Posted on 06/13/2008 8:50:06 PM PDT by Coleus
It could be fun:
How is a gold different from a goldfish? :>)
I'm sure we'll be breaking down rocks and rabbits - or gold and goldfish - again discovering the same particles and fields at bottom. And again, as before, noting at some point the goldfish or rabbit passed from life to death as we broke him down.
You are absolutely correct.
When Crick and Watson discovered the DNA and its implications understood it threw a big monkey wrench into their theory.
The cell was supposed to be a simple sack of protoplasmatic mass. OUCH!
Good, a common point of belief! :)
The question is whether it is consistent with the picture painted by Darwinians of people and animals.
I posit that it is consistent - and in fact representative - of the theory of evolution! In certain species, group-action has taken root, to better that species. In others (like in Bengal tigers, or eagles, or baleen whales) individual tactics still dominate because that is best suited to their normal environment.
In the species I posted, it is behavior that OPTIMIZES their survival in their environment. For the Harris hawk, they normally feed on small rodents and lizards (we had very few around our place in Chile - I fed them scraps of chicken when there weren't enough lizards, just to keep them around!). In the areas they normally hunt, there is a lot of thick underbrush and the earth is filled with small holes. Escape of prey is a LOT easier than with prairie dogs in the Midwest, or salmon in the rivers of the Northwest.
For lions, their predominant prey is as big - or bigger - than themselves. It takes several to bring down a water buffalo, or zebra, or small elephant. Lions are fiercesome, powerful, and have incredible stamina - but are slow. But a pride is deadly to larger, slower animals on the open plain.
Conversely, the tiger is a solitary beast in the jungle where hunting in packs does not work, because you cannot see your prey all the time. And the tiger is larger (two or three times) than the female lion, because it must take its prey on its own. But in a jungle - where you cannot see more than 10 feet, and cannot hear past 30 (jungles are pretty noisy places), pack-hunting does not work.
Baleen whales are individual feeders. Why? Their "prey" doesn't flee at all. Krill are essentially one step above plants, in terms of intelligence...:) They float along in huge blooms. And the whales take passes through them. Easy to do, no extra energy expended.
The Orca's prey, though, tends to be herring and salmon, both of which are as fast - and MUCH more maneuverable than the Orca. Hunting in pods is really the only way to develop a steady diet (other than the occasional, daydreaming seal).
I would submit that such behavior is, by its own existence, evidence of an evolutionary path. That the fact each genus - great cats, whales, predatory birds - has species with fundamentally different feeding behaviors (the most base behavior of all - how to eat) - shows that the behavior arose because of their environmental and food-source differences, not in spite of it.
Given that, it would render the arguments about "evolution says it's always dog-eat-dog" moot; the evidence clearly indicates otherwise.
Darwinians
And by the way, I know you like to use the pejoratives "Darwinians" and "Darwinists", but if anything it is the theory of evolution, so if you have to use a name, call supporters of evolution - evolutionists (small e). It is not a god, nor a religion, nor a single man but a scientific theory profered, refined, and researched for 150 years.
Unless you refer to believers in gravity as Newtonites? Or believers in the helio-centric model of the solar system Copernicans?
1. What is the undeniable evidence of intelligent design? What is the proof, other than observation (which is the same level of proof used by believers of the theory of evolution)?
The fact that you're asking this question with the aid of a computer over the internet is the proof. Intelligent Design is inferential through observation and logic.
2. Why does the presence of an intelligent designer mean that evolution is wrong?
The two concepts are mutually exclusive by definition. Unless of course you posit that an intelligent agent e.g. God invented evolution.
How about if we say God invented the Big Bang, and everything after that was a result of it's design?
And therein lies the problem. Defining "evolution" is like trying to nail jello to a wall. The theory is always (pardon the pun) "evolving". 
That's more believable than the atheist's, (e.g. Dawkins), ex nihilo explanation for sure.
The process of defining "religion" has started to look an awful lot like the same kind of process Congress uses to define "interstate commerce".
If that's a good explaination, then the argument isn't with evolution, but with atheism.
Bad assumption. Self-evident means that the evidence is so overwhelming that it hardly needs explanation. Evidence of intelligent design is in you and around you. Everywhere.
Yes
A true and consistent evolutionist can't admit to the possibility of a god. If he were to do so the whole theory and the positivist philosophy behind it would unravel.
So he has to keep his finger in the dike so to speak.
I see. So observation and logic are good for creation; what about the observations of micro and macro evolution? Logic applied to the thought that "these two animals look similar, but have different ways of dealing with their geographically disparate environment, thus the differences in their looks and behavior arose from their environment". Does that not also work?
The two concepts are mutually exclusive by definition
They are? How? Intelligent Design fundamentally attacks how it started. Evolution addresses how it's continued. So how are they mutually exclusive, other than the fact they address fundamentally different questions?
Unless of course you posit that an intelligent agent e.g. God invented evolution.
And that therefore unifies the two, meaning they are not exclusive, correct?
I see. So they can't postit that God invented evolution. If there is a God, there can be no evolution.
Then it shows the ignorance of the anti-evolutionists. A theory - by definition - is not fixed! It is a changeable, mutable, tested hypothesis that has not been proven as 100% fact. When that happens (like with mutual attraction of non-zero mass - gravity, or electron mobility in conductors - Ohm's Law) we call it a law.
To expect the theory of evolution to be fixed now and forever is to ignore the root word theory.
This is fundamentally the difference between science and faith; science is an approach, a process, and will see its fundamental tenets change over time because of discovery and testing.
Faith, on the other hand, may be "stressed" but ultimately is untestable as a concrete, tangible process or thing. It is what the believer wishes it to be, and there is no way to change that for it does not rest on observations, nor hard data.
Evolution within a species, yes. But ID is definitely distinguishable from Darwin's evolution and explanation of varieties of species. One huge problem - there's no evidence of species jumping to another species, which is essential for evolution to hold together. On the other hand, evidence is everywhere of intelligent design, pointing to an Intelligent Creator that did the designing. His glory is in the variety of his creation.
OK, then here is how it was Intelligently Designed:
Before time began there was no heaven, no earth and no space between. A vast dark ocean washed upon the shores of nothingness and licked the edges of night. A giant cobra floated on the waters. Asleep within its endless coils lay the Lord Vishnu. He was watched over by the mighty serpent. Everything was so peaceful and silent that Vishnu slept undisturbed by dreams or motion.
From the depths a humming sound began to tremble, Om. It grew and spread, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy. The night had ended. Vishnu awoke. As the dawn began to break, from Vishnu's navel grew a magnificent lotus flower. In the middle of the blossom sat Vishnu's servant, Brahma. He awaited the Lord's command.
Vishnu spoke to his servant: 'It is time to begin.' Brahma bowed. Vishnu commanded: 'Create the world.'
A wind swept up the waters. Vishnu and the serpent vanished. Brahma remained in the lotus flower, floating and tossing on the sea. He lifted up his arms and calmed the wind and the ocean. Then Brahma split the lotus flower into three. He stretched one part into the heavens. He made another part into the earth. With the third part of the flower he created the skies.
The earth was bare. Brahma set to work. He created grass, flowers, trees and plants of all kinds. To these he gave feeling. Next he created the animals and the insects to live on the land. He made birds to fly in the air and many fish to swim in the sea. To all these creatures, he gave the senses of touch and smell. He gave them power to see, hear and move.
The world was soon bristling with life and the air was filled with the sounds of Brahma's creation.
So that is how it was designed, right?
I am a true and consistent evolutionist. And I believe in God (the Christian God).
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.