Posted on 10/27/2020 2:02:13 PM PDT by Heartlander
I read it.
It does not say what creationists hope it says.
It does NOT posit an intelligent designer (much less ZAP!). It is some word games but NOT an acknowledgement that ID as used by creationists is even slightly valid.
It says MAYBE someday there can be a testable theory:
>> to work towards establish[ing] fine-tuning as a sustainable and fully testable scientific hypothesis, and ultimately a Design Science. <<
Fine. If such is the case and we can discover the design steps then, guess what? It becomes a refinement to TToE. Perhaps a needed one.
But the only way classic ID can be “tested” is to meet and interview the designer.
A group of scientists tell God they can make a better man than He did.
God says, Youre on.
One of the scientists tells another, Go get a bucket of dirt.
God says, No, no ... Make your own dirt.
You are pretty funny.
“But the only way classic ID can be tested is to meet and interview the designer.”
You make it out like ID is the only thing that has to be tested by knowing the designer. I would posit to say that ALL aspects of science, which you believe are testable, were created by some unknown source,... so how are they testable? Point me to one example in science where a designer has been interviewed... and I’m not talking about just applied science.
Fair enough.
Does not seem to have anything to do with the topic at hand.
I have never seen a scientist say he/she can manufacture energy or matter. Perhaps you can provide a link where such a claim was made?
The questions are rhetorical it is the dogmatic adherence to naturalism (no design) in biology that prevents the inference (regardless of the truth).
Nice analogy. I agree completely.
“If such is the case and we can discover the design steps then, guess what? It becomes a refinement to TToE.”
No, that’s quite the opposite of the logical conclusion to be drawn here.
As a Scientific Theory, classic ID (not what is being described in the article) posits - in fact requires -an intelligent designer.
TToE, like all other proper Scientific Theories, makes no such statement and thus has no such requirement.
I do hope I do not need to once again explain what a Scientific Theory is (although it has been a while). That will be impossible on a tablet which is what I am using.
“”.. and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.”
why would one call creation “supernatural”?
not testable = not science?
ok.
but not testable can still = true.
Just injecting a little humor into an unsolvable and serious topic.
Darwin's Black Box:
The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
by Michael J. Behe
hardcover
online supplementThe Battle of Beginnings:
Why Neither Side Is Winning
the Creation-Evolution Debate
by Delvin Lee "Del" Ratzsch
Michael Behe Responds to Critics of his New Book “The Edge of Evolution”
Amazon.com | June 27, 2007 | Michael Behe
Posted on 06/30/2007 10:08:27 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1858855/posts
A Conversation with Dr. Michael Behe
From Sea to Shining Sea | 9/25/07 | Purple Mountains
Posted on 09/25/2007 2:24:25 PM PDT by PurpleMountains
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1902040/posts
Molecular Machines:
Experimental Support for the Design Inference
Michael J. Behe
A Series of Eyes
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm
If you are a knowledgeable biologist, but do not have the super-advanced math skills, you can come to the following conclusions:
1. Evolution is true...
2. But we do not understand how it works!!!!
There are a growing number of evolutionary transitions that do NOT fit the Darwinian model. They have only come to light in the last 30-40 years or so, based on advanced genomics and molecular biology. Of course, researchers are working on trying to understand how these things work, including trying to save strict Darwinism. But that’s how science works!!!!
Before 1980, one could be a strict Darwinist. Since then you cannot be, with any scientific integrity! I don’t know how these new mathematical models affect things, since I do not understand the math. But I do understand the biology!!!!
It is exactly the conclusion. It says there are some arcane phenomenon which are not clearly explained by classic TToE. Nowhere does it ascribe a supernatural force at work.
Rather, it plays word games with “design.” Note it never references “designer.”
If it natural, it fits. If it is a more precise definition of natural phenomena of change, explains TToE characteristics, is testable has predictable parameters and meets all the other criteria for a Scientific Theory, great. It might be a natural biology version of Einsteinian physics supplanting Newtonian. Cool.
Helps not the creationist argument a whit.
And it is not even close to the H0 stage but it might be promising.
Ah.
Got it.
Good analogy, though.
Much of science works at an operational level. One of the most observed yet least understood Scientific Theories is Gravity.
Anyone who thinks Darwin was the end of that line thinking does not understand science nor science history.
Darwin said he could not imagine creation being by chance.
He believed in an intelligent First Cause much like the mind of humans. ( see his autobiography)
I suggest Evolution proves Intelligent Design.
...Anyone who thinks Darwin was the end of that line thinking does not understand science nor science history....
Or they are doctrinaire atheists, or alternatively they get all their evolutionary theory from PBS!!!!
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.