Darwin under fire (again): Intelligent design vs. evolution

First Amendment Center ^ | 12/5/04 | Charles C. Haynes

[Mulch]

Science starts with the questions. "Intelligent Design" starts with the supposed answer.
Oh really?
I hear evolutionists claiming now that life began on mars and was transported to earth on a meteor. Isn't that starting from a desired conclusion?

[ClearCase_guy]

Darwin's book was called "The Origin of Species". Antibiotic resistant bacteria are mutating and improving themselves, but are not becoming new species. So this phenomenon cannot be used to buttress evolution.

[BillT]

The God of the Bible would not use senseless violence to breed human beings. The Bible says that we were made from the dust of the earth in his image.

This does not sound like billions of years of death and destruction, then we have our first man and woman.

These two views of how we got here are mutually exclusive. You can not serve two masters.

[Modernman]

D'oh. Beat me to it. Can I still be the first one to bring up Jesus and Hitler?

Just so long as you mention them in the same sentence as "macro-evolution" and "transitional fossils."

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

If Darwin is a crackpot, and living things do not evolve, then please explain why we now have anti-biotic resistent bacteria.

Antibiotic resistance is just variation within the species of bacterium. The genetic information was already present.

[Protagoras]

OK. If Darwin is a crackpot, and living things do not evolve, then please explain why we now have anti-biotic resistent bacteria.

I assume you know the difference between an animal developing a new characteristic and become an entirely new animal?

[Protagoras]

The Bible says that we were made from the dust of the earth in his image.

Do you understand what a metaphor is? Do you know what literary device is? Have you seriously studied the bible?

[BikerNYC]

Why humans have canine teeth and fingers, or why males have nipples, or why our vertebrate, a portion of our body that connects us with so many other creatures, develops first in the womb and why the cerebral cortex develops last, all become meaningless, unanswerable questions with intelligent design. These things happen because that's what the designer wanted.

[Dataman]

Ultimately, the issue comes down to two questions: do scientists decide what constitutes science?

Do musicians decide what is music?

Do reporters decide what is news?

Do offendees decide what is offensive?

Do doctors decide what is healthful?

Do pharmaceutical companies decide what is medicine?

Do comedians decide what is funny?

Answer- not necessarily. You are well aware that truth is not the domain of a few materialist lab coats from which nonconformists have been screened. Science is science, not what a committee says it is. "Scientists" have no authority to grab from the realm of fantasy and relabel it truth.... unless one subscribes to the postmodern mindset that believes truth is manufactured, not discovered. And I don't think you are a postmodernist.

[crail]

Scientists can be shockingly dogmatic about pet theories but science is designed to be self correcting. You can yell and scream all you want about your pet theories, but if you can't back it up with observation and reason... well you end up looking like Pons and Fleischmann.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

ID relies on a religious text to attempt to make a scientific argument.

Eeeeerrrrrnt. Incorrect.

From ARN.org:

What is Intelligent Design?

[Dataman]

If Darwin is a crackpot, and living things do not evolve, then please explain why we now have anti-biotic resistent bacteria.

Nobody denies variation. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are still bacteria.

[Doctor Stochastic]

“...makes no religious claims,...

IDers also seem to resent any discussion of the stupidity of their hypothetical designer.

[Egregious Philbin]

I hear evolutionists claiming now that life began on mars and was transported to earth on a meteor. Isn't that starting from a desired conclusion?

Umm, no, i'd say they are positing a theory. That's what scientists do. In reaction tot the theory, Answers in Genesis says, "what should creationists think?" And that's the problem right there. It's not what they should think, but what they should do: they should design a scientific experiment. But they can't, because creationism isn't science.

[PatrickHenry]

EvolutionPing

(A creationist thread.)

Not a list for the creationism side of the debate. See the list's description in my freeper homepage. Then FReepmail to be added/dropped.

[crail]

...the difference between an animal developing a new characteristic and become an entirely new animal?

But to be a real scientific theory, ID would have to propose a mechanism that stops mutations from eventually making the differences in two subpopulations so diverse they can't interbreed. If we all agree that in a short time small changes can occur, then we must agree that in a long time, big changes can occur unless something stops them. We need to know what that something is and how it works.

[ZULU]

"It's just that I think God created the very concept of "randomness" and "natural selection" at the core of Evolution. No conflict."

Isn't that Divine Intent?


"That's where they loose me, because science can't be used to prove any diety."

I agree - more or less. There is no direct evidence.

[ironmike4242]

One poster stated that intelligent design starts with an answer, but science starts with questions. Then you said:"I believe the scientific method starts with observation" Which is correct! And while science does seek answers by observing and asking questions, the answers (as they relate to the natural world) already exist. Science simply seeks to find them.

Example: Science didn't give an animal the ability to reproduce, the animal had that ability to start with. Science simply figured out exactly how it took place and filled in most of the blanks.

It's the same with evolution. What did, or did not cause life to come into existance and develop over time has already happened. There IS a correct answer to all of our questions. Science is simply trying to find that answer.

To get to the original posters point about starting with an answer, I see no problem with it because there IS an answer. We might not know what it is, but it still exists.

[RightWhale]

“makes no religious claims,

Could be taken that way. Belief in the Creator would not necessarily be part of a religion in itself, but could be part of a religious set of beliefs.

[bondserv]

The world has chosen to leave the age old expertise of Academia for the much more progressive business sciences. The realization that grants have agendas attached to them is spooking investors more and more every day.

For your information, genetics have left the ball and chain of Darwinian Evolution, for practical, real science based on engineering and real world chemistry. As these pioneers discover the practical realities they are jumping the Evolutionary ship.

Denial is unbecoming. Look around.