Skip to comments.
Lost and Found: Modern Science and Ancient Faith
BreakPoint ^
| 19 Dec 03
| Chuck Colson
Posted on 12/19/2003 7:47:15 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-180 next last
To: Mr. Silverback; js1138; Right Wing Professor
Evo's don't accept ID b/c] intelligent design theory isn't science simply because it allows for the possibility of a God
is this implying that the universally accepted theory of evolution does not?
Hint: No.
21
posted on
12/19/2003 12:15:22 PM PST
by
whattajoke
(Neutiquam erro.)
To: RightWhale
Not according to the most highly regarded ID proponents -- those with actual degrees and actual published research. In particular the religious connection is denied by those who are trying to get ID taught in schools as an alternative to evolution. They absolutely deny any religious implication.
22
posted on
12/19/2003 12:15:25 PM PST
by
js1138
To: whattajoke
is this implying that the universally accepted theory of evolution does not?Science does hypothesize that natural laws are uniform over time. It takes no position on how natural laws originated.
23
posted on
12/19/2003 12:18:15 PM PST
by
js1138
To: Mr. Silverback
The assumption that you have to take a materialist worldview in order to do science is simply wrong. Not just that. Natural science is an impossible enterprise under a materialist rubric.
(Stanley Jaki is a great writer on faith and science.)
24
posted on
12/19/2003 12:22:30 PM PST
by
Aquinasfan
(Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
To: js1138
They absolutely deny any religious implication. Maybe I haven't been following as closely as I need to, but I don't see how there can't be.
25
posted on
12/19/2003 12:26:53 PM PST
by
RightWhale
(Close your tag lines)
To: js1138
Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. F. Rama have degress. They are highly regarded- except by the opposite extremes of radical naturalism and six day creationism. Ross and Rana say the God of the Bible is the best choice for the designer.
26
posted on
12/19/2003 12:27:13 PM PST
by
Ahban
To: Right Wing Professor
I have heard it said that Intelligent Design really has no scientific or mathematical substance to it ID explains irreducible complexity whereas evolutionism doesn't. The fossil record indicates morphological stasis in species, in contradiction to the theory of evolution. Evolution simply lacks explanatory power.
27
posted on
12/19/2003 12:28:11 PM PST
by
Aquinasfan
(Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
To: Right Wing Professor; Mr. Silverback
I have heard it said that Intelligent Design really has no scientific or mathematical substance to itTell that to Michael Behe who wrote Darwin's Black Box. Behe is a Professor at Lehigh University and very much argues from the scientific point of view for Intelligent Design.
28
posted on
12/19/2003 12:35:22 PM PST
by
happygrl
To: Aquinasfan
morphological stasis in species This wasn't a problem for Frere Teilhard, Christian evolutionist. The species remain, but new species arise from them. In some cases, maybe most cases, no new species arise from existing species at all; for the one case, a whole new branch could arise and flower into even more variety than the branch it came from.
29
posted on
12/19/2003 12:36:52 PM PST
by
RightWhale
(Close your tag lines)
To: Mr. Silverback
Dogmatic materialism has served scientists well for several centuries. It has steered the community away from unprovable and useless flights of fancy. But those that declare ID "unscientific" and "irrational" are being unscientific and irrational themselves. At least, Barr makes a persuasive case that they are.
To: Aquinasfan
Perhaps you would list an example of irreducible complexity, and give us the scientific reason why it is irreducible. Please make sure that you are absolutely certain that it is irreducible and that you are willing to concede the debate if functional sub-parts are found.
Irreducible complexity is a hollow phrase unless you can demonstrate some necessity for the irreducibility.
31
posted on
12/19/2003 12:39:25 PM PST
by
js1138
To: Aquinasfan
I must have been composing while you were posting.
Thanks for providing a link referencing Michael Behe.
32
posted on
12/19/2003 12:44:28 PM PST
by
happygrl
To: happygrl
Behe is a Professor at Lehigh University and very much argues from the scientific point of view for Intelligent Design. That's arguable. Behe's argument is that some biological structures are so complex they could not have evolved. I dispute that that's a scientific argument. Moreover, many of his examples of 'irreducible complexity' have been thoroughly debunked.
To: RightWhale
But the question is
how did the first species ,with all its complex biochemical systems, arise ?Neither darwin, nor Teilhard de Chardin, has an answer for that, based on strict evolution.
Read some of the newer writings by Behe and others.
They are far more rigorous than anything Teilhard de Chardin wrote and are a far better refutation of spontaneous life (implying a Creator).
34
posted on
12/19/2003 12:51:49 PM PST
by
happygrl
To: Right Wing Professor
I dispute that that's a scientific argument. Compared to Behe's analysis and arguments, Darwin's Theory of Evolution, as applied to macroevolution, has far less substance to it.
35
posted on
12/19/2003 12:59:21 PM PST
by
happygrl
To: Aquinasfan
From your link:
With over 50 different protein parts, it is hard to imagine a machine with so many necessary pieces.
And yet, some of those pieces are quite functional without the whole. How is this irreducible?
36
posted on
12/19/2003 1:00:27 PM PST
by
js1138
To: happygrl
how did the first species ,with all its complex biochemical systems, arise ? Teilhard's idea of that is that there is little to be found of the first examples of a new evolutionary branch or of the beginning of it all. Life being what it is, eats everything around it. The beginnings, therefore, can never be known. We can see only what it is now, and a few remains of things that were, ever scarcer as they were closer to the beginning. It is speculation that we engage in, trying to find out how it happened when there is nothing left for scientists to work with, no samples, no facts. Life doesn't spontaneously appear to organize itself out of plain atoms now because conditions aren't right, not to say that someone might not find the right conditions in the lab one day and therefore become an IDer in his own right. Conditions were right once, that is the assumption, but it is speculation. We cannot know.
37
posted on
12/19/2003 1:01:39 PM PST
by
RightWhale
(Close your tag lines)
To: Aquinasfan
ID explains irreducible complexity whereas evolutionism doesn't.Irreducible complexity has never been demonstrated; most of Behe's examples of it have been shot out of the water. Moreover, ID does not explain, for example, the incredibly disordered nature of the living genome. Humans have 49 non-functional copies of the gene for cytochrome C. Some of them are closer to the cytochrome c gene for rat testis than they are to human cytochrome C. Why did the designer do that?
A substantial part of the genome is composed of transposons, some of which are similar in sequence to retroviruses, sometimes cause congenital deformities, and are present in humans and primates but not in other types of mammals. Why did the designer do that?
Why did the designer introduce point mutations in the proteins of mammals so that they consistently follow a single pattern of relatedness? Why are all bat proteins closer to whale proteins than they are to bird proteins? Wouldn't intelligent design of a bat use materials from a very similar small warm-booded organism, rather than a large marine organism?
So where's the explanatory power?
To: Right Wing Professor
Here's Dembski's definitive rationale for teaching ID in public schools. It's a long and interesting read, because he makes it clear that the motive for teaching ID is religious, but that motive should be avoided in arguing the case for teaching ID.
http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_teachingdesign.htm
39
posted on
12/19/2003 1:17:27 PM PST
by
js1138
To: Mr. Silverback
How many times have we heard that intelligent design theory isn't science simply because it allows for the possibility of a God, so it's religion? Probably zero. ID isn't science because it has yet to put forth any falsifiable theory.
40
posted on
12/19/2003 1:18:22 PM PST
by
MattAMiller
(Saddam has been brought to justice in my name. How about yours?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-180 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson