FC: There is no scientific experiment that can be carried out, suggested, or provided, without employing intelligent design.
Posted on 12/20/2005 7:54:38 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
Fox News alert a few minutes ago says the Dover School Board lost their bid to have Intelligent Design introduced into high school biology classes. The federal judge ruled that their case was based on the premise that Darwin's Theory of Evolution was incompatible with religion, and that this premise is false.
Google "gene duplication."
the question becomes how did the original Creator come into existence?
Both questions have difficult answers.
I openly admit mine is based on faith.
ID does not require the designer to be a sentient being.
Just out of curiosity, what does the 'I' in 'ID' stand for then?
Good post.
>the question becomes how did the original Creator come into existence?
Veeja was made by him.
ID does not require a "creator." As soon as one requires a creator, then one is not speaking of ID.
The intelligent designer can be a phenomenon or a process or a sentient being. It simply requires a +factor that can take products of lesser complexity and build them into products of exponential complexity in the available time.
"DNA actually proofreads itself in some cases. So this would prevent change."
Oh, my. Yes, DNA most often replicates accurately, but not always. That's why you don't look exactly like either of your parents, you see. That's variation. It's one of the amazing things about sexual reproduction. There is an almost endless variety available, even from just two parents.
Now, just suppose both of your parents had rather short fingers, but you expressed a genetic trait that meant you ended up with long, slender fingers, something that happens all the time. This is really simple, so I know you'll be able to follow along.
Your parents, with their short fingers, would have been very poor at becoming concert pianists, while you might well excel at that, having the long, slender fingers required. Or, perhaps a concert violinist.
Now, imagine a world where concert pianists and violinists made a great deal of money, thereby attracting mates who liked success. Your offspring would be more likely to have those long fingers, and be more likely to be concert pianists or violinists, thereby becoming successful and mating successfully. More long fingers. More success. This is variation.
You are not a clone. You are a wierd blend of genetic characteristics that melds the genetic material of countless generations in your line of descent. When something pops out that helps you succeed, you attract better mates. Eventually, everyone in your line may have longer and longer fingers, and become a species of pianists or violinists that cannot breed with short-fingered plebes.
Ha! That's about what I expected - catch a creationsist in a falsehood, and he goes on the attack.
Humans are not monkeys.
We neither share nor have anything in common with them.
Having trouble are we? Darwin was in fact a misanthrope. Duplicitous and opportunistic...like his heirs here.
Darwin was a Whig, who campaigned for the abolition of slavery, free market economics and limted Government. Are you ignorant or a liar?
FC: There is no scientific experiment that can be carried out, suggested, or provided, without employing intelligent design.
That is religion and not science.
So even if it became clear that God created the Earth, the universe, and all its creatioins(which it already is, in my opinion), science would rather hide from the truth?
Intelligence.
Intelligence is not necessarily personal....the definition is far broader.
An intelligence is any "organizing principle."
"Humans are not monkeys.
We neither share nor have anything in common with them."
Oh, my goodness. You have no idea, do you? You are so much like a chimp or a gorilla that it's almost impossible to describe a real difference.
Go visit the zoo.
So, an increase in fitness is not necessarily an increase in complexity. Is that what you are saying? I always thought the fundamental assertion of evoltuion is that matter has demonstrated, by and large, a progession from the simple to the more complex. Of course, if it is a theory to which all the evidence can be shoe-horned, one would expect there to be ample cases of the reverse.
The fact is, in every case where matter is organized an argument against unguided, unpurposeful, undesigned, unintelligent cause is made. It would be a better argument for evolution if the general direction of matter were toward dissemblance, but that does not seem to be the case at least in our biosphere.
"Having trouble are we?"
No.
"Darwin was in fact a misanthrope."
Evidence please. Your desire for this to be does not count.
"Duplicitous and opportunistic...like his heirs here. "
When did he lie? I know you can answer this, as it is a subject your are an expert on.
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.