Posted on 12/09/2004 9:21:27 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
Is Darwin winning the battle, but losing the war?
As soon as one challenge to the teaching of evolution is beaten in the courts, another emerges to take its place.
The current contender is “intelligent design,” a theory that according to advocates at the Discovery Institute “makes no religious claims, but says that the best natural evidence for life’s origins points to design rather than a process of random mutation and natural selection.”
(Excerpt) Read more at firstamendmentcenter.org ...
"Tell me more about the differences between how you have characterized the behavior of ID proponents and the behavior of the faulty scientists you described, if you would."
I don't really know anyone who pushes ID per se. Personally, I am a special creationist which would be the "far right" of those espousing religious beliefs to explain what we see around us. However, I gave up a long time ago trying to persuade anyone to agree with my position and I don't currently belong to any creationist organizations or even keep up with their literature. I still hold to a creationist position, I just don't like fighting about it - not a fruitful endeavor.
From what very little I know about ID, it is not particularly associated with creationists or other religious conservatives. It just simple a paradigm that sees "intelligence" in the design of life, not just randum chance. That seems very mild to me. I find it hard to believe that ID proponents are religious fanatics.
I have a BS in Microbiology (1980) from a secular university. I was witness then, and since, to how "religious" some zoology professors were about evolution. Even a hint that you didn't hold to their position and you were the equivalent of a heretic. It was their guiding paradigm. Goodness, just look how hyped the rhetoric can get here on FR (by both sides and the middle).
Hope this
I don't think I'm following your point, but I'll take a stab at it. I'm not describing something that a committee might build but rather envisioning a creator as a single entity who is the engineer, architect, supervisor, builder etc.. As to the PLAN, I mentioned an intelligent design was involved.
It was a rhetorical question, in an infinite universe with infinite possibilities there is no reason a creator couldn't intelligently design an evolutionary process. As the old expression goes, a room full of monkeys over a million years .....
"This is definitely how the world works" --- how typically Evolutionist.
Tell this to your OTHER "E" guy's that claim Evolution is a 'series' of small changes adding together.
I am genuinely interested in your thoughts
I think that would be concurrent small changes..... To suggest that organisms are able to wait in line requires a belief in ID
Irrational?
Why?
Are 'populations' NOT composed of individuals?
If my township census indicates that ALL persons living in it in are WASP's in 1980 and in 2000 .1% are Samoan, you could say the population has changed.
If you THEN claim that that individuals making up the population are the SAME, who is being 'irrational'?
Could you...
...find it hard to believe that Anti-ID proponents are Anti-religious fanatics?
I was trying to show if a middleman - a 'committee' if you will - was capable of 'creating' what we see around us.
Extrapolate that concept (which we can understand) to a mass of un-connected, non-communicating, random mutations and then the sheer unlikelyhood of Nature being as we see it, is evident.
Small accumulating changes
or
Hopeful Monsters?
Or does 'Evolution' continue thru both?
but that does not describe the mechanism of evolution that i am familiar with? Which specific mechanism do you refer to?
Or does 'Evolution' continue thru both?
Both also hopefull monsters is not accurate, see anti chaos theory in respect to genetic mutation.
The idea that blind material forces built up the various creatures that we see around us is more of a speculative, philosophical position than a position arising from empirical data. The idea makes claims regarding the ultimate nature of reality. As such, the idea transcends the bounds of science and enters the realm of metaphysics, as does intelligent design.
The explanatory power of these metaphysical theories can be tested against what we observe in nature. From what I've read, the evidence supports ID theory better than evolutionary theory. The subject should be open to rigorous debate, not a one-sided "debate."
Regardless, the debate is already over. The general public never believed Darwin's theory anyway. The news will reach scientists last. Too many careers have been invested in Darwinism to turn the project around.
What does the evidence show? It doesn't show mutation and selection. As far as I know, the scientific evidence simply shows the killing off of particular kinds of bacteria by antibiotics.
I'm certain that God created the world from nothing, and that mankind has descended from its original parents, Adam and Eve. The rest is speculation, which can be informed by our observation of nature.
Now, which is more likely to happen? God, or mutation?
8-) God is the ultimate cause of everything (excluding the evil chosen by men and the pure spirits). Mutation may be the proximate cause in this case. But that's not my understanding of the evidence.
Further, which one can be proven and which one can't?
Good question. What evidence is their for your position?
Correct.
I can't argue with that.
I found this:
New features require new variations. In the modern version of Darwin's theory, these come from DNA mutations. Most DNA mutations are harmful and are thus eliminated by natural selection. A few, however, are advantageous -- such as mutations that increase antibiotic resistance in bacteria and pesticide resistance in plants and animals. Antibiotic and pesticide resistance are often cited as evidence that DNA mutations provide the raw materials for evolution, but they affect only chemical processes. Major evolutionary changes would require mutations that produce advantageous anatomical changes as well.
I got you beat. There was a post where the poster claimed the only reason the Earth kept spinning on its axis was because the Lord occasionally reached down and spun it back up with his hand.
I am not making this up at all. I just wish I still had the link to that thread! Sigh! LOL!!
8-) That's an argument from authority. It's not always a bad type of argument, but it is subject to error. And it's ultimately a philosophical argument.
How do you enforce your claim of privilege?
The natural sciences rest on metaphysical presuppositions such as the idea that natural laws are uniform and predictable; that the universe is ordered and predictable; that scientists can trust the evidence of their senses; that something cannot both be, and not be, in the same sense and at the same time; that the whole is greater than its parts; that mathematics has objective value and existence; that objective truth exists, etc.
And metaphysical presuppositions, presuppositions regarding the nature of reality, belong to the realm of philosophy, by definition and by nature. Philosophers determine the scope of the natural sciences. Scientists don't determine the scope of philosophy. The medieval maxim is correct: "Theology is the queen of the sciences and philosophy is its handmaid."
That is false. They are all descended from a single cell. In the absence of mutation, they are all either resistant or non resistant. If the original cell was non-reistant, and a descendent is resistant, then the descendant became resistant.
I'm unable to figure out what your difficulty is here. Do you want to parse the word 'became'? Or do you deny the truth of how I've described the experiment?
Naturally speaking; nothing becomes ‘resistant’, or is ‘beneficial’, or ‘selects’ anything.
When a salt crystallizes from water, it becomes crystalline. There is no implication of purposefulness in the ordinary meaning of the word 'becoming'.
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.