Posted on 03/13/2004 11:53:26 AM PST by js1138
Last Thursday-ism.
Does that answer your question?
It's just you. evidence builds confidence, but never proves.
In your case, that there is no such thing as "design" and we must therefore remove that word from all dictionaries.
How do you inquire without methods and procedures? How do you inquire without asserting the expected results of an experiment or controlled observation?
You don't. Methods and procedures themselves require intelligence and design. So does inquiry. So do control and observation.
Watch out for that treeeeeee!
Actually, Mike Gene and others are working on a testable model. He has this to say about ID and current evolution theory. He also proposes a testable ID hypothesis.
"It would seem abiogenesis would entail many bold predictions. It would entail that life is tied to geochemistry. But since all observed life forms are "highly evolved," it also predicts the existence of life forms not "highly evolved." That is, since cells are not a bag of solution, it would predict that cells were once a bag of solution. Since molecular machines (basic to life processes) supposedly evolved, it would predict that cells at one time had no molecular machines. Since DNA supposedly evolved, it predicts life forms without DNA. Since the genetic code was supposedly optimized by evolution, it predicts the existence of life forms with different codes. In short, abiogenesis predicts a myriad of life forms {including those with much simpler membranes and without proteins} that simply don't exist. These truly bold, and potentially powerful, predictions of abiogenesis are not backed up by observation.
Scientists did not expect life to be built around a highly optimized code. They did not expect life to be built around so many sophisticated and elaborate molecular machines. But they did expect to easily solve the origin-of-life puzzle after the Miller-Urey experiments. If life was not built around encoded information and sophisticated machines, and if the Miller-Urey type experiments did lead to nice theories/demonstrations of abiogenesis, I would not suspect design at all. A suspicion of design has led me to propose the following testable ID hypothesis:
The first life forms on this planet were a heterogeneous consortium of unicellular organisms that were products of advanced bioengineering and were used to seed the planet (Exogenous Seeding). Such seeding also front-loaded evolution, meaning that certain evolutionary trajectories were rigged.
This ID hypothesis posits that the first life forms on this planet were exogenous and rather sophisticated entities in contrast to the non-teleological hypothesis that posits simple, sloppy, quasi-life forms that were spawned from geochemistry.
The ID view is a stark contrast to the traditional ways of thinking about the Origin of life, namely, Endogenous Spawning / Earth Begets Life. Now, the ID hypothesis is not rooted in any notion that Endogenous Spawning "could not happen". Such a strong claim is simply not necessary (after all, have scientists ever established that Exogenous Seeding "could not happen"?) My opinion is that the evidential support for Exogenous Seeding is at least as well supported as the notion of Endogenous Spawning. In fact, I'd go even further and argue that the data better support the former hypothesis over the latter."
You realize, do you not, that by posting such a claim you fed a tasty morsel to a handful of intransigent trolls?
How would you propose examining first life forms?
Exactly. It can, and it does, corroborate what the Bible teaches of origins, destination, and purpose.
Please propose your own definition of design as you interpret its use in the sentence above.
But science cannot exist without intelligence and design, both on the part of the observer and the observed.
Is your quotation from a science text? If so, it's incredibly sloppy writing. Sounds like something a creationist would slip in whild no one was watching.
I suppose it could be from one of these threads. If so, I'd chalk it up to haste in the heat of battle. The statement can't be evaluated as a scientific statement.
Yeah. I once had to phone home for directions when I was lost at the corner of Walk and Don't Walk.
So you are going to claim victory by defining yourself as the victor. Pretty neat work if you can get paid for it.
Heck no. But I am flattered that you at first thought this might be the case. I just made it up on the spot.
I wasn't asking you to evaluate it as a scientific statement. I was asking you to propose a definition of "design" as you see it used in this context. If my haphazard sentence is beneath your intelligence, then please feel free to design your own sentence using the word and THEN tell me what you think it means.
If it posts like a troll ...
I am not engaged in this dialogue to claim victory. Your statement makes little sense in view of what I said. Once again you are sorely mistaken in your assessment of my motives.
But I would be delighted to hear you explain to us all how science can take place without the presence of intelligent design on the part of both the observer and the observed.
Actually I'd like to get paid for the work of producing a new molecule without regard for either intelligence or design. Job security is what it's all about.
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.