Posted on 11/11/2005 4:47:36 PM PST by Wolfstar
[ You ignored my question ]
You mean this question?...
Although it seems to be a question from a Moonbat I gave you the benefit of the doubt..
What would that accomplish?..
Suggestion: I think your Compassion'ator is broke.. suggest recalibration.. What is, is, and What ain't, ain't.. Make a note..
Oddly enough... I am not a proponent of ID... but your argument against it is in my opinion weak. Birth defects happen for a number of known and unknown reasons. Sometimes it is just bad luck. My car was created via intelligent design yet... some of the ones built have defects in the manufacturing. It wasn't the designer's fault, it was poor manufacturing (maybe because it was simply a Monday morning...).Point is this doesn't really provide a good argument.
As for teeth and why do they rot... why do they fail at all? Perhaps it is "Planned Obsolescence". I am of course joking... sort of. Our decay and eventual death creates life to exist for others correct? A proponent of ID would argue that death is part of the life cycle that something also designed. In other words, it is all part of the intelligent design.
I think your arguments are not very strong and one could easily use them against you. My suggestion is if you want to fight Intelligent Design... tell the proponents that there are many versions of Intelligent Design and that all of them will be discussed... not just one version. Take the Scientologists and their ideas about "Xenu" and the body Thetans (if you do not know what I am talking about... look it up, basically it is an aliens souls invade our body type of thing).
Another way to fight it is to ask the question,"Is it science?".
I am against the whole idea because this could open up a pandora's box of all sorts of kooks wanting to teach ID about all sorts of things. Plus if I want my children to learn this, I will take them to church. It royally irks me and I don't like it one bit.
Thank you for your reply, Leapfrog. You at least attempted to understand the basis for my question -- not argument. Unfortunately, you misunderstood my question. It is not as you put it, but rather, "How do the flaws we see all around us in this world reconcile with the theory of ID on a scientific, not religious basis?"
That is fine-- I don't see it as a challenge.
I think deformities could be reasonably seen as a challenge to our senses of order. I am not saying that ID must maintain this as THE interpretation. It does seem that ID has this as a stronger interpretive possibility than secular Darwinism.
I also think that organisms could be too complex for randomness and produce 'errors' at the same time. I do not see the deformities as competitive with an ID viewpoint.
My grudge in this discussion is not whether ID is true but rather why must it be excluded from scientific discussions. Non-religious scientists such as Behe have come to the conclusion that complex organisms cannot be reasonably explained as being byproducts of conventional evolutionary processes. This seems like a fair scientific hypothesis.
Religious bigotry (not necessarily on your part) masquerades as a sincere conern over scientific integrity. If we read TS Kuhn's Scientific Revolutions, it is apparent that theories also evolve-- but classic darwinism seems completely unwilling to suffer through challenges.
Well that's pretty easy to figure out. You started this thread by posing a religious question. One you aren't prepared to answer concerning evolution. Actually the truth is, the answer to this question is readily supplied by the curriculum in most cases, and is at the entire heart of this controversy. Several states, Kansas and Ohio come to mind, are addressing the problem of athiesm being taught as the official religion of the State in high school classrooms under the guise of "science".
These clear examples of the effect of sin and corruption of the original design resulting from man's rebellion against God.
So you think God punishes the innocent for the sins of their forebears? Why would God do that?
Thank you for the compliment. You know, it's kind of funny in a way, because this thread has nothing whatsoever to do with my belief in God. I was raised a Roman Catholic and have always maintained a belief in God. Yet almost everyone has seen my question through a religious prism.
The other day there was an election in Pennsylvania in which a bunch of judges were thrown out of office over ID. There is a hot case in Kansas having to do with teaching ID in the schools.
I wanted to explore ID, not get into a religious war of words.
You are the one claiming birth defects are the result of misbehavior.
Thank you. I very much appreciate a reasonable person such as yourself. I knew this would be a tough subject to bring up. Even FReemailed the admin mod in advance to ask how best to handle the graphic photos, because I didn't want to exploit them, just provide examples. These are profound questions. I have an inquiring mind.
And what is the relevance of that?
ID, like your post, is intrinsic to discussions of theology. It is my opinion that we are setting up a false dichotomy when we pit religion against science. God is real. The physical universe is real. Deal with it. The two are not sepearate worlds and were not meant to be. Nor is it reasonable to place the two into separate little baggies as if this somehow facilitates education. Of all things, science ought to be open to every manner and means of inquiry. It does not have the privilege of saying, "This might lead to God, therefore it is not scientific."
Not "people," me. TN4Liberty said I didn't mean what I said about the purpose of this thread. My response was about me to TN4Liberty alone. Probably should have put it in a private message to avoid just such mixups as yours.
Here is where I fail to understand the debate. "Intelligent Design" apparently has some meaning other than implied religious foundations.
I look forward to talking with you in the future on how religion and science coincide.
I have yet to write a single argument against it. I have merely posed questions.
Another way to fight it is to ask the question,"Is it science?".
That's exactly what I have been doing throughout this thread, trying to get at the answer from several points of view.
So then, I was right.. pity.. since its a proven fact birth defect can be one result of misbehavior.. Truth is a hard taskmaster to those that hate it..
Easy for you to say.
Actually no, I didn't. What I asked was how birth defects reconcile with ID. After posting data and examples at the top of the thread, in my post #1 I added that such tragedies not only argue against "intelligent design," but also are capable of shaking one's faith in religion.
The latter is absolutely true. People the world over and throughout time have had their faith shaken by terrible personal tragedies. It is part of the human condition.
If serious ID proponents are capable of calmly and rationally reconciling -- in the example I used -- birth defects with the theory on a non-religious basis, I am most open to the information.
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.