Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FR Debate: Intelligent Design vs. Birth Defects, Can They Be Reconciled?
Discovery Health & Multiple Medical Sites ^ | 11/11/05

Posted on 11/11/2005 4:47:36 PM PST by Wolfstar

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 401-415 next last
To: js1138
[ Why don't you just ping heartwood and ask her whether she or her parents or grandparents engaged in "long term inbreeding and incest... or chronic drug abuse including alcohol"? ]

[ You ignored my question ]

You mean this question?...

Although it seems to be a question from a Moonbat I gave you the benefit of the doubt..
What would that accomplish?..

Suggestion: I think your Compassion'ator is broke.. suggest recalibration.. What is, is, and What ain't, ain't.. Make a note..

161 posted on 11/11/2005 6:39:49 PM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

Oddly enough... I am not a proponent of ID... but your argument against it is in my opinion weak. Birth defects happen for a number of known and unknown reasons. Sometimes it is just bad luck. My car was created via intelligent design yet... some of the ones built have defects in the manufacturing. It wasn't the designer's fault, it was poor manufacturing (maybe because it was simply a Monday morning...).Point is this doesn't really provide a good argument.

As for teeth and why do they rot... why do they fail at all? Perhaps it is "Planned Obsolescence". I am of course joking... sort of. Our decay and eventual death creates life to exist for others correct? A proponent of ID would argue that death is part of the life cycle that something also designed. In other words, it is all part of the intelligent design.

I think your arguments are not very strong and one could easily use them against you. My suggestion is if you want to fight Intelligent Design... tell the proponents that there are many versions of Intelligent Design and that all of them will be discussed... not just one version. Take the Scientologists and their ideas about "Xenu" and the body Thetans (if you do not know what I am talking about... look it up, basically it is an aliens souls invade our body type of thing).

Another way to fight it is to ask the question,"Is it science?".

I am against the whole idea because this could open up a pandora's box of all sorts of kooks wanting to teach ID about all sorts of things. Plus if I want my children to learn this, I will take them to church. It royally irks me and I don't like it one bit.


162 posted on 11/11/2005 6:39:52 PM PST by trashcanbred (Anti-social and anti-socialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Leapfrog
The basis of your argument seems to be as such: "Bad things happen, therefore God does not exist."

Thank you for your reply, Leapfrog. You at least attempted to understand the basis for my question -- not argument. Unfortunately, you misunderstood my question. It is not as you put it, but rather, "How do the flaws we see all around us in this world reconcile with the theory of ID on a scientific, not religious basis?"

163 posted on 11/11/2005 6:39:59 PM PST by Wolfstar (Whatever happened to "These Colors Don't Run?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

That is fine-- I don't see it as a challenge.

I think deformities could be reasonably seen as a challenge to our senses of order. I am not saying that ID must maintain this as THE interpretation. It does seem that ID has this as a stronger interpretive possibility than secular Darwinism.

I also think that organisms could be too complex for randomness and produce 'errors' at the same time. I do not see the deformities as competitive with an ID viewpoint.

My grudge in this discussion is not whether ID is true but rather why must it be excluded from scientific discussions. Non-religious scientists such as Behe have come to the conclusion that complex organisms cannot be reasonably explained as being byproducts of conventional evolutionary processes. This seems like a fair scientific hypothesis.

Religious bigotry (not necessarily on your part) masquerades as a sincere conern over scientific integrity. If we read TS Kuhn's Scientific Revolutions, it is apparent that theories also evolve-- but classic darwinism seems completely unwilling to suffer through challenges.


164 posted on 11/11/2005 6:40:56 PM PST by lonestar67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
I asked someone else whether or not it is religious dogma or scientific theory. I think after seeing most of the responses on this thread, the former seems to be the answer.

Well that's pretty easy to figure out. You started this thread by posing a religious question. One you aren't prepared to answer concerning evolution. Actually the truth is, the answer to this question is readily supplied by the curriculum in most cases, and is at the entire heart of this controversy. Several states, Kansas and Ohio come to mind, are addressing the problem of athiesm being taught as the official religion of the State in high school classrooms under the guise of "science".

165 posted on 11/11/2005 6:41:37 PM PST by Rightwing Conspiratr1 (Lock-n-load!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

These clear examples of the effect of sin and corruption of the original design resulting from man's rebellion against God.

So you think God punishes the innocent for the sins of their forebears? Why would God do that?

166 posted on 11/11/2005 6:45:01 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Liberty Wins
Wolfstar, you are too intelligent not to believe in a higher Power...

Thank you for the compliment. You know, it's kind of funny in a way, because this thread has nothing whatsoever to do with my belief in God. I was raised a Roman Catholic and have always maintained a belief in God. Yet almost everyone has seen my question through a religious prism.

The other day there was an election in Pennsylvania in which a bunch of judges were thrown out of office over ID. There is a hot case in Kansas having to do with teaching ID in the schools.

I wanted to explore ID, not get into a religious war of words.

167 posted on 11/11/2005 6:45:57 PM PST by Wolfstar (Whatever happened to "These Colors Don't Run?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
Suggestion: I think your Compassion'ator is broke..

You are the one claiming birth defects are the result of misbehavior.

168 posted on 11/11/2005 6:46:09 PM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: js1138; Fester Chugabrew
"The "grave" is certain, but you imply that I am destined for eternal punishment. Lets not mince words."

I read Fester's comment and saw no implied determination about your "eternal punishment" only the assertion that you, like all things living, will die.
169 posted on 11/11/2005 6:47:26 PM PST by Texas_Jarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: highlander_UW
...so I apologize for misjudging your intentions in that regard.

Thank you. I very much appreciate a reasonable person such as yourself. I knew this would be a tough subject to bring up. Even FReemailed the admin mod in advance to ask how best to handle the graphic photos, because I didn't want to exploit them, just provide examples. These are profound questions. I have an inquiring mind.

170 posted on 11/11/2005 6:49:01 PM PST by Wolfstar (Whatever happened to "These Colors Don't Run?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Texas_Jarhead

And what is the relevance of that?


171 posted on 11/11/2005 6:49:52 PM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

ID, like your post, is intrinsic to discussions of theology. It is my opinion that we are setting up a false dichotomy when we pit religion against science. God is real. The physical universe is real. Deal with it. The two are not sepearate worlds and were not meant to be. Nor is it reasonable to place the two into separate little baggies as if this somehow facilitates education. Of all things, science ought to be open to every manner and means of inquiry. It does not have the privilege of saying, "This might lead to God, therefore it is not scientific."


172 posted on 11/11/2005 6:50:05 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: zeeba neighba
Let's se, you call one poster for calling people liars, but not another.

Not "people," me. TN4Liberty said I didn't mean what I said about the purpose of this thread. My response was about me to TN4Liberty alone. Probably should have put it in a private message to avoid just such mixups as yours.

173 posted on 11/11/2005 6:51:28 PM PST by Wolfstar (Whatever happened to "These Colors Don't Run?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
How do the flaws we see all around us in this world reconcile with the theory of ID on a scientific, not religious basis?

Here is where I fail to understand the debate. "Intelligent Design" apparently has some meaning other than implied religious foundations.

I look forward to talking with you in the future on how religion and science coincide.

174 posted on 11/11/2005 6:52:43 PM PST by Michael Goldsberry (an enemy of islam -- Joe Boucher; Leapfrog; Dr.Zoidberg; Lazamataz; ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: trashcanbred
Oddly enough... I am not a proponent of ID... but your argument against it is in my opinion weak.

I have yet to write a single argument against it. I have merely posed questions.

Another way to fight it is to ask the question,"Is it science?".

That's exactly what I have been doing throughout this thread, trying to get at the answer from several points of view.

175 posted on 11/11/2005 6:54:44 PM PST by Wolfstar (Whatever happened to "These Colors Don't Run?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: js1138
In my philosophy, ID and my world view go fit together like a hand in a glove. My God is the intelligent designer, as he was for centuries and centuries. And most many of the same naturalists you have quoted in the past, followed the formula above.

Try to wrap your brain around this....
Most evolutionists or naturalistic scientists insist that an intelligent cause has no place in science. But the truth is that several branches of science use the concept of intelligence and have even devised tests for detecting work of an intelligent design. Consider forensic science. When a police finds a body the first question is, Was death the result of natural causes or foul play (an intentional act of an intelligent agent)? Pathologists perform a battery of fairly straightforward tests to get the answer. This same fact can be said for the likes of cryptographers, archaeologists, and astronomers. So are naturalistic scientists and intelligent design related.....a resounding yes is the answer!
176 posted on 11/11/2005 6:56:29 PM PST by NVD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"And what is the relevance of that?"

The relevance is simply that you asserted that Fester Chugabrew made an implied threat and I thought I would mention, if I am so still allowed, that that ain't the reality of it as I see it. You accused him/her of making "implied threats", your words, and I'm saying that's bull. That is all. Why so touchy?
177 posted on 11/11/2005 6:57:24 PM PST by Texas_Jarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: js1138
[ You are the one claiming birth defects are the result of misbehavior. ]

So then, I was right.. pity.. since its a proven fact birth defect can be one result of misbehavior.. Truth is a hard taskmaster to those that hate it..

178 posted on 11/11/2005 6:58:32 PM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: trashcanbred

Easy for you to say.


179 posted on 11/11/2005 6:58:41 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Rightwing Conspiratr1
You started this thread by posing a religious question.

Actually no, I didn't. What I asked was how birth defects reconcile with ID. After posting data and examples at the top of the thread, in my post #1 I added that such tragedies not only argue against "intelligent design," but also are capable of shaking one's faith in religion.

The latter is absolutely true. People the world over and throughout time have had their faith shaken by terrible personal tragedies. It is part of the human condition.

If serious ID proponents are capable of calmly and rationally reconciling -- in the example I used -- birth defects with the theory on a non-religious basis, I am most open to the information.

180 posted on 11/11/2005 7:01:06 PM PST by Wolfstar (Whatever happened to "These Colors Don't Run?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 401-415 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson