Posted on 08/12/2014 8:09:40 PM PDT by JimSEA
When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.
Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.
(Excerpt) Read more at scientificamerican.com ...
The problem with ID is not its accuracy or non-accuracy.
It is that it is inapplicable. Unless and until you can walk up to some ID entity and say “light this candle/light bulb on command and every single time I command” then ID is a great thought experiment but of zero scientific applicability.
Think about gravity. We know THAT gravity exists. We know its properties. We even know that its properties can be altered by mass.
But we don’t know what CAUSES it or the underlying forces that creates it (thus TToG is less known that TToE). If we did, then we could probably have endless zero cost energy (since Gravity is a force and could be harnessed).
How could ID help us in understanding the TToG? Unless and until the Designer both introduced us and promised to behave the same way every time - FOREVER - we invoke Gravity, ID is just an interesting theological/philosophical concept).
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up.
Jun 17, 2002 |By John Rennie
Sorry John, that argument cuts both ways. In fact it cuts even harder and deeper into your argument. Alas, you are so blinded by your "science" that you will never be able to see the truth.
>>Wow, will this thread set a new record for the most contentious in FR history?<<
LOL — this is so polite compared to other subjects (the CREVO wars, Civil War) it is a garden social with white wine and capers!
I was booted for 2 years just for CREVO discussions (and have edited myself on this thread — you don’t want to know what I REALLY think)
LOL again
>>If you have a problem with that, take it up with Plato<<
Perhaps Plato’s approximation Spoon-o.
;)
Virtual drinks are sill on me :)
Which turnoff do I take? I’d rather not follow you.
I apologize for using the term “idiot.”
As I said in a different response I was railing against RL idiots, not you.
But I did use the term “sochastic” properly and I suspect your use was incorrect (My adjustment to “stochastism” may have led you astray — it was an unacknowledged nounism).
Are we not men?
... but the spelling? Meh.
“ID posits a really good supernatural consulting subcontractor.”
It doesn’t say anything about the nature of the consulting subcontractor - other than it’s intelligent, i.e. that it can create something very similar in architecture to a computer using organic molecules instead of electronics.
Check out those books - you’ll be in for quite a pleasant surprise and an awakening.
Six months ago before reading them, like you, I thought ID was just a euphemism for creationism, sort of like “progressive” is a euphemism for socialist. After reading them, especially as presented by Meyer as a serious scientific work, I’ve done a 180.
And it may not convince you of ID. As I’ve said, I’m not 100% there myself, but it will definitely disabuse you of your belief in Darwin’s evolution and its derivatives.
So it may leave you in a state of limbo - that we still have a lot of work to do in trying to understand where life came from and how it changes, and there’s nothing wrong with being in that state - much better than believing in something that’s not true.
You would be like an alchemist who after banging his head on the wall a thousand times trying to change lead into gold, finally accepts that alchemy doesn’t explain how matter works and thus restarts from scratch. Eventually someone will discover Chemistry.
Bleeh
Amen
“It pains me to explain to lurkers that Conservatives DO understand science. Your statement does not help.”
You sound like liberal talking points.
There are many many good scientists who happen to know that the so called evolution of species is a joke. Science does allow for intelligent design. Perhaps you should study a bit of quantum theory before suggesting otherwise
>>If there were a “gay gene”, shouldn’t it have died out by now?<
As an outlier aberration, like pedophilia, the numbers are so small as to be statistically insignificant and thus just part of genetic drift.
It’s funny how you just make things up. Which is not understanding science.
How do you explain that?
In one sense you are right. The notion of stochastic process has scientific utility. For those who wish to peek at the mathematical description, see this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_process
However, most everyone on the internet of any persuasion is a “philistine” with respect to understanding, really understanding stochastic process to any degree of usefulness. My uncle was probably one of the few people on the planet who actually worked with such concepts on a daily basis, as he did serious fluid modeling back when computers were just giant collections of relays that could barely outperform modern four-function calculators. He could do in his head what most people even today would be unable to do without significant computing horsepower.
The funny thing is, I never felt like a “philistine” in his presence. He was a quiet, humble, happy man, who distributed Gideon Bibles to hotels. And because he really understood these things, he could explain them to those of us less gifted, in a way that made it easy to grasp the main concept.
But without a brilliant mathematician in your life to help explain these things, it is easy to see how the concept could be degraded by some and even made the basis of a quirky religious theory that embraces randomness as a philosophy and tries to give it respectability by dressing it up in a term of scientific origin.
However, as a tool to evade the essentially deterministic arguments of intelligent design, stochastic process may not be the holy grail you seek. Dembski has written a book called Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, in which he dismantles the case that stochastic process works as a wildcard to escape the effect of deterministic process in biological system. You may be interested.
Peace,
SR
It is a bit smart-alecky (which follows my personality), but also I wanted to convey the idea that I am “dumb” in terms of having so much to learn
You nailed the first part, but apparently you think you have the second part firmly in control. In reality you have deemed what is true and what is false because "science" tells you that it is so. Disregarding that "proven science" in some cases is neither proven nor science, but rather "science" invoked as a means of silencing opposing views. In other words you have closed your mind to learning because "science" has told you to do so.
>>It’s funny how you just make things up. Which is not understanding science.
How do you explain that?<<
Do you dispute the 1.8% figure of gays in the general population recently published?
Or are you just making things up b/c I nailed you so perfectly?
“As for the DNA comparisons, they conveniently ignore the fact that for well over 10 years we’ve known that the key building blocks for differentiation occur below the DNA level.”
Not sure what you are talking about.
Yet, even if you are making a valid point, this article was written 12 years ago.
>>but rather “science” invoked as a means of silencing opposing views. In other words you have closed your mind to learning because “science” has told you to do so.<<
You conflate science with philosophy.
I am open to many ideas and am sure we have a loving Father in God who sent His Son to die for our sins.
That has nothing to do with the Universe God gave us that operates on consistent rules which He gave us intelligence to fathom.
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.