Posted on 01/21/2006 10:37:25 AM PST by DouglasKC
>It's Paleyism, and it's not gaining ground
Is it not gaining grounds, or are you and your evolutionist friends are afraid of missing that federal grant check?
>If ID is supposed to be a religious doctrine, which religion does it support or is it associated with?
It sounds more like an anti-religion cult, if you ask me.
The Darwinists can explain mutations and species adapting to environmental conditions; BUT they cannot say how a single celled creature mutates into something else with a backbone, heart, lung and brain. Or how bones, teeth came about from something such as a jellyfish? Darwin predates by a century the discovery of DNA, therefore the theory is primitive at best by todays standards. And full of holes tooo.
ID is an answer to the profound insufficiencies of Darwinism explaining the steps how single cell primal ooze becomes something as complex as a monkey; let alone a human. Darwin doesn't even have a theory for the plant kingdom, and plants too are living things.
In the Bloggers & Personal forum, on a thread titled The Intelligent Design Revolution, darkocean wrote:
"I've got a question for some of the evolution crowd here:
If ID is supposed to be a religious doctrine, which religion does it support or is it associated with?"
...............................................
I would have thought there might be a clue in the 'Topics' listed at the top of this section:
"TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: CHRIST; DESIGN; EVOLUTION; GOD; INTELLIGENT; ORIGINS"
Speaking of flying sparks.... here's an interesting little exercise that should spark some constructive debate regarding the challenge that ID may pose for evolution...
But first, a quick backgrounder: San Diego is a global biotech powerhouse thanks in large part to the Salk Institute (www.salk.edu) and the Scripps Research Institute (www.scripps.edu). Some of the world's most distinguished scientists (including several Nobel laureates) work there. Both institutions have produced "cutting-edge" research in biology/biochemistry/molecular-biology that has led to major advances in treatments for cancer, diabetes, etc.
Anyway, let's get back to that little exercise I was talking about. If folks open browser windows pointed at www.salk.edu and www.scripps.edu, they'll find that both web-sites have convenient "search" facilities. Using the search facilities, people here should try conducting separate searches on "evolution" and "intelligent design". (Include the quotation-marks around "intelligent design" so that the search focuses on the entire phrase rather than the indivdual, separate words.) Then they should compare the results of the "evolution" vs. "intelligent design" searches for both the Salk and Scripps web-sites. This will give people a pretty good idea how well "intelligent design" stacks up against "evolution" as valid science.
ID Bump
Naturalistic (meaning designer-free) evolution is a crock. While a to some extent a nice construct for observational and modeling purposes, it insists on acceptance of a "just-so" blindness that to me, at least, parallels the old acceptance of the aether.
Thanks Dave...
Very interesting and informative article. There is a lot that science cannot answer about life. One of those things is that they can't explain how life arose from non-living matter. The other thing I don't see addressed is the issue of death. What is it that keeps a living creature alive? What causes the death? What distinguishes a living body from a newly dead one. They have the same chemical composition, so what is it that in one minute constitutes a living being and the next a dead one? How does the whole organism die at once? I understand if the brain is injured but other than that?
Science is a means to an end and not an end in and of itself. I think some people have forgotten that and forgotten that there is truth outside of science; things that science cannot answer or even address but are true and real nevertheless.
Good article. It's a subject that Darwinists don't really understand. Nor do they understand the limits of empirical science. The subject of the origin of life traditionally has been a religious issue. It is not one that science can deal with in a conclusive manner, because the data aren't available and the events cannot be reproduced or reobserved.
Darwin's explanation was not based on an scientific evidence, but on a belief that life developed in the same way humans (usually considered intelligent beings) developed technology or literary works. He knew nothing of genetics or the conplexities of the internal operations of the cell. Physicists of his day didn't even know that atoms consisted of smaller particles. His modern disciples, instead of attempting to develop a theory looking at modern knowledge, attempt to force scientific evidence to fit Darwin's beliefs. An exception is Carl Woese who suggests that different species developed from different cells with that accumulated large amounts of DNA before growing into multicelled animals.
Advocates of I.D. use science in the same way scientists use physical evidence to attempt to determine how fires occur or the cause of death in homocides. I.D. advocates recognize the near impossiblity of complex physical systems called biological life developing without the aid of some form of Intelligence. The only dynamic physical systems that are comparable to biological life in terms of complexity of structure and operation are machines constructed by humans.
Darwinists are confused by the fact that I.D. recognizes that more than one possibility exists for the nature of this Intelligence and how the Intelligence might have produced biological life. Religion can offer definitive explanations. Science often cannot. In a murder investigation a pathologist sometimes cannot do more than state that a murder occurred through the action "of a person or persons unknown."
Definitive explanations for the identity of any Intelligence requires evidence that cannot be discovered. There is "hearsay" evidence for dieties of various names creating life, but no physical evidence to prove which diety could have done it. Extra Terrestrials are another possibility. E.T. would not have had to actually visit earth. E.T. could have placed DNA or even spores on comet or asteroid type bodies and launched them through space to develop on any planet with appropriate conditions.
Good analogy and great post. Thanks for your contribution.
Good analogy and great post. Thanks for your contribution.
Hmmmm... so you've got time to waste posting to a freeper forum, but you don't have a couple of minutes (and that's all it would take) to visit the web-sites of two world-class research organizations to find out what *real* scientists doing *real* work think of intelligent design.
Search results of either institution could merely be colored by the attitudes of the individuals who work there.
I know that spelling-flames are in bad form, but it looks like you mis-spelled "expertise".
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.