, then let's look at your next sentence:
Perhaps you could begin by defining the terms transitional form and intermediate form.
HEY, STUPID! YEAH, I'M TALKING TO YOU!
Your folly is breathtaking. You whimper that I'm "never able to keep on point", and yet you then immediately turn around and ask a question THAT WAS ALREADY ANSWERED IN THE MATERIAL I POSTED. The material WAS DIRECTLY ON POINT, as shown by the fact that it SPECIFICALLY COVERED THE SUBJECT YOU ASK ABOUT.
You were just too busy whining to *LOOK* at the material and try to learn anything from it. You're more interesting in bitching about how I give you too *much* information as a lame excuse for not actually *looking* at it. You're more interested in your sophistry about what label to call it than in seeing what the evidence tells us, and how we validate our conclusions.
In short, you're a typical anti-evolution creationist, working hard to protect his beliefs from coming into contact with any knowledge that might challenge them.
Begone, fool. You add nothing of value to the discussion, and are stubbornly unwilling to learn from it yourself.
The "science/Darwinists" know that quite well. We point it out often. "ID" is a Trojan Horse for creationism.
Wow. I think this was the single most decisive annhilation of ID proponents' views that I've ever witnessed in a forum!
Of course, the IDers could turn it all around with some of that... oh gee, what's it called?
Ah, EVIDENCE.
Come on guys, show those wicked satan-lovin' evolutionists what you're made of. I'm sure if God-fearing fossil hunters search hard enough they'll find that elusive bone still bearing a serial number.
Huh?
This is why God invented private schools.
ROFL!! Yeah, sure, you betcha. You clearly haven't been paying attention.
their lack of any viable alternative to explain the presence of organized matter that performs specific functions,
Gee, really?
See also:
The Origins of Order: Self Organization and Selection in Evolution. By Stuart Kauffman, S. A. (1993) Oxford University Press, NY, ISBN: 0195079515.Compositional genomes: Prebiotic information transfer in mutually catalytic noncovalent assemblies
Eigen M, and Schuster P, The hypercycle. A principle of natural self-organization. Springer-Verlag, isbn 3-540-09293, 1979
The origin of genetic information: viruses as models
Compositional genomes: prebiotic information transfer in mutually catalytic noncovalent assemblies
Stadler PF, Dynamics of autocatalytic reaction networks. IV: Inhomogeneous replicator networks. Biosystems, 26: 1-19, 1991
Lee DH, Severin K, and Ghadri MR. Autocatalytic networks: the transition from molecular self-replication to molecular ecosystems. Curr Opinion Chem Biol, 1, 491-496, 1997
Lee DH, Severin K, Yokobayashi Y, and Ghadiri MR, Emergence of symbiosis in peptide self-replication through a hypercyclic network. Nature, 390: 591-4, 1997
Apolipoprotein AI Mutations and Information
Creationist Claim CB102: Mutations are random noise; they do not add information.
Evolution of biological information
Evolution of biological complexity
Evolution and Information: The Nylon Bug
Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection
Gene duplications in evolution of archaeal family B DNA polymerases
Koch, AL: Evolution of antibiotic resistance gene function. Microbiol Rev 1981, 45:355378.
Selection in the evolution of gene duplications
Velkov, VV: Gene amplification in prokaryotic and eukaryotic systems. Genetika 1982, 18:529543.
Romero, D & Palacios, R: Gene amplification and genomic plasticity in prokaryotes. Annu Rev Genet 1997, 31:91111.
Stark, GR & Wahl, GM: Gene amplification. Annu Rev Biochem 1984, 53:447491.
Reinbothe, S, Ortel, B, & Parthier, B: Overproduction by gene amplification of the multifunctional arom protein confers glyphosate tolerance to a plastid-free mutant of Euglena gracilis. Mol Gen Genet 1993, 239:416424.
Gottesman, MM, Hrycyna, CA, Schoenlein, PV, Germann, UA, & Pastan, I: Genetic analysis of the multidrug transporter. Annu Rev Genet 1995, 29:607649.
Schwab, M: Oncogene amplification in solid tumors. Semin Cancer Biol 1999, 9:319325.
Widholm, JM, Chinnala, AR, Ryu, JH, Song, HS, Eggett, T, & Brotherton, JE: Glyphosate selection of gene amplification in suspension cultures of three plant species. Physiol Plant 2001, 112:540545.
Otto, E, Young, JE, & Maroni, G: Structure and expression of a tandem duplication of the Drosophila metallothionein gene. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1986, 83:60256029.
Maroni, G, Wise, J, Young, JE, & Otto, E: Metallothionein gene duplications and metal tolerance in natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 1987, 117:739744.
Kondratyeva, TF, Muntyan, LN, & Karvaiko, GI: Zinc-resistant and arsenic-resistant strains of Thiobacillus ferrooxidans have increased copy numbers of chromosomal resistance genes. Microbiology 1995, 141:11571162.
Tohoyama, H, Shiraishi, E, Amano, S, Inouhe, M, Joho, M, & Murayama, T: Amplification of a gene for metallothionein by tandem repeat in a strain of cadmium-resistant yeast cells. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1996, 136:269273.
Sonti, RV & Roth, JR: Role of gene duplications in the adaptation of Salmonella typhimurium to growth on limiting carbon sources. Genetics 1989, 123:1928.
Brown, CJ, Todd, KM, & Rosenzweig, RF: Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Mol Biol Evol 1998, 15:931942.
Hastings, PJ, Bull, HJ, Klump, JR, & Rosenberg, SM: Adaptive amplification: an inducible chromosomal instability mechanism. Cell 2000, 103:723731.
Tabashnik, BE: Implications of gene amplification for evolution and management of insecticide resistance. J Econ Entomol 1990, 83:11701176.
Lenormand, T, Guillemaud, T, Bourguet, D, & Raymond, M: Appearance and sweep of a gene duplication: adaptive response and potential for new functions in the mosquito Culex pipiens. Evolution 1998, 52:17051712.
Guillemaud, T, Raymond, M, Tsagkarakou, A, Bernard, C, Rochard, P, & Pasteur, N: Quantitative variation and selection of esterase gene amplification in Culex pipiens. Heredity 1999, 83:8799.
This even though science has carried on for hundreds of years with the assumption that intelligent design best explains the presence of organized matter.
...with not a SHRED of positive results supporting that hypothesis. "ID" is the world's oldest dead-end hypothesis. After *centuries* of being on the table, it has racked up ZERO positive evidence in its favor.
And yet, the "IDers" assure us, it'll finally bear fruit "any day now, we swear!", so by gosh, it deserves to be taught in school *today* without any support whatsoever, just like the equally established fields of astrology and crystal auras.
Those examples make use of elements, or building blocks, which retain their essential attributes and thus serve as tools. Particle matter is organized in such a way as to perform specific functions, and thus may be considered a product of intelligent design. Cause and effect are part and parcel of intelligent design, too, so it is reasonable to infer intelligent design (by extension) in any case where physical processes transpire.
ID has rights too. All ID wants is an equal opportunity to be heard. Stop the discrimination! Present both theories! Free speech! What are you afraid of? Are you so frightened, is your faith so weak, that you can't allow the other side presented? End the censorship! Teach the controversy! Let the children decide.
</brain dead mode>
So, why are these threads filled with endless science? Because the Darwinists are afraid of tackling the real issue, which is, religion in public schools.
On the other side, I don't think the ID people have really thought this thing out. There are potentially some very real world consequences, which nobody much likes to discuss.
I understand intelligent design to govern a wider spectrum of existence than natural selection. What we label as "natural selection" is just one of many processes that brings about the status quo. The label may suit this or that person's intellectual fancy, but it does not carry empirical weight. The same holds true, perhaps even moreso for intelligent design, because it can be applied arbitrarily to nearly any set of circumstances. Neither intelligent design nor natural selection need be mutually exclusive. Neither of them are well-suited to the details of empirical science.
I don't know where they find these people. Really, I don't. But they never cease to amaze me with their capacity for self delusion and conspiratorial ideation. G3k went down in a conflagration he lit with his own flint; he didn't need any help from us.
What's troubling is the pattern I see developing: bad behavior, resulting in serious consequences, being "excused" by blaming somebody else for it. That's the standard liberal talking point memo to justify low-life criminals: "it's not HIS fault he mugged and robbed 27 people; it's society's fault!" or "he did it because the VICTIM was oppressing him!"
Kinda reminds you of the punks in "West Side Story" making excuses to "Officer Krupke" for their Juvenile Deliquency: no matter what they did wrong, it was ALWAYS someone else's fault..... and so it seems to be with anti-Evo miscreants whom the FR management, after bending over backwards for years, finally decided were beyond redemption and showed them the door. Even now, years after their ignominious departure, engineered by their own hand, their sychophants are still here ferverishly writing a revisionist history of their departure, in a desperate and fruitless attempt to buy them cyber sainthood.
Such tawdry liberal tactics just aren't going to flush here....
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.