Posted on 02/26/2005 4:45:01 PM PST by DannyTN
non-peer reviewed placemarker.
Biological systems are not irreducibly complex. That old saw was refuted before Behe ever wrote his silly book.
Dawkins in the Blind Watchmaker completely destroys the argument from complexity. Why do creationists keep pulling out the same tired arguments they know are wrong? Isn't that just rank dishonesty not to mention the waste of time?
But that's precisely my point. Such a thing doesn't really exist. It only exists in the political agendas of atheists and in the strawman versions of evolution that creationists are trying to knock down. The actual theory of evolution is perfectly consistent with the existence of God and with certain interventions by Him. Of course, being a science and dealing with the natural world, it makes no attempt to specifically deal with any form of divine intervention, since it would be completely incapable of determining when such had occurred. However it doesn't rule out divine intervention either. Those who state otherwise are pushing their own personal beliefs, not the implications of the theory of evolution.
Meyer performs as service and advances science and knowledge.
Meyer does no such thing because he has no positive test for design. He predicts nothing that isn't predicted by evolution and does not give a falsifiable hypothesis of design. His argument is entirely negative. His argument boils down to A,B,C and D could not have happened by evolution, therefore these features were designed, but everything else could have evolved. Even granting that the things his claims that certain features could not have evolved, there still is no positive evidence for design. IDers would need to give a positive test for design that would allow one to look at an item and determine without knowledge of the history of that item whether or not it was designed. Given such a test, then there would possibly be a scientific hypothesis of design. Without such a test, all ID has is negative arguments.
According to your bible, it was Adam that checked out all the animal for their suitability as a "helpmate" ...
You know, your habit of continually bearing false witness is going to do you in when you reach the pearly gates.
Nevermind, you are a 'soldier of God' and sinning is ok for that special class.
Please read the Bible!
"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
A little arrogant?
Exactly. And this agenda makes false claims to science and is in fact holding the field. ID challenges this quite successfully and it's important that something does.
Now, concerning whether this debate is science-based consider that if a paradigm is declared scientific and an argument is made that shows the paradigm impossible, then that endeavor provides a valuable service, regardless of whether it provides or makes a case for a new explanation
Since I was just reading it, let me suggest you check Novum Organum (1620) which is the foundational document of science and addresses the issues surrounding the crevo debate with remarkable prescience.
For instance in LXV of the first book Bacon says For nothing is so mischievous as the apotheosis of error; and it is a very plague of the understanding for vanity to become the object of veneration. Yet in this vanity some of the moderns have with extreme levity indulged so far as to attempt to found a system of natural philosophy on the first chapter of Genesis . . . Whoa.
Then, however, in the very next chapter he says
Again, when man contemplates nature working freely, he meets with different species of things, of animals, of plants, of minerals; whence he readily passes into the opinion that there are in nature certain primary forms which nature intends to educe, and that the remaining variety proceeds from hindrances and aberrations of nature in the fulfillment of her work, or from the collision of different species and the transplanting of one into another. (again whoa) To the first of these speculations we owe our primary qualities of the elements; to the other our occult properties and specific virtues; and both of them belong to those empty compendia of thought wherein the mind rests, and whereby it is diverted from more solid pursuits.
Basically he saying it's a stupid pointless debate i.e. But it is a far greater evil that they make the quiescent principles, wherefrom, and not the moving principles, whereby, things are produced, the object of their contemplation and inquiry. For the former tend to discourse, the latter to works.
He is just quietly confident that the Lord won't hold against him his repeated pretence of knowledge of matters of which he is wholly ignorant. Also his failures to withdraw statements shown to be false. After all, he does it "in the name of the Lord", so how can it be wrong?
It is great really, posters like DannyTN probably recruit very effectively for those of us on the side of mainstream science because any lurker with half a brain can see the intellectual bankruptcy of his postings. In a tough field of barmy lying arguments coming from Young Earth Creationists citing Conan Doyles "Lost World" as a peer-reviewed scientific publication has to be one of the finest ever bloopers. Only someone who is totally ignorant both of science and popular culture could manage that one.
What gets me is the lack of self-awareness and complete lack of self-criticism that comes shining through. If I'd perpetrated a howler like the Conan Doyle thing I'd never feel able show my face in FR again, yet Danny blithely keeps on posting, apparently utterly unaware of how bad he makes his religion look.
It cracks me up how these atheists keep pulling scripture on you. The irony.
I missed that one so I went Googling but didn't find it. I did find creationistanswers.net which had a review of Jurassic Park in which they stated that it actually supported the YEC hypothesis!
"The Bible says God will restore things on Earth in the future to something similar to the original creation. Whether dinosaurs will be a part of that is unknown, but it will be a world where the lion will lie down with the lamb and children can play with cobras."
I see no irony in expecting those who profess belief in the literal truth of every word of a holy book to match up to the moral standards laid out in that book. And I see no irony in expecting them to maintain their beliefs consistently and not seek special dispensation to ignore those passages that are inconvenient to them because they cannot be literally true.
It is in this thread. Post 126. Lots of the other "publications" are hilarious too.
It is not atheists pulling scripture on y'all. But then I would expect you to bear false witness against us. Just SOP for y'all "soldiers of God".
Sorry, my own howler. Make that 127.
I just looked at Danny's list. Where are the "peer reviewed journals"? I couldn't find any links that worked.
Another good one was an editorial in the Morning Post.
Wow! That's quite the list! Nice job! The Piltdown fraud will no-doubt continue to cast a negative light on Darwinism for years to come.
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.