Posted on 04/20/2008 6:09:13 PM PDT by Soliton
Ben Stein was just on Fox News with Geraldo. He was asked If ID versus Evolution was a "left, right thing". He responded,"No, It's an atheist versus a non-believer thing". Stein inadvertantly admitted that ID is a religious argument, not science!
That is a lie!
The vast majority of Americans believe in God, yet accept Evolution as the fact that it is. Evolution has nothing to do with religion or faith. Ben Stein is confusing apples with oranges and is attempting to create a tempest in a teacup.
ping
I'm not a biologist (I'm an acoustics engineer), but I would hold out the lungfish as a potential transitional species, being a true fish that can also breathe air.
Point out any positive mutations where the mutant survive.
I'd say the polar bear; it can cross-breed with the brown bear, meaning they at least share a common gene pool with the brown bear, so there are some positive mutations going on.
And it's mutations - being much longer, with MUCH larger paws and a greatly increased amount of fat storage compared to the brown bear - make it supremely adapted to life in the Artic, where a normal brown bear would perish quite rapidly.
Explain the odds of both male and female mutants of the same species came to exist in the same general location, survive birth, survive to adulthood, in the same time period,and were able to find one another and mate successfully.
See the polar bear above. Distinct species from brown bears, genetically similar (they can cross-breed) but still different enough to merit their own species identification. And there are males and females, in the same general location, and they mate.
"Evolution is after all, based on untestable assumptions."That is NOT the theory of evolution! Even this pro-ID site blows your fallacious statement:
i.e., the axiom that everything came from nothing by entirely natural means."
What about the spontaneous generation of the first life form? Darwinian (and neo-Darwinian) evolution only focuses on the mechanism for modification over time between kinds of organisms. Evolutionary theory still doesn't deal with the first organism that arose by chance on our so-called "primitive planet" - this is called "spontaneous generation."
Evolution concerns itself with how life diversified, not now it came about. This is the biggest strawman put up by most ID supporters, and is why most ID supporters are treated with disdain by evolution theory supporters. It's an inane strawman in that it does not even ADDRESS the theory of evolution!
ID concerns itself with the origin of life; evolution concerns itself with how life diversified after it started. COMPLETELY different questions, and thus there should be NO concern or surprise when evolutionary theory supporters completely dismiss ID proponents - you're not even talking the same problem!"
Dawkins and many other prominant Atheists certainly rely heavily on the theory of evolution when they attack theism. If you actually watch the movie you would see some fascinating interviews where Dawkins and at least one other scientist stated that it was studying evolution which convinced them to become atheists. In fact, Dawkins said something to the effect that he did believe that evolution posed a problem for theists.
Well, all ideas positing an answer to the question of where we came from takes some degree of faith, since we just weren't there to see it. And even in cases where one believes there to be massive evidence supporting their adopted idea of where we came from also exercise faith -- faith in the books we read and the people we trust.
For example, you haven't seen all the evidence yourself. But you've read about some in books and journal articles, and you've had professors assure you about the validity and truthfulness of some. All these require some faith.
For all you know, all the evidence for the current hypotheses of how we came to be could be hoaxes -- maybe the only difference between the famous skull/skeleton hoaxes and the bona fide evidence is that the bona fide evidences haven't yet been discovered to be hoaxes. Now I'm not saying that all evidence is just an undiscovered hoax, but even in your own mind, there is part of science you know and part that you only believe
By "ID" in the following text I mean to describe the study of any facts which appear to some to suggest, support, or require an intelligent designer.
ID isn't unscientific because it's based on faith, but rather because it looks at evidence which appears to support a non-natural first-cause, and the definition that most evolutionary scientists use to define "Science" dogmatically refuses as invalid any hypotheses which requires a super-natural first-cause -- regardless of how strong the evidence actually is, and regardless of whether the hypotheses is even possible.
But since it is possible that we came to be by intelligent design, if we find evidence that appears to support idea, we ought to be able to study it scientifically. If scientists were to go and see stone henge for the first time, they'd be rather foolish to not realize that intelligent design was a distinct possibility. They will be able to learn about how men built it a lot more easily then they will be able to figure out how nature did it -- since nature didn't do it!
It wouldn't matter how smart they were or how long they studied it, if they are trying to figure out how nature did it, they will always be wrong.
Now I agree that the direct empirical evidence of man's existence is much more obvious to us then is God's existence (although personally I cannot look down in my microscope then up at the night sky and imagine anything other then God creating it all) but there are cases when intelligent design is possible. And if it's true, we'll be forever wrong, trying to explain our existence by some other method.
So by dogmatically saying that any hypotheses which posits a super-natural first-cause is unscientific, regardless of whether the hypotheses is possible and regardless of any evidence, the results of science may find itself dwarfed
So why go on saying "Show me the evidence for ID" when we know, that by ID's very core idea (that there is an intelligent designer), evolution will, by its core dogma (that there was no super natural first cause) just disregard any evidence in support of ID? It would be easier to just say "Sorry, ID posits a supernatural first-cause and science doesn't allow for a super-natural first cause."
By the way, I haven't seen the movie.
So why does "science" have to exclude the study of something that is possible? Why not just let the evidence decide what's the best hypotheses? Why does there need to be a dogma in there if the evidence is so great?
Thanks,
-Jesse
Did you miss the part of my post that asked about a different number of chromosomes?
BTW, a bear that was not substantially all white would not survive long in the Arctic region. On top of that cross-breeding is not a mutation, so that proposal carries no weight.
Please provide just one example where the offspring of one species resulted in a new species with a different number of chromosomes and survived.
The approach to an isolated system is quantifiable, and it is attained to a good approximation under many circumstances. Perhaps surprisingly, one of these is the propagation of sound waves in air. The compression and rarefaction occur too quickly for any heat transfer to occur on the scale of the wavelength, so ADIABATIC conditions pertain. The greek root means “no going across”, meaning that no heat can cross the boundaries of the system.
So no, the 2nd Law is not “swallowed” or invalidated in any sense at all.
As I pointed out to you in a previous thread (<-click), it's only Constitution-ignoring atheists and secularists who are cheerleading the USSC's anti-religious expression perversions (<-click) of our constitutional religious freedoms who are concerned about the religious aspects of ID.
Again, if it weren't for the problem that pro-ID factions evidently do not know the Constitution and its history where our religious freedoms are concerned, there's nothing in the Constitution that says that ID cannot be discussed in public schools, religion-related or not, and as long as people's 14th A. protections are respected.
Again, you're evidently in denial about what's going on.
You were obviously not in high school in the late 60s to early 70s. The origin of life was very much a part of evolution. Look up "primordial soup" on the net and you will see lots of references to it.
This may surprise you - I believe in intelligent design! I believe God - the Christian and Jewish God, Yahweh - created all life.
I also believe that He set up the laws of nature and the universe, and that life evolved in accordance with those laws.
ID tells me HOW life started; evolution tells me how life changed and diversified.
Again, it is most extreme ID defenders who fail to acknowledge this very simple - but crucial - difference between ID and evolution.
There certainly is no objective basis for the belief in macro-evolution, is there?
I would propose this paper as a good primer on pretty strong proof for macro-evolution. And there are more than enough examples of "macro-evolution" of different species evolving within a single genus.
And literally hundreds of thousands of examples of micro-evolution within a species; witness the new breeds of domesticated animals alone! And crosses of new plants (roses, for example).
Scientifically, evolution is a pretty solid theory; that is not to say it is a law! It may be proven false at some time, and thus is considered a theory - but it IS a theory.
Strictly speaking, it only concerns itself with what happened AFTER everything came into existence. They always speak of the the first millionth or trillionth of a second, and so on.
Ok, that makes sense. I just wondered since the sun is going to be constantly sending energy at most objects on the earth. So, is it only processes which occur extremely rapidly that are protected from outside energy of the sun?
With regards to the entire earth, yes - the 2nd law does not apply. With regards to a closed system that is NOT dependent upon solar energy (or mass accumulation) - like a watch or car - then the law will apply. We know in these cases that solar energy is actually harmful! At least the faded paint on my old 1962 Fairlane seemed to say sunlight was bad!
But in the case of living organic matter, we know that solar energy tends to be either a good thing (plants), or mutative (cancer in man), which can also create diversity of species (witness the natural skin color of Africans/Asians and Northern Europeans).
As with all scientific laws, it is the scope of the frame of reference that is critical. Application of the laws must take into account what you are looking at.
Then you would basically agree with ID as defined by the Discovery Institute provided you agreed that there are irreducible complex parts of life which must either have been created by some designer or evolved under the continuing guidence of a designer.
Consider the "monolith" of 2001. This was tantamount to the discovery of an ID, and in the followups the Biblical analogy was made explicit, where a new directed creation process occurred on and around Jupiter.
In Sagan's CONTACT, evidence of God's Hand was found by the discovery of a message encoded in the digits of pi. This was deemed ridiculous by many, but the idea was that this would have to be the work of God, and not some alien.
In your example of your car, the energy clearly caused damage but it still was recieving energy so under a technical definition of the 2nd law wouldn’t it not apply. Its that sort of situation which makes me wonder if the second law wouldn’t be better stated if it required the energy to be delivered in some form of an organized manner. Since our everyday experiences show us that unorganized energy tends to be destructive (i.e. it faids the paint, causes mutations, lightning, tornadoes, and etc).
Then you checked wrong. Neither Conservapedia nor Wikipedia tie the big bang to evolution. And I defy you to find the big bang in Darwin's original book.
So, can you show me your supposed link from an evolution-supporting viewpoint? Someone credentialed who says that evolution requires the big bang theory? Because they are independent theories.
ID extremists like to intimate the two are inextricably linked, but that is simply not the case - it's just a strawman for the ID extremists.
Of course the 2nd Law applies to the earth! Just as it applies to a refrigerator, even though it exchanges heat with its surroundings. In these cases, the 2nd Law says that any decrease in the entropy of the system must be compensated for by an increase at least as great in its surroundings.
No, I believe more along the lines of perhaps the earlier Deists - God set up the laws of nature, and gave it a good kick, and interacts with His creation as He desires. But His interaction tends to be in specific and individual (or perhaps to small-nation-level) actions not in terms of changing the fundamental principles He set up. They tend to be more spiritual or cultural in action and scope, not necessarily physical (for instance, while I will pray for those who get sick, I'll also recommend a good doctor!).
Likewise, I basically agree with the fundamental theologies of Catholics, Greek and Orthodox churches, Lutherans, Baptists, and Episcopalians. We may disagree around the edges, but the central tenets are the same.
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.