Capitol bill aims to control ‘leftist’ profs [suing profs who teach evolution!]

Florida Alligator ^ | March 23, 2005 | JAMES VANLANDINGHAM

[PatrickHenry]

You pass the cognition test. I won't withdraw your feeding tube.

[MacDorcha]

Thanks for your reply.

I agree with you on most points, as we have both poited out. However "Evolution is perfectly consistent both with design and with a lack of design in the living world." Negates one prime mover in evolution: Natural Selection.

This process effectively gets rid of any outside intervention, so it does not entirely fit with ID.

Now if NS were able to be defined as simply the change itself and Survival of the Fittest, not the REASON for change, then I would agree 100% with you. But as it stands, believing that we organized ourselves into what we are assumes that no guiding force was ever involved.

This my not be the fault of the theory, but it most certainly is the fault of it's most avid boasters.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I feel contrapositively copacetic already.

[stremba]

Natural selection simply refers to the propensity for organisms possessing harmful traits to die off and those with beneficial traits to reproduce. I'm not sure why, if the biosphere were the result of design, that this feature of the biosphere would be evidence against design. Couldn't a designer design natural selection, mutation and any other mechanism for evolution into the system?

[MacDorcha]

"I'm not sure why, if the biosphere were the result of design, that this feature of the biosphere would be evidence against design."

Never said it'd be evidence against it. It is simply used to lay the groundwork for advocates of evolution to denounce God ("Look what we did, all by ourselves!")

That's why I feel ID is right. It allows for "mechanisms" but intent is implied in their existance. Not simply self-structuring.

[furball4paws]

"I feel contrapositively copacetic already."

OOOOOooooooooo, I love it when you talk dirty :>)