Posted on 11/15/2007 5:26:11 AM PST by js1138
See there? That's circular reasoning. In short, what you said is that the theory itself becomes the basis for what evidence will be interpreted and which will not be. Hence, only evidence which supports the theory will be considered, rendering the theory tautological. Under such a scheme, of course the evidence supports your theory - because you've prescreened the evidence you will accept as "interpretable". Sheesh.
You sound like a Clinton by relying on polls. Besides, science isn't done through popularity contests. Its done through research and you need a lot of background education if you want to get into a serious sceintific discussion. There has never been one yet on FR.
Back to the polls. The majority of Americans believe in UFOs and astrology. Then again, most Americans are scientifically illiterate. Even Dr. Behe, a renowned cdesign proponentists and biochemist, believes astrology is scientific and is supported by science. He testified under oath in court to that effect. But as usual, the creationists warp even those polls to fit their theocratic agenda. Sure lots of people may beleive in ID, but that does not mean they think it is science or that they accept a young earth creationist's zealotry.
If the scientific evidence points to a creation, then what's your problem?
Of course you’ll say you have thought it through; everyone who HASN’T thought something through insists that he has. This illusion explains why he feels no need to do so now.
To those who have given it a little thought, the suggestion that there are only two options (science [+irrelevant-God], or no-science [+relevant-God) is simply puerile.
The identity of the intelligent designer is irrelevant? To use the earlier analogy that was posted, you look at the car engine and immediately see an intelligent design. But then you drop it right there. You profess no interest in who the intelligent designer was or how it occured, the fact that something, somehow designed it is enough for you. That's science?
My statement was questioning your assertion that they *only* try to disprove evolution, not present positive evidence FOR their position, which is a false assertion on your part.
Behe argues that there is an irreducible complexity that argues against natural selection, correct? Therefore there had to be an intelligent designer. What is his supporting evidence?
I don't have a problem with it. The problem seems to be on your side.
The only “dumb” idea is the one that says that a single cell, with its mind-blowing complexity, managed to organized itself. There is no scientist, anywhere, who can begin to explain methodically how that happened, other than to spin “just so” stories.
Evolution is a natural result from a study of physical evidence and has been supported by testing predictions. That is science. Evolution doesn't care if there is a creator or not. Neither does any science. And I think that's the problem with the religious right. If it does not conform to their version of CHristianity, then there's something wrong with it. What a myoptic wat to look at the world. A closed mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Two seats in the last Kansas School Board election in 2006.
I was once informed that only 5% of the human brain is functioning, thus it may still be too early to draw conclusions. If true, with 95% still dormant it would appear that there is so much more to learn, and our future capabilities are way beyond our current comprehension. These ID vs. Evolution arguments/debates will continue for thousands of years. Some where in the very far future, long after we are all gone, man may have the answer. If they are producing/creating life in a laboratory now, what will they be producing 10,000 years from now? Will man eventually become God?
The verdict is in, folks.
Isn't that what ID is attempting to say? If evolution theory is wrong then they must be right by default?
ID is the basic premise that there is an "intelligent designer" (whether God or some other is usually left unspecified) who was the cause of the universe, hence rejecting purely naturalistic explanations for the origins and structure of the universe and its contents (similar to the philosophical idea of the Anthropic Principle that's been kicked around the last couple of decades by philosci types)
As for the evidences, I suggest you familiarise yourself with the works of folks like Behe, Dembski, and other ID scientists, since that will better cover their arguments than a three paragraph blurn on FR will. Lest you wish to argue that they rely upon "after the fact" explanations, please note that this is what evolutionists do as well. Evolution, like creationism and ID, makes assertions about past events which we cannot presently observe, and which must be inferred on an evidentiary basis. In a nutshell, evolution finds itself in the same boat as ID and creationism. I would argue that BOTH sides are not "science" in the process sense of the work (i.e. what is practiced every day), but are philosophical means of interpreting otherwise neutral data on hand.
Up until recently, most of the prominent scientists were of the mindset that their goal was to DISCOVER God’s rules in the universe.
Yes, you can say that the Creator used evolution to accomplish His creation.
But that’s not what many of the evolutionists’ goals are - their goal is to “disprove” the existance of a Creator, and therefore be unaccountable to anyone but themselves.
I know that astrology is not science. Behe doesn't.
I'm having some remodeling done on my house; please vacate yours ASAP so I have a quiet place to live in the interim.
?
Again with the indicator that you really aren’t well-read on the subject. No, the IDers constantly point to (surprise!) design to indicate (surprise!) a Designer as a more credible explanation of the phenomena.
That’s why they call it (... wait for it...)
“Intelligent”
“Design”
And who is the designer?
No, "evolution" itself has not been supported by testing predictions. Predictions made upon previously obtained empirical information have been supported by further experimentation. That fact that evolution is an after-the-fact means of interpreting the prior data, in and of itself, had no effect on the testability or supportability of the predictions.
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.