Science Icon Fires Broadside At Creationists

There is no inherent inconsistency between evolution and intelligent design.

Sure there is. They both produce the same results, and provide the identical evidence (fossils, etc.), but one functions naturally, and requires no external agency. The other -- without apparent necessity -- adds the additional feature of an external designer, a designer whose handiwork looks exactly as if it had occurred without a designer, and of whose we have no evidence.

981 posted on 07/12/2004 1:28:59 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Hic amor, haec patria est.)

To: PatrickHenry

... and of whose existence we have no evidence.

982 posted on 07/12/2004 1:30:43 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Hic amor, haec patria est.)

To: PatrickHenry

That is not an inconsistency, it is a difference.

983 posted on 07/12/2004 1:33:10 PM PDT by Sloth (We cannot defeat foreign enemies of the Constitution if we yield to the domestic ones.)

I'd argue he believes that there is no God, and therefore, no meaning to his life.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

984 posted on 07/12/2004 1:34:19 PM PDT by balrog666 (A public service post.)

What you said was:

No, the question I posed assumed that there was no God, in which case there was no pre-ordained fate. I make the assumuption that the scientist does not believe in God.

Forgive me if I read "the scientist" to mean scientists in general. That's the usual reading of that phrase. If you are asking why one particular scientist doubts the existince of God, you will have to ask him.

I would speculate that the majority of PhD level researchers are not Christian fundamentalists, but that does not make them atheists. Most are merely skeptical of doctrine.

985 posted on 07/12/2004 1:36:15 PM PDT by js1138 (In a minute there is time, for decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. J Forbes Kerry)

That is not an inconsistency, it is a difference.

I suggest that the existence of a designer is inconsistent with the non-existence of a designer. In any event, given the absence of evidence for the designer's existence, and given the lack of necessity of a designer's activities to explain the evidence we do have, evidence which abundantly supports the theory of evolution, why entertain a belief in a designer?

986 posted on 07/12/2004 1:40:26 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Hic amor, haec patria est.)

You are forgiven. :-). I was too lazy to go back and check the name of the scientist referred to in this article (Mayr) when typing my post. I'll be more careful next time.

987 posted on 07/12/2004 1:42:28 PM PDT by mastequilla

I would speculate that the majority of PhD level researchers are not Christian fundamentalists, but that does not make them atheists. Most are merely skeptical of doctrine.

But do they accept an afterlife absent any scientific proof?

988 posted on 07/12/2004 1:43:15 PM PDT by mastequilla

To: PatrickHenry

I suggest that the existence of a designer is inconsistent with the non-existence of a designer.

Sure it is. But is the "non-existence of a designer" part and parcel of evolution? One cannot assent to evolution without also assenting to atheism? I think most evolutionists would disagree. Evolution is not a religious doctrine, it is a biological phenomenon. The existence or non-existence of an original designer (God) would seem to be irrelevant.

In any event, given the absence of evidence for the designer's existence, and given the lack of necessity of a designer's activities to explain the evidence we do have, evidence which abundantly supports the theory of evolution, why entertain a belief in a designer?

I would disagree that there is an absence of evidence for a designer, but that's beside the point, as I was not trying to convince anyone that there is a designer. I was merely stating the fact that observing natural processes can neither prove nor disprove such a thing.

989 posted on 07/12/2004 1:49:53 PM PDT by Sloth (We cannot defeat foreign enemies of the Constitution if we yield to the domestic ones.)

To: PatrickHenry

Congratulations!

Looks like you're heading for another 1000 post thread.

990 posted on 07/12/2004 1:50:33 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%

But is the "non-existence of a designer" part and parcel of evolution? One cannot assent to evolution without also assenting to atheism?

The existence or non-existence of a designer (whether the designer is God or some meddling alien) is, as you suggest, irrelevent to evolution, which apparently functions identically either way. Thus, serving no verifiable biological purpose, it's a concept which has no place in the theory of evolution. This doesn't mean that atheism is required for evolution theory (or atomic theory, or relativity theory). Nor is theism required. Theism is a totally separate intellectual activity.

991 posted on 07/12/2004 2:06:01 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Hic amor, haec patria est.)

To: <1/1,000,000th%

... another 1000 post thread.

This will make up for a whole bunch that only got around 20 posts.

992 posted on 07/12/2004 2:28:53 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Hic amor, haec patria est.)

To: PatrickHenry

The universe, love it or leave it!

You know, ever since I took that "wrong turn" in the space-time continuum, I've been trying to do exactly that. Unfortunately, this dead-end, backwoods chunk of dimensional existence is somewhat ... sticky.

993 posted on 07/12/2004 2:43:41 PM PDT by Junior (FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)

I know the way out. First, send me all your money. You won't be needing it anyway. Then I'll send you the directions.

994 posted on 07/12/2004 4:04:17 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Hic amor, haec patria est.)

To: MacDorcha; Doctor Stochastic

3/3 = .999999....? no, it is 3 divided by 3, or "1"

SECOND REQUEST

do you think 0.999... = 1, or not?

995 posted on 07/12/2004 4:50:33 PM PDT by longshadow

To: Doctor Stochastic

i retract the comment about you calling me the fool. i was worked up by the likes of balrog and kinda lumped you all together.

i apologize for that.

i still feel though that there is a vast number of scientists who reject God simply because they cannot feel that a source is responsible. they feel math is the only source, and they reject the idea that math had to come from somewhere as well.

calling what you profess as far as existence of God is concerned still applies however. you have made a theological statement while excluding theology. you must have something you hold as Truth, otherwise your actions would have no purpose on any scale. if you feel that actions are of no consequence, have you ever stopped and wondered why we bother walking about at all?

i can say this in all honesty: if you have ever simply enjoyed a sunset, or held someone close to you on a cold night, you should know that existence and more specifically, life itself is NOT here on chance. there is a reason.

i can conclude that there is a reason by the same logic one of yours claimed in a previous post for an opposite cause. "if something has no purpose, it cannot exist"

this means we must have a purpose, because we exist. it also means life does as well. we cannot conceive or even witness life forming anymore from sheer matter, thus we know it happened under conditions that cannot be achieved naturally, yet it happened on this planet, and while this planet was more or less as it is today (sans life). completely off topic, i was discussing today with my friends possible source of gravity. it is true that massive objects produce noticeable amounts of gravity, but it's still asked "why" i have a simple hypothesis that revolves around a theoretical phase of matter, and polar structures. the "clusters" phase states that at a certain number, elements act differently than they would if even one atom was missing (possibly even if one more atom was present, but for the sake of this idea, i wish to assume only the # and above is what i am looking for.) would it be possible for a "cluster" of say iron and water to produce a polar compound that would create/magnify gravity? i understand the theory that if you have two helium atoms are separated by an immense vacuum, and nothing else is with them and there is no other source of energy acting, they will go TO each other, acting on gravity. this is a theory however, so i am proposing "what if that is not the case? what if gravity 'happens' after a certain mass/cluster? what if any element can eventually achieve this magical cluster property by simply having enough of it in a field (i.e. planet or natural satellite) i dunno, just a thought.

996 posted on 07/12/2004 5:08:42 PM PDT by MacDorcha

To: PatrickHenry

I know the way out. First, send me all your money. You won't be needing it anyway. Then I'll send you the directions.

Oh, are you into MLM too?

997 posted on 07/12/2004 5:12:04 PM PDT by balrog666 (A public service post.)

i retract the comment about you calling me the fool. i was worked up by the likes of balrog and kinda lumped you all together.

Getting "worked up" is an emotional response not an intellectual one. Work on that. Grammar too.

998 posted on 07/12/2004 5:13:21 PM PDT by balrog666 (A public service post.)

Just-for-old-times-sake placemarker 999.

999 posted on 07/12/2004 5:13:55 PM PDT by balrog666 (A public service post.)

Oh, are you into MLM too?

I never heard of MLM. Sounds like you're making an obscene pass.

1,000 posted on 07/12/2004 5:14:24 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Hic amor, haec patria est.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794