Posted on 04/10/2005 3:53:04 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
A pro-evolution group has organized what appears to be a successful boycott of Kansas hearings on intelligent design.
Alexa Posny, a deputy commissioner with the state department of education, told the Kansas City Star that only one person has agreed to testify on the pro-evolution side for the hearings scheduled for May.
"We have contacted scientists from all over the world," Posny said. "There isn't anywhere else we can go."
Harry McDonald, head of Kansas Citizens for Science, charged that the hearings, called by a conservative majority on the state board of education, have a pre-ordained outcome.He said that testifying would only make intelligent design appear legitimate.
"Intelligent design is not going to get its forum, at least not one in which they can say that scientists participated," he said.
Backers of intelligent design, the claim that a supreme being guided evolution, say it is a theory with scientific backing. Opponents believe it is an attempt to smuggle religion into public education.
I'll accept that he stated his theory in order to fit within theology.
My original post/point was that Darwin indeed involved a Creator in his theory, and thus, according to the poster I was addressing (don't have the name right now, they'll speak up I'm sure) his theory held no water.
No, he mentioned the Creator (as a possible source of the origin of life, and in the passage you quoted, as the origin of the laws of nature), but he didn't involve a Creator in any way within the limits of what his theory explained.
This is what you stated.
As best as I can figure it, it's a purely religious concept concerning man's ability to act independently of God.
That is explicitly expressing unfamiliarity with the concept. Here is something from the council of Trent.
Canon 5. If anyone says that after the sin of Adam man's free will was lost and destroyed, or that it is a thing only in name, indeed a name without a reality, a fiction introduced into the Church by Satan, let him be anathema.
He listed evolution as a "secondary cause" for species. The first implied cause is "life" itself and it's origins, the Creator he mentions.
You need to give this some more thought. If your plan is to quote Darwin to disprove Darwin, you're not going to get very far.
Your quote from the Council of Trent has no bearing on my statement. I did not say free will did not exist. I said it was a purely religious concept. The two are not synonymous. Andrew, something's happened in the past few years. You know longer use your brain to actually argue a point. You spend your time word-lawyering and drawing conclusions from facts not in evidence. I'm not even sure you are the original AndrewC, as that person actually thought through his posts before posting them. You (the current AndrewC), show about as much reasoning capability as the average creationist on these threads, which is to say, not much.
I must say it's not apparent from examples of your reasoning on these threads.
Yes, I know that. And the point was, that ID, according to Macdorcha, gives meaning to free will, which evolution does not. Now what was your point? Macdorcha gave argument, in that, ID gave meaning to something important to a religious or philosophical person.
I'll leave you to your own conclussions then about your level of understanding of both others and human nature in general.
I'm not trying to disprove Darwin. Not by a long shot.
I am simply telling Dimensio that his statement was wrong, according to what he was defending. It was self-defeating and that needed to be addressed.
As I have said before, evolution (IMO) is simply a (possible, even probable) mechanism that God employed to bring about Man. Darwin saw this and figured it out.
It seems Darwinist theorists have two choices: They can outright deny the insights of ID that point to the seeming incompleteness of natural selection in certain key areas of evolutionary explanation, or they can embrace them, and see what further progress they can make from the new insights.
I don't think the proponents of Darwinist evolution have any right to stifle new insights that might prove useful to its own researches in the long run.
One of the insights of 'information theory and molecular biology' is that the path of mutation (noise in successful communication) is not necessarily "random" in the system. It could be broadcast.
In the math and physics of the matter, this is what we may better understand as we look for answers to the source of information in the universe, semiosis and autonomy. The speculations or theories there can help us better understand the rise of complexity (functional, physical, Kolmogorov, self-organizing or whatever form) in biological life.
My two cents...
The problem with free will is not that it exists or does not exist, but that thare is no definition of it which can be tested or which makes any difference in the way the world works.
If I believed everything was both fully determined and fully predictable, I would still still hold people accountable for their actions, because that's the way I am, and I can do no otherwise.
Mensa placemark
I imagine you as a bubbly, big-hearted soul with a brain just as large.
We can all stand to learn a bit more about civility, communication, and rational expressions from you.
Thank you for YOUR posts.
Humans are part of the world. Humans control nuclear weapons. Do we have free will?
Human behavior is largely determined by anticipation of consequenses. that is what brains do, even in "lower" animals -- anticipate consequenses.
you: And is thus intellectually dishonest. The controversy exist only in the minds of the ID proponents. They are using the school board and courts rather than trying to honestly get their ideas examined; perhaps that's because when people do look at the ID's publications, the ID claims just don't stand up.
If the controvery were obviously bogus - like a claim that schools ought to teach geocentricity - it both could have and would have been 'put to bed' long ago.
Also, the ID claims are being examined though not by biologists or chemists but rather by the mathematicians and physists who have been brought to the table. The difference is the mathematicians and physicists don't question evolution per se but the result is the same.
The ID proponents likewise don't reject evolution altogether either, but their direct challenge to evolution theory as being incomplete or inaccurate doesn't sit well with many.
Either way, the rise of complexity in biological life, semiosis, autonomy, successful communications will be addressed.
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.