Posted on 06/13/2008 8:50:06 PM PDT by Coleus
Name one. Please. And take their quote IN CONTEXT, meaning that in science, we have facts until they are proven wrong, then we change.
It is only creationists that have a problem with facts changing; science is inherently BASED on the assumption that facts and conclusions will change over time. It's call the scientific method!
Intelligent Design is not based on faith.
Wrong. I do not need faith to believe in evolution, for there are hard data and recorded observations, experiments, and reproducible events that I can directly execute and witness to gain my trust.
What exists for ID that is not inherently based on faith? What are the facts that would lead you to objectively - outside any religious or "philosophical" screen - lead you to conclude that ID is right and evolution is wrong?
It's based on observation, inference and logic.
And what observations would you hold up that would support ID and disprove evolution?
I would hold up the fossil record of the horse, and of nylon-eating bacteria as examples that evolution happens. Both are tangible, recordable, and in the case the bacteria reproducible facts. And in fact show that new species came about BECAUSE of the strict effect of the evironment (in the case of the nylon-eaters). The bacteria evolved on its own, without design from man, who was responsible (unknowingly) for the change in its environment.
What fact do you offer that would provide a similar proof for ID, and against evolution?
"False. The theory of evolution says nothing about deities." [excerpt]Strawman!
Of course there isn't any evidence of species jumping, that would disprove evolution. The theory of evolution doesn't say that dogs descend from chickens, it merely states that descendants of chickens will have similar traits.
On the other hand evidence of intelligent design is everywhere.
I think you have confused ID with evolution. ID specifically postulates that dogs come from chickens because the Intelligent Designer made it that way. That would be species jumping and as you have stated there is no evidence of that.
How long will Darwinists blindly follow their atheistic doctrine/"religion"?
What religion? It is you ID'ers that believe in an intelligent designer (god). Provide a falsifiable hypothesis and we will quit laughing at you.
Of course, the Newtonians will deny that, and they use their iron grip on academia to suppress any scholarship that is critical of Newtonism.
...the methodology of evolution denies a deistic creator...
How?
I guess the process starts at the beginning with a simple organism. Although we now know that simple organisms don’t exist. They are all highly engineered, complex molecular machines.
If you did just start with a complex single celled organism and and tried to explain the diversity of life through evolutionary terms, there just isn’t evidence for it. If there was actually a reasonable amount of evidence for decent from a common ancestor, there would be no controversy.
Its interesting that many YEC have a very similar view of evolution that you are suggesting. They believe that only a few different types of animals and plants were created (created kinds/barmins)but they contained the information to evolve all the different species we see today. For example, there was only one type of cat, one type of dog, etc.. Basically, they believe that the creatures were preprogrammed to evolve using “altruistic genetic elements” aka transposons.
"How?"Here is example of the Atheistic Dogmas of Evolutionary methodology:
Because if you dodge origins the theory dies. Game, set, match. Dawkins understood this. He tried to deflect by alluding to aliens from outer space as did Francis Crick.
If you posit that information preceded life and was not ex nihilo then there must have been a god.
And that opens up a pandora's box. What was god's role in the information he injected into the creation event and how. And what was the exact nature of the information. And how did god's information get into our DNA. And was it planned or merely a byproduct?
I understand the reason evolutionists want to excise origins from the theory. The theory needs a lot of work. Hence the jello.
But if they could come up with a good ex nihilo explanation/experiment they would leap at it with all the vigor they could muster. ala Urey and Miller.
But I have a question why not just admit we don't know how the "specified" information got into our DNA but once it did life exploded. WOW.
I have my own theory as to why. It would be an admission that the ID'rs were right after all. .
What would be acceptable "evidence" for you, then?
OK, so some athiests believe in evolution; does the converse hold true? That is, that all evolutionists are athiests?
"OK, so some athiests believe in evolution; does the converse hold true? That is, that all evolutionists are athiests?"No no no, you aren't getting it.
I don't know. What do you have? I learned about evolution and decent from a common ancestor in HS and College. My teachers lied and misrepresented the evidence. My text books were full of misinformation and fraudulent proof. If there was real evidence for decent from a common ancestor, Im confident that it would be taught rather than the usual lies and frauds that are regularly taught to students.
You know a theory is in trouble when they have to use the circular logic of homologies as evidence.
I browsed the links and they were full of strawmen and fallacies. Claiming a methodology is atheistic is nonsense!
Since atomic fission was unknown to the Apostles, then clearly fission is of the Devil, and nuclear power and research as a result are satanic.
Likewise, radio was used by Nazis to propogandize and incite their followers. Thus any means of conveying information via radio must be evil as well.
No, it is the application of the methodology that determines its merit. Not the methodology itself.
Enjoy your hike!
How about the fact we have bacteria that now metabolise man-made chemicals and products, and that these bacteria have developed new "organs" for such metabolizing? Does that not count for an organism adapting and evolving to better survive in its environment?
Think about that. 100 years ago, that bacteria didn't exist. The metabolising processes didn't exist. The FOOD SOURCE didn't exist! Man created nylon and pentachlorophenol in the 20th century. Some bacteria adapted to CONSUME those man-made items, and in the process EVOLVED multi-enzyme metabolic pathways (bacteriological equivalents of stomachs).
A whole new SPECIES of bacteria that exists on a NEW food source! Is that not an example of at least the potential for evolution, if not the outright proof that macroevolution can happen?
I'd strongly recommend you go check out Talk Origins with an open mind, and actually look at the evidence they provide AND follow the links and papers and references. You'll find quite a bit of information out there.
Is evolution a fact? No. But to say it's not a well-supported theory (supported by evidence) is ignorant at best, and dogmatic refutation at worst.
You know a theory is in trouble when they have to use the circular logic of homologies as evidence.
Like ID? You can see proof of intelligent design because things were intelligently designed? That's about as circular as you can get.
Personally, I have a lot more respect for Young Earth Creationists than I do for ID supporters who also discount evolution.
At least the YECs are willing to state that it's their faith that draws them to their conclusion. Fair enough.
With ID proponents who are also evolution opponents (and yes, there are ID proponents who are also evolution supporters - like me - who believe that God set up the framework and laws and used that framework and laws to complete His creation) are being intellectually dishonest for ultimately they demand scientific proof of evolution without requiring the same level of proof for ID.
Absence of proof is not the proof of absence!
A theory that cannot be falsified doesn't pass muster as science. Last Thursdayism theorizes that "all that there is" was created last Thursday. It cannot be falsified and thus is not taken seriously.
And, as I recall, the Discovery Institute itself (the author of the statement) also remarked that the hypothesis needed to be formalized so that it can be tested/observed.
Proof of intelligent design is the overwhelming evidence of which I've given a couple of examples. If you want to attribute the intricacies of things like the amount of information encoded in DNA or the design of the eye to mindless evolution, I can't help you. You'd also have an argument with your buddy Darwin, who couldn't reconcile ID or explain it away.
So the bacteria evolved in a purposeful manner? The bacteria developed new organs for a specific purpose? Is this a result of a guided intelligent process or just some extremely good luck? Do you know if the ability to metabolize new chemicals is the result of transposable DNA being activated in the presence of a new food source?
No, you haven’t provided any evidence. You’ve shown potential evidence, but what about concrete evidence? I’ve shot down your evidence with ease.
You demand fossil records, you demand “proof” of one species becoming another. There are examples of such proof, but you refuse to admit it.
However, the proof you accept for YOUR theory is that “I see lots of information and complexity, thus it must be ID”. No proof other than making an observation and simply making a guess and saying “well, I’m done!”
So what does the existence of nylon-consuming bacteria - which came about on its own - say about evolution? Is that not acceptable proof?
Set a standard for proof. Then we’ll hold evolution AND intelligent design to the same standard, and see what happens...
I’m more than willing to say that ID happened, and evolution is the result of that ID. However, you refuse to acknowledge evolution could have happened. Why is that?
Anyway, set your standard for proof, and we’ll check and see how ID and evolution stack up.
The definition that you are using is just a dishonest attempt to change the terms of the debate.
What is the difference between your definition and the one that I used, "evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next." How is it dishonest?
Intelligent Design is simply a theory that states that the origin of some systems have an intelligent cause. I you don’t believe in ID you must believe that automobiles evolved through natural unguided processes. Every one knows that cars are designed. Its settled science. ID is settled science that is indisputable.
I don't think that ID is disputed when it comes to cars, although there are some engineers who I am sure would disagree. Your analogy fails though because ID is based on the Theory of Evolution. The only quibble that ID has with the Theory of Evolution that it claims that a God designed life, not natural selection. ID agrees with every other aspect of evolution, even "that life began as a simple celled organism and evolved into more complex forms." ID simply states that the evolution was guided.
Only an ignorant anti science Darwinist would question ID. ID is a fact, depending on what the definition of is is, just like evolution.
You are correct, ID is not falsifiable. It can't be disproved. The only problem with ID is that it has no value at all, it makes no predictions, it simply says that things are the way they are because that is the way things are. It really is arguing over the definition of what is is.
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.