Posted on 11/17/2005 11:27:22 AM PST by Nicholas Conradin
>>Yet, now those 'superior' cultures invoke the same principle when they cannot explain the formation of eyes or mitochondria. Only, instead of 'gods', the word is 'intelligent design'.
What an asenine statement. The formation of eyes is not the issue, nor is mitochondria, nor RNA, ATP or any other cellular entity...
ID tries to deal with why eyes are even formed in the first place, why there are things like mitochondria, and why there is even reproduction, and how reproduction works.
There has not been a single 'scientific or statistical argument' in favor of ID presented by Behe or anyone else.
I expect plenty of examples to be posted in response to this claim, but every one of them will instead be an argument against evolution, not for ID.
Well, I don't have a clue as to what either of these big words means, so I must be one of those dumb people he is talking about. It must be nice to be smart enough to understand how life began and how the universe came into being. I guess I'll just go back to reading my comic books now.
I wouldn't say ID is necessarily theology.
What if the designers were visitors from space?
Anyway, calling something "dumb" isn't really a valid argument against it.
With all due respect, and as someone who keeps a copy of your great work de Inventione on my desk, let me say that this is quite possibly the weakest and most bizarre argument I have ever seen in all my days.
You're arguing from a video game?
Does anyone here remember James Lovelock and the Gaia Hypothesis?
I mention it because the writings of Teilhard de Chardin were cited therein as a natural philosophy bolstering the Gaia concept.
To have him appear in the discussion of ID is a tie that binds the notion of Gaia with ID, for which I see a very strong link.
And what if the moon is a giant piece of cheese? These are meaningless hypotheticals in the absence of any, say, evidence.
I say that to get to this specimen of weak thinking: ...Roughly, a metaphysical naturalist claims that [1] the world per se is roughly the way that the world is portrayed in the natural sciences. The first, but not principle advantage, of naturalism is its profoundly elegant simplicity; at its heart rests [2] the intuition that the world simply is the way that it seems to be.
(The numbers I added).
The writer seems to think his [1] and [2] are the same thing. But they are the same thing only if you ASSUME that "...portrayed in the natural sciences.." is equivalent to "...seems to be...". They may be equivalent, but this is an epistemological assumption the writer seems to be unaware of. Of course, we all have the hardest time seeing OUR OWN assumptions as anything other than axioms.
Or maybe he realizes he is working with an epistemological assumption, which he is calling an "intuition" -- an intuition which he says is at the "heart" of naturalism.
So, it goes like this: I "intuit" the universe is just the way it "seems" to be, and I then follow that intuition and investigate the universe by the methods of natural science, and argue that anyone who says the universe is not, or more, than what it 'seems" has the burden of proof -- and why? Because, at the heart of my thought is an "intuition", and mine is better than yours.
You may actually operate like this and be a great scientist (which is fine, actually), but this is not rigorous philosophy.
The best term for that relevation, I think, would be data.
If ID proponents are serious, they must do research and produce data---Just like the scientists.
I can answer that one easily: to see. But that's about as far as IDers will go, because their dogma requires them to ignore the selective pressures that actually led to the evolution of eyes.
"ID tries to deal with why eyes are even formed in the first place, why there are things like mitochondria, and why there is even reproduction, and how reproduction works. '
What an asinine (that, by the way, is the correct spelling. You may want to learn how to use spell check) statement. So, why are there eyes? Or mitochondria? Science can explain that, and even common sense can. One does not need ID for that.
More importantly, can ID explain why the Universe or life exists?
I understand the desperation some people feel that they want to introduce ID into the curriculum. I read the whole article as best as I could understand it. It seems to be that ID is more fitting in philosophy than in science. Unfortunately they don't teach metaphysics in grade school or high school. Not that Darwinism is flawless---there is a lot to be desired in it's theory--but it is approached in a scientific (empirical) fashion despite the holes one can poke in it. Parents see their kids getting barraged by an atheist agenda and are fed up. They would really like what their kids are learning at home and in church to be comlimented by what they learn in school. Those of Evangelical persuasion know that "creationsim" per se is never going to happen---so they've come up with ID. Now the atheists want to make ID into some hideous monster--but I agree with the author of the post that is belongs in philosophy. All you ID supporters are getting your knickers in a knot because he used the word DUMB
I'll keep an eye out for the big news.
"ID doesn't have to be "disproved."
It's a canard.
Something that isn't proven or disproven doesn't exist. Right?
"The burden falls on its proponents to show that it is a legitimate theory and should be considered such. They have failed to do so."
I think I said that.
"With no 'testable' theories, ID will be hard to prove unless there is a 'revelation' in the scientific world. "
The question is, which position is more plausible? Another question is, who gets to decide which philosophical positions are presented as dogma in gov't schools? The most important question regarding the teaching of evolutionary theory is, who has the last word regarding schooling, the gov't or parents?
I would suggest that the author dispense with language that makes him sound like a typical Dim trying to argue a point and maybe do a little scientific research on ID. How? How about taking the Bible apart, passage by passage and trying to prove what it says is either right or wrong. Use its words as a theory and see how it holds up. Enough rights, with insufficient wrongs gives credence to what it says. Isn't that how the Evolutionists and other scientists do it? Start with a theory and take it apart as far as possible to test it?
"The best term for that relevation, I think, would be data."
Seems to be they only way you could have a 'revelation'.
I agree.
How would this fit in with an opinion that says 'All the Civ games pander to the politically correct'? How could someone one one hand dismiss the relevancy of these games to the real world, then turn around and exploit a feature in them that supports his ideas?
But for now,the theory of gravity has been shown not to be bullet proof. Einstein's assertion that the speed of light cannot be exceeded has been shown not to be bullet proof.
So, according to your "logic" you can throw away your TV and fall off the planet.
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.