Skip to comments.
10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design (Part I)
Evangelical Outpost ^
| 08/03/2006
| Joe Carter
Posted on 08/03/2006 12:22:06 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 441-444 next last
To: SirLinksalot
2
posted on
08/03/2006 12:23:14 PM PDT
by
My2Cents
(A pirate's life for me.)
Krust Krab Pizza Placeholder
3
posted on
08/03/2006 12:24:23 PM PDT
by
RFC_Gal
(It's not just a boulder; It's a rock! A ro-o-ock. The pioneers used to ride these babies for miles!)
To: SirLinksalot
Science is not a popularity contest. The scientific method does not include the use of polls.
4
posted on
08/03/2006 12:26:07 PM PDT
by
MineralMan
(non-evangelical atheist)
To: MineralMan
Excellent point!
ID, Creationism, who has time for this nonsense? Evolution is proven EVERY SINGLE DAY, for those with half a brain.
To: MineralMan
Science is not a popularity contest. The scientific method does not include the use of polls.If it were, more people would believe in man-made global warming...wait a minute?
6
posted on
08/03/2006 12:28:23 PM PDT
by
rhombus
To: SirLinksalot
#1 By remaining completely ignorant about ID while knocking down strawman versions of the theory. Whether due to intellectual snobbery or intellectual laziness, too many critics of ID never bother to understand what the term means, much less learn the general tenets of the theory. Instead, they knock down a strawman version of ID that they have gleaned from other, equally ill-informed, critics. The belligerent or paranoid advocates of ID will assume that the misrepresentation is due to dishonesty or a conspiracy by Darwinists. But even those who are more charitable will agree that when a critic misrepresents the theory, it undermines their own credibility. Even though I don't believe Darwinian processes explain biodiversity I know who pioneered that approach - and it wasn't the Darwinists.
Shalom.
7
posted on
08/03/2006 12:28:42 PM PDT
by
ArGee
(The Ring must not be allowed to fall into Hillary's hands!)
To: SirLinksalot
You'd think with all this help, ID would be able to accomplish some actual science, or at least describe the kind of research they would do if they got the chance.
You'd think someone in the ID movement would put forth a testable hypothesis about when and where ID intervention has taken place and what specifically was done. Which species, for example were engineered and which are just variations on a "kind."
You'd think they would propose some physical mechanism that limits the variations on kinds. A mechanism that could be tested.
8
posted on
08/03/2006 12:29:01 PM PDT
by
js1138
(Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
To: ArGee
Honestly I don't know if I've ever met a "Darwinist". This seems an ill-defined, and manufactured term without any real operational definition.
9
posted on
08/03/2006 12:30:12 PM PDT
by
rhombus
To: SirLinksalot
Popcorn? Check.
Binoculars? Check.
Full-body flame-proof asbestos suit? Check.
*** engaging lurk mode ***
10
posted on
08/03/2006 12:30:36 PM PDT
by
kevkrom
(Posting snarky comments so you don't have to)
To: kevkrom
*** engaging lurk mode ***Coward. :-)
11
posted on
08/03/2006 12:31:31 PM PDT
by
rhombus
To: SirLinksalot; DaveLoneRanger; grey_whiskers
To: SirLinksalot
Good stuff. Let us know when Part 2 shows up...
13
posted on
08/03/2006 12:32:20 PM PDT
by
Rio
(Don't make me come over there....)
To: kevkrom
Half a brain.....
14
posted on
08/03/2006 12:32:21 PM PDT
by
Fighting Irish
(Béagán agus a rá go maith)
To: MineralMan
But he's right, you know. His own Google research shows that Danes, Australians, and Canadians are increasingly interested in Intelligent Design.
15
posted on
08/03/2006 12:32:31 PM PDT
by
js1138
(Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
To: SirLinksalot; metmom
#11 -- Their arrogance. Every other scientific theory invites critical analysis, but Darwinism enforces a united front against criticism or questions about its validity. We're told "Evolution is a fact!...it happened...End of discussion...and if you think otherwise you're a ignorant religious cracker." Darwinism resists adaptation (ironic, no?). And it does this because it really isn't a scientific theory in the sense that Clerk Maxwell's work on the electromagnetic field is a theory, because it's conclusions can't be tested through observation or experimentation. It isn't a theory, but a philosophy, held-onto with religious fervency.
16
posted on
08/03/2006 12:32:36 PM PDT
by
My2Cents
(A pirate's life for me.)
To: js1138
The issue of Testability has been brought up by many people. Even conservative columnist George Will brought it up in his critique of Intelligent Design.
Here is William Dembski's response :
Your deeper concern is that intelligent design is not science because it is not testable. If ID were not testable, you would have a point. But the fact is that ID is eminently testable, a fact that is easy to see.
To test ID, it is enough to show how systems that ID claims lie beyond the reach of Darwinian and other evolutionary mechanisms are in fact attainable via such mechanisms. For instance, ID proponents have offered arguments for why non-teleological evolutionary mechanisms should be unable to produce systems like the bacterial flagellum (see chapter 5 of my book No Free Lunch [Rowman & Littlefield, 2002] and Michael Behes essay in my co-edited collection titled Debating Design [Cambridge, 2004]). Moreover, critics of ID have tacitly assumed this burden of proof see Ken Millers book Finding Darwins God (Harper, 1999) or Ian Musgraves failed attempt to provide a plausible evolutionary story for the bacterial flagellum in Why Intelligent Design Fails (Rutgers, 2004).
Intelligent design and evolutionary theory are either both testable or both untestable. Parity of reasoning requires that the testability of one entails the testability of the other. Evolutionary theory claims that certain material mechanisms are able to propel the evolutionary process, gradually transforming organisms with one set of characteristics into another (for instance, transforming bacteria without a flagellum into bacteria with one). Intelligent design, by contrast, claims that intelligence needs to supplement material mechanisms if they are to bring about organisms with certain complex features. Accordingly, testing the adequacy or inadequacy of evolutionary mechanisms constitutes a joint test of both evolutionary theory and intelligent design.
Unhappy with thus allowing ID on the playing field of science, evolutionary theorist now typically try the following gambit: Intelligent design, they say, constitutes an argument from ignorance or god-of-the-gaps, in which gaps in the evolutionary story are plugged by invoking intelligence. But if intelligent design by definition constitutes such a god-of-the-gaps, then evolutionary theory in turn becomes untestable, for in that case no failures in evolutionary explanation or positive evidence for ID could ever overturn evolutionary theory.
I cited earlier Darwins well-known statement, If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. Immediately after this statement Darwin added, But I can find out no such case. Darwin so much as admits here that his theory is immune to disconfirmation. Indeed, how could any contravening evidence ever be found if the burden of proof on the evolution critic is to rule out all conceivable evolutionary pathways pathways that are left completely unspecified.
In consequence, Darwins own criterion for defeating his theory is impossible to meet and effectively shields his theory from disconfirmation. Unless ID is admitted onto the scientific playing field, mechanistic theories of evolution win the day in the absence of evidence, making them a priori, untestable principles rather than inferences from scientific evidence.
Bottom line: For a claim to ascertainably true it must be possible for it to be ascertainably false. The fate of ID and evolutionary theory, whether as science or non-science, are thus inextricably bound. No surprise therefore that Darwins Origin of Species requires ID as a foil throughout.
To: purpleporter
Evolution is proven EVERY SINGLE DAY, for those with half a brain.When today's proof crosses your desk, get back to me.
18
posted on
08/03/2006 12:33:44 PM PDT
by
My2Cents
(A pirate's life for me.)
To: Fighting Irish
That's the part Rush has tied behind his back.
19
posted on
08/03/2006 12:34:06 PM PDT
by
My2Cents
(A pirate's life for me.)
To: purpleporter
ID, Creationism, who has time for this nonsense? Evolution is proven EVERY SINGLE DAY, for those with half a brain. I guess you aren't familiar with the theory that those with fully developed brains hold?
So sorry - just couldn't resist such a PERFECT straight line. And the fact that you used ad-homenim attack to shut down debate on a discussion forum just made it more compelling.
Shalom.
20
posted on
08/03/2006 12:34:51 PM PDT
by
ArGee
(The Ring must not be allowed to fall into Hillary's hands!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 441-444 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson