Posted on 11/17/2005 11:27:22 AM PST by Nicholas Conradin
Why does everyone 'nit pick' what I wrote?
I've explained it before.
Science has provided powerful insights repeatedly, like the germ theory of disease, which revolutionized medicine. Without a detailed knowledge of the nature of semiconductors, like silicon, nobody would be using a computer right now.
Is there a single example of where ID has an insight or understanding of the world we live in that helps people or advances knowledge?
"Good point. I say parents. And as a parent, I want my child to learn the science of evolution. So don't try to fill his head with your religious nonsense and superstitious mumbo-jumbo."
Athiest.
I never said that a theory must be "proved." No theory will ever be proved - that's not what theories are.
The Big Bang theory can be tested. It can be falsified. Predictions about the universe can be made using it, and whether or not the predictions come true is how the theory is tested.
That's what makes the Big Bang theory a theory.
How can ID be tested? How can it be falsified? What predictions about the natural world can be made using it? Those are all questions that proponents of ID must answer before ID can be taken seriously as a theory.
Athiest.
Nope! Try again!
That was an interesting argument. Perhaps the next step will be "Nazi".
Let me simplify this article for you all.
He's doing the usual liberal ploy of calling something he disagrees with dumb.
He then uses lots of big words to explain rather simple concepts for a while.
After that he redefines ID into something narrower and rather absurd.
He then demonstrates why this absurd thing that he calls ID is dumb.
It's called a strawman argument.
Intelligent design is a theory that the world was created by intelligent design.
It is not in conflict with natural science.
Intelligent design's real weakness is that it simply cannot be disproven.
It's weakness is that it's a possible anser to almost anything. Why is the sky blue? Because it was designed that way? Maybe. It's blue because of the way the atmosphere bends light, but the universe could have been designed so that the atmosphere bends light.
ID is an theroy that provides an answer that if true, cannot be confirmed, and doesn't provide a complete understanding.
However, if you want to talk about the origin of the universe, it's hard to find an answer other than ID because in our understanding of nature, things come from somewhere. So where did the universe come from? The answer is we don't know. Some will suggest that the answer is that it was created.
We cannot prove that it was created. Therefore belief that it is created is a matter of faith.
Faith is not stupid. However not understanding that you are accepting something based of faith could be considered stupid.
Everyone has faith in something. However, some people are quick to call other people's faith stupid, but are unable to grasp that they themselves assume much based on faith.
"Well, I believe in God and I also accept that the theory of evolution provides the best explanation for observed changes in allele frequencies over time. I believe that God played a role in our existence, but that doesn't invalidate evolution. You seem to have a very narrow view of His design.
As for what existed before the Big Bang, that's a meaningless philosophical question unanswerable by science, or by any other discipline for that matter. What happened before Genesis 1"
On the contrary, you and I seem to be on exactly the same page. I am catholic and have a science/engineering back ground. My belief would take pages to explain but your understanding is similiar to mine. I believe there were dinosaurs and that we evolved from something else. I also believe that the universe is still expanding (theoretically). I believe God is behind it all.
I want my child to learn the science of evolution. So don't try to fill his head with your religious nonsense and superstitious mumbo-jumbo.
Superstitious mumbo-jumbo is believing an eco system that would have mammals breathing in oxygen and giving off carbon dixoide, while the plant life pulls in carbon dixoide and gives off oxygen just happening by chance.
That's not the science of evolution, but the science of chance. People have a right to differing opinions without ill mannered louts, whose mothers forgot to teach them manners, demeaning and disparaging what they have to say.
Finally someone shows up on a Crevo thread who actually understands philosophy and argues cogently and correctly that ID is just metaphysics trying to pass itself off as science.
Oh, and 'dumb' metaphysics at that.
People were ignorant of the things you listed. Now that we can see more clearly how life is programmed to create machines so sophisticated; the blinders are off.
The Theory of Evolution is like attributing the production of a sandcastle to the ocean because you observed the water creating the mote. Saying that the evidence only leads to the conclusion of Darwinian Evolution is like explaining the creation of a sandcastle by limiting oneself to natural phenomenon.
Two men become stranded on a remote island. As they explore the island they come upon a sandcastle with towers, buttresses and a drawbridge. The design of the castle is amazingly intricate.
One man comments, "It is amazing what time and the ocean can create. The small rocks and seashells on the shore must have got caught in eddies and swirled around and chiseled out that castle. There were a few palm leaves floating by that scribed out the little lines that look like bricks. We are alone here and there is no need to consider anything else."
The other man looked at him incredulously and said, "No, obviously that castle was created by another intelligent being with a clear intent of design, we are not alone. The engineering required to create the castle is far to sophisticated to have originated by natural means."
An attempt at denying God is making fools of our scientists. Science is entertaining and occasionally helpful.
>>selective pressures that actually led to the evolution of eyes
This is the dogma of the Darwinists..
Pressures don't select... This characteristic is given to nature which it actually doesn't have. If anything, it's all reactionary..
The theory of evolution is itself spoken in terms of intelligence and design, but instead of it originating with a divine creator, it originates with the forces of nature which actively and intelligently selects how creatures will evolve.
In reality, that's the biggest difference between the two camps -- in one camp, God is the reason for evolutionary changes, and in the other it's simply the force of nature absent a divine being though nature acts in the capcity of a divine being (intelligence, active selection, etc..)
"Is there a single example of where ID has an insight or understanding of the world we live in that helps people or advances knowledge?"
Maybe you mistake me for a fanatic of ID. I am not. But it promotes discussion of why we are here and how we came to be. In fact, I think I know very little about the actual theory of ID except that it purposes to recognize that the formation of the universe all the way down to life on earth and intelligent, free willed humans was part of a plan hatched by a being of higher intelligence.
I call him God.
He gets paid by the word?
Well put and succinct.
Agnostic!
Science has been wise to remove itself from the fray by intentionally avoiding the supernatural.
All of mankind's questions seek answers from all spheres of knowledge, science is but only one way.
Interesting reply. Two points:
1. Have you ever been to Grand Canyon, Zion, Bryce, etc? Those formation could have a person saying only God could have done it - but it was wind and water (which is not to say God did not direct the wind and the water). This leads to the second point, which is
2. Affirming evolution does not deny God. If God can make gravity, why can't God make evolution?
>>So, why are there eyes? Or mitochondria? Science can explain that, and even common sense can. One does not need ID for that.
Why are there eyes? If one accepts that evolution is the reason, an even more fundamental question arises, why evolution at all?
Why life at all?
Why reproduction? Survival of the species? That's a piss poor explanation. There is no intelligent reason any reproducation should ever take place. Science has a philosophical explanation which is taken in faith, but no compelling reason for reproduction.
Reproduction, be it in scientific allignment with the theory of evolution, makes no sense outside of an intellgent design. For what purpose should anything reproduce at all? There is no point, especially the lower one gets in terms of life forms.
>>More importantly, can ID explain why the Universe or life exists?
Yes it can. It explains why cells exist, dna, eyes, and even evolution. Evolution cannot explain itself or the questions you ask without dogmatic assumptions of faith.. Evolution cannot even justify itself in the face of the lack of a prime mover...
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.