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 ...
LOL!
Language predates hermeneutics. Back to you.
"Hi nice post, i am interested to hear more about your thoughts on ID and creationism, I am also a microbiologist but have an opposinbg view. I am genuinely interested in your thoughts"
Certainly, always glad to speak with someone who wants to talk not argue. Would you be a little more specific when you say "opposing view'? Do you mean opposed to my "special creation" views, or do you mean that you think "ID" proponents are religious fanatics when I say they are mild in their views? I not quite sure how to answer.
Now you need to know that even though I have a B.S. in Microbiology, I have never completed any graduate study in the field. Also, I am a state government hack, and have done most of my work in other areas or as a bench chemist most recently. So, since my degree is 24 years old, my knowledge is somewhat dated. Also, as I said, I don't keep up with the latest "creationist" literature. The point is that I would not be the best source of information.
"Could you......find it hard to believe that Anti-ID proponents are Anti-religious fanatics?"
That is a good question and I had to think about it for awhile. Upon reflection my thinking is thus: Since I maintain that holding to an "ID" position is actually a mild one (verses a full blown creationist like myself), then it would follow that anyone that militantly holds to an "Anti-ID" position is probably, in many cases, an "Anti-religious fanatic."
BTW, I have known true athiests that do not get at all upset about people believing in a God, even one that created the world - as long as nobody is trying to force them to hold those views. They are convinced there is no God or deities, so it is not an issue to them and they feel nothing that compels them to convert people to atheism.
On the other hand, I have known "athiests" that don't take a live and let live attitude, but are militantly athiestic. Actually, by their behavior atheism is a religion, because they attempt to evangelize, and get made at the "ignorant fools" that believe in a God, no matter how benign the belief.
And "E" isn't???
And this is what is called "Evolution"?
Exactly!
And the two 'different' populations can't mate?
(It sure is HARD to figure where them Samoans came from; ain't it!)
"Are you suggesting that God steps in and personally adds new features to a population of critters every time He decides that it's time for a something new?"
I'm not against such an idea, but I don't think it's necessary. First of all, a completely new feature is a fairly rare occurrence, but the fact that it happens is certain. I think that a better explanation, though, than random mutations is epigenetics or some similar mechanism. Epigenetics shows that many traits of species can be modified heritably based on environmental feedback -- not even touching the DNA sequences itself. Therefore, many of the adaptations we see may be the result of regulatory processes within the species starting to express itself based on environmental factors. Basically, the organism had adaptations built into the species, and the environment may cause the expression or non-expression or partial expression of those genes. Likewise, bio-feedback mechanisms through retroviruses may be in place as well, but that's just speculation on my part. I think we'll wind up finding a lot of adaptation biofeedback mechanisms than just epigenetics.
I also think that biology is ultimately best served by at least some idea of a creator, simply because that's what causes us to look for a pattern or mechanism. The assumption of darwinism caused us to look at a lot of the human body and a lot of DNA and call it "vestigal". If randomness were the key element of life, then such assumptions would be quite valid, because searching for purpose through randomness is pretty useless. However, we've narrowed the list of possible vestigal organs / DNA into a very narrow category (maybe a handful), with the Darwinists trying to hold onto their position saying "well, it's kind of vestigal because it's purpose isn't what it was originally for". Of course the phrase "originally for" assumes that randomness can make something _for_ anything. It also assumes seems to portray this random process as very scrappy -- able to turn bad into good. I just wish the random acts that happened to me were so beneficial :)
And, in Humans at least, is treated as a 'birth defect' and promptly 'dealt' with.
Yes exactly. Your population has evolved without any individual members evolving. Precisely what you said could not happen.
Yes, it's the changing of allele frequencies over time.
So, instead of a pre-monkey/human givin birth to a monkey, he/she/it gave birth to 1/10,000 of one: it that how you see it?
When a salt crystallizes from water, it becomes crystalline.
This is merely a chemical reaction and does not involve death. (again, see fire)
If you add a carcinogen to bacteria beforehand in order to cause a desired result is this the same as adding salt to the water? Regardless, you are correct in that the current theory of evolution involves no purpose which would otherwise imply some kind of adaptive quality to a mindless system. Neo-darwinism amounts to fortunate happenstance for survival and reproduction without meaning or purpose and similar to chemical reactions feeding off the environment and likened to fire…
No, some subpopulation of prehuman, apelike creatures somehow is isolated from the rest of the population. The gene pool of that isolated group becomes different from the rest of the group. It becomes different enough that the separated group can no longer interbreed with the rest. At this point, a new species of prehuman, apelike creatures has formed. This new species is just a little more human-like than the original group. This happens repeatedly (we see a whole lot of different prehuman species in the fossil record, each of them a little more human-like.) and eventually one of the subgroups is what we would call human.
Isn't this what I said?
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.