To: Dataman
I read the links. I found this interesting paragraph:
is not possible to develop a meaningful discussion when the fundamental assumptions of the arguments are so different: on the one hand, the concept of intelligent design beyond the laws of nature is based on intuitive, philosophical, or religious grounds, while on the other, the study and explanation of all levels of the living world, including the molecular level, is based on scientific fact and inference.
Behe's response was essentially, "I know you are, but what am I?"
ID is little more than a list of proposed problems for evolution. As jennyp pointed out, even William Dembski points out that ID is still not ready for inclusion in a grade-school curriculum, and has yet to develop a research program.
If a designer plopped down the first organism on Planet Earth, wished it well, and sent it on it's way, very few people would be able to refute you. If, however, you then claimed that the designer stuck around fiddling with the genome for the next billion years, you'd be hard-pressed to make a case. Are genetic changes induced by a designer fundamentally different than changes arising from natural causes? If so, how would we go about identifying some?
316 posted on
02/25/2003 10:52:29 AM PST by
Condorman
(The way to do research is to attack the facts at the point of greatest astonishment. - Celia Green)
To: Condorman
Placemarker.
To: Condorman
religious holiday for the god (little g) of Darwin worshippers.
It would be sort of like Kwanza for "scientist".
278 posted on 02/14/2003 8:35 PM PST by Busywhiskers
fC ...
Show // tell -- whacky liberal 'science' !
319 posted on
02/25/2003 10:56:57 AM PST by
f.Christian
(( + God *IS* Truth + love *courage*// LIBERTY *logic* *SANITY*Awakening + ))
To: Condorman
What shall I say? That Jennyp can hold a candle to Behe?
Perhaps we should set them up in a public debate (If Behe doesn't have minimum requirements).
Oh? Did you want a serious answer? How does one seriously respond to such comments as:
Behe's response was essentially, "I know you are, but what am I?"
Dirtboy has graciously conceded that you are wrong.
![](http://jcomm.uoregon.edu/~russial/grammar/elmer1.gif)
Hats off to dirtboy.
322 posted on
02/25/2003 11:05:12 AM PST by
Dataman
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson