Posted on 12/25/2005 1:41:41 PM PST by RussP
Evolution also allows for the possibility that speciation may be cyclic, going round and round the same track forever.
And yet, you felt compelled to post.
In your independent reading have you come across a complete, modern philosophical theory of the state written since, say, WW II?
Infinity is no obstacle, at least in principle. The first and unmistakable sign of intelligent life in any form is the existence of its own [immanent] idiots - and the idiots, and their product - idiocy - are universally detectable. This solves the problem of sensors and what to look for. And that's why, BTW, SETI has not yet come with anything - they have been looking for the wrong thing.
Very possible. Any idea what the right thing would be?
It's funny, in some article by Dembski he addresses this question, I think in relation to the human retina which is "backward" leading to deficits like the blind spot in the optical field and lessened light sensitivity. He says that "intelligent" in Intelligent Design has a specific, technical meaning and that a bad or dumb design can still be an Intelligent Design. (It seems to me this is just question begging though - how dumb can it be and still be Intelligent Design?)
Of course then he goes on for multiple paragraphs arguing that the retina being backward isn't really dumb at all. Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
Yes, the gap theory. The Hebrew word translated 'void' means 'destruction', among other shades of meaning. Later in Isaiah, God declares that He did not create the world 'in vain', the same word translated slightly differently.
The logical triangulation suggests that Eden and the present reality was built upon the destruction of an earlier order. This would explain the existence of the serpent in the first place, a holdover from the previous judgment that brought 'destruction' (darkness) upon the face of the deep in v.1.
This would also explain the mandate of rulership and conquest that God placed upon Adam. He knew there was an enemy out there, a resistance to His authority. Adam was to be His general, His sub-King. But treason was committed, and we have the present state of affairs.
Personally, I think this explains the sick proclivities of human nature as well as the nobility inherent in us all, much more convincingly than primordial amino acids. But then, I'm not a scientist.
Would Hayek or Rand qualify?
"It's funny, in some article by Dembski he addresses this question, I think in relation to the human retina which is "backward" leading to deficits like the blind spot in the optical field and lessened light sensitivity. He says that "intelligent" in Intelligent Design has a specific, technical meaning and that a bad or dumb design can still be an Intelligent Design. (It seems to me this is just question begging though - how dumb can it be and still be Intelligent Design?)"
Of course "dumb" design can still be "intelligent" design in the sense that it didn't fall together by random chance. Take the Chernobyl reactor as a case in point. It was certainly designed by intelligent beings, but it was a dumb design.
In that they can make up the rules to suit their conclusions and change them at will.
ID is a set of questions towards the theory of evolution, it is not a full blown theory. It is quite simply a smell test.
Staytrue said: "Teaching ID in schools would be nonesense (sic) and a bastardization of the word science."
Would Newton's quote be appropriate for a science class? Or would it be more appropriate to censor his work?
I have seen little since Spencer and Hegel that develops a non-marxian comprehensive idea of the state. A few hints here and there recently such as Agamben, but rejection of the fascist philosophers seems to have closed it down. There are a couple of libertarians, but they don't explain the existence of the modern corporation.
We, as unlimited yet finite beings, cannot, using mere logic, develop a concept of absolute reality.
I'm not sure I see the analogy. The notion that ID can be taught as though it were science is being challenged. If the ID-ers ever came up with a research program, they'd be perfectly free to persue it.
AS Behe and the DI have admitted, that's a big problem with ID - there is no research, either in the lab or in the field, nor is any contemplated.
SETI, on the other hand, is research. It is also privately funded. There is the observation that the only known sources of narrow-band radio signals are manmade, the observation that existing technology could detect signals from the Earth at a distance of hundreds of light years, the observation that there are thousands of stars, and perhaps planetary systems that close, and the hypothesis that there might be ETs using radio technology.
The SETI researchers have said, "this is one possible way that ETs could be detected, based on what we know about human technology. Let's give it a try."
They're not pestering school boards to do anything, nor are they using tax funds.
Where are the ID researchers? What hypothesis are they trying to confirm or falsify?
Even more to the point, why hasn't Behe come up with a proof that irredcucibly complex things cannot be the product of evolution. He uses this assumption, where's the justification for it? (One reason he hasn't, of course, is that it's not true)
RA, I'm pinging you in case you have anything to add about SETI.
Merry Christmas!
This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. --Sir Isaac Newton, The Principia
By the way, The Principia is widely regarded as perhaps the most important single scientific publication of all times.
Funny how science is being "bastardized" by the dogmatic denial of ID these days, eh?
I just mentioned - idiocy, and its source - idiots. Starting from what is familiar - the majority of electromagnetic [so-called informational] emissions from Earth consists of commercials, soap operas, cacophonous howling and other suchlike. The informational value is very low, and antillectual level is close to zero or negative. So, if one was to search for intelligent life on Earth from the sewage we pour out, one would conclude that the planet is devoid of intelligence [if one was looking for higher intellectual achievement]. If, OTOH, one would recognize that the idiotic trash we are spewing is, indeed, our intelligence [or whatever passes for it], then identification of planet Earth with intelligent life would be unmistakable. One does not even need to go into electromagnetic emissions. If one is visiting an exotic tribe, the chances of encountering the local Einstein are small, but chances of hitting upon an aborigine who is simultaneously picking his left nostril with his left hand, his right nostril with the right hand, and is drooling at the same time are much greater. Generalizing from this, one comes to the statement that the majority of antillectual output occurs at very low to negative levels.
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.