Posted on 12/20/2005 7:54:38 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
The Hindu Trinity consists of the TriGods - Lord Brahma, the creator, Lord Vishnu, the preserver and Lord Shiva the destroyer. Compatable with Hinduism too
Not that I care that much about the orthogenetic principle in particular, but it's my understanding that orthogenesis continued to have its adherents until well into the 1950s.
And in fact Darwin's ideas about the mechanism of natural selection did not by themselves negate the notion that there was some sort of guiding force (not divine) that was part of the natural selection mechanism.
And if you count the anthropic principle, then it is still alive. Actually, I just found some very serious people still proposing modern versions of orthogenesis (http://www.complexsystems.org/essays/ReviewComplexity.htm)... don't know anything about them so if you find out that their great grandson's nephew's brother-in-law once quoted some evolutionist out of context, try to contain yourself.
A very interesting related work is by Robert Wesson, called Beyond Natural Selection, where he provides a fairly devastating critique of natural selection as a mechanism to explain the evolution of life all on its own, and proposes some ideas derived from modern theories of complex systems and self-organization that are not completely dissimilar from these ideas.
He elevated this hypothesis to a theory by supporting it with lots of evidence, and by giving examples of how to falsify it.
Ya, but you know, he wasn't trained as a biologist, but rather as a religionist, so I don't think he was qualified to speak to issues of biology.
Perhaps someone could post a link to a nice summary... Here's one
Hmmm... your link deals almost entirely with pre-Darwin, so hardly provides a catalog of those aspects of evolutionary theory which have been discredited since Darwin. You really want to claim that the theory of evolution has not undergone any modifications since Darwin? None of it has had to be revised to take into account the evidence discovered since then?
Except for the empirical evidence thingy...and the true predictions about what would be found when genomes were sequenced, as opposed to the false predictions of Marx, and the non-predictions of Freud.
Astonishing. At least this is honest. You are completely incapable of distinguising your science from your atheism.
First, as someone else has pointed out, the notion that the pursuit of knowledge requires putting certain classes or categories of explanation off the table a priori, i.e., based on presupposition, is profoundly unscientific, and is in fact itself religious.
Second, by whom, when, and where exactly was it decided what "science" is? Some appointed judge somewhere? Some little oligarchy? I could have sworn the issue was the matter of considerable philosophical discussion, but apparently it was settled somewhere, presumably by judicial fiat.
Third, the word science comes from the word scio, which is Latin for "I know", or knowledge. It's about the pursuit of truth and accurate knowledge. Atheism is the view that there is no God. Remove your presuppositions from your science and your science will get a lot better.
To try to proselytize for your philosophical naturalism under the trojan horse of arbitrarily defined science is mischievious, to say the least.
This has been discussed to death. Science is about explanaining the natural universe. Science does not and cannot address the supernatural. Any explanation that invokes supernatural elements, including gods, is not science and it is dishonest to label it as such. It might be true, but that doesn't make it science. Complaining that you don't like the natualistic approach of science is simply purile whining.
Actually, as is shown by this case, we live in a judicial aristocracy where the will of both the majority and the minority are subjugated to the whim of an unelected arrogant intellectual Ivy League aristocracy.
In all three cases the true believers have maintained adamantly that the empirical evidence supported their beliefs.
...and the true predictions about what would be found when genomes were sequenced...
I have to admit, I wasn't aware the Darwin wrote extensively about genomes, what with modern genetics not having been developed yet...
Perhaps you were referring to Darwin's predictions of the gazillions of intermediate fossils that would be discovered in the future. Doh!
Speaking of predictions, do you want to conduct a study together of how many times evolutionists have been surprised by a new discovery which did match what they were predicting and forced them to go back and come up with a revised dogma?
No, just as a matter of science. Until ID makes some testable predictions, it's not science.
Unless some serious constraints are put on the hypothetical designer, then *absolutely any* observation is compatable with "well, that's just how the designer did it"
.... Discovery org has a list of articles in scientific publications.
Did DI file an amicus brief? did the defense make reference to the articles? If not, the judge is officially unaware of them, and can't use them in his ruling.
I have no problem at all with the the VOTERS deciding what their kids learn. I have a BIG problem with a federal judge dictating curriculum in a school.
I think it is highly dangerous for a federal judge to dictate curriculum. The community can handle this on its own...they voted out the school board, the school board can recind the previous instruction, and the federal government isn't involved in deciding what kids learn.
I see it as an issue where the judge is overreaching his boundaries. I know many don't agree with me, but I've yet to be persuaded. We'll just have to agree to disagree. :)
The lack of understanding on this issue surprises me- the claim that evolution is a "proven fact" just isn't true.
All the judge did in this case was declare one religious belief superior to another. And after 150 years of fruitless search for a single fact to support evolution, belief in this theory- THEORY- has indeed become a matter of faith.
Uh.. if you have it, it's not missing.
Did you mean "predicted by the ToE, but not(yet) found"?
Like the Homo erectus, H. habilis, Australopithecus, et al, which were found *where Darwin himself* predicted they would be found? [Africa] 100 years after he published?
And which show various degrees of human-like and non-human-ape-like features? The more modern ones being more like modern people?
This is absurd. I asked for *theses*; RW gave a list of already-established scientists who were taken in by the fraud.
BTW, still waiting for cites on Caharles Darwin's character.
Are you questioning the outcome or the process?
I've seen the statement before. And the gaps still exist.
"This is absurd. I asked for *theses*"
He's not very good with the reading comprehension thing. Or the honesty thing either.
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.