Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites
Whew! That is truly the bottom line, isn't it! It actually answers any, and all critics ms. Truly a matter of what one chooses to believe or not believe and I, as you, choose to believe in God. Can't imagine it being simpler.
I am right with ya.
You're in luck!
And yet, no experiments I can actually perform come to mind, apropos to my initial objection: that I see design in every detail of every living thing. Your example is not enlightening me. I don't see why the test proposed points to as yet undiscovered ID evolutionary explanations any more than it points to as yet undiscovered Darwinian evolutionary explanations. Perhaps you could explain, so I can model my proposed experiments after the one published in an italian journal that ranks below the top 100,000 in cite frequency, and is edited by an avowed anti-darwinist.
Dawkins is not a Marxist. Please retract.
The Helianthus experiments were designed to repeat what happened naturally, and they just did that. That, semi-asleep-wideawake is what is called testing a theory. And the answer was unequivocal.
Oh, well, that certainly improves the Discovery Institution's scientific credentials. Much as the Pope's scientific credentials were improved over Galileo's by his access to the offices of the Inquisition.
You asked a question.
I gave you an answer, that you ignored.
What else am I supposed to think?
***************
I have only recently begun to follow these threads, but there does seem to be far too much ill-will and rudeness expressed. I would like to see a kinder, gentler discourse.
"It reinforces the biblical version of creation."
Yeah - and that part about "let there be light" sure sounds a lot like the "Big Bang" theory that seems to be popular nowadays.
I see. Galileo was actually a child-abuser, and the recantation and imprisonment was a plea-bargain? Rather than a major event in world history, like they taught us in high school?
No doubt to continue their pursuit of science-through-lobbying.
Why do you think there are so many, as you say, "avowed anti-darwinist" scientists? Just curious.
I'll point out that sunflowers have been commercially hybridized for decades before these experiments. The experiment was designed to to create not an atmosphere of natural selection that would create a new, mutated species, but to recreate an existing species from hybridized variants.
The experiment shows that recrossing these hybridized variants results in a "new species" which "is virtually identical to H. anomalus" - I suspect that this new species virtually identical to H. anomalus can actually be cross-bred with H. anomalus and is not therefore a truly unique species.
This experiment tends to show the remarkable phenotypic stability of the sunflower, and does not demonstrate a naturally occurring mutation radical enough to even achieve the level of alteration typical of horticultural hybridization.
Any new idea goes through at least three stages before common acceptance.
Stage one: It's absolutely untrue. Stage two: it might be true, but it's trivial. Stage three: Its true and important, but we knew it all along. It's in the Bible.
Because there's one born every minute.
No, Galileo was using his science as a platform to attack the Church. On the other hand, the Church was using faith as a platform to attack anyone who disagreed with her. A bad situation all around and one that obscured the truth behind the hidden political agendas of the actors.
The Church did misbehave. So did Galileo. The persecution and the recanting of Galileo's position was much more complicated than a simple "proof" that faith and science can not exist.
What we know of as the modern scientific method was developed by a Franciscan Friar and is based on the Judeo-Christian faith - specifically that G-d is not arbitrary and did not create an arbitrary universe. Bacon based his work on similar work by the Greeks who also had a worldview that believed in an orderly Universe. Bacon's belief in an orderly universe was based in his faith in G-d.
Modern Taxonomy was developed by Linnaeus because of his desire to glorify G-d in his study of nature. Again, faith was the driver and supporter of his scientific research.
As this thread shows, either side can bash the other with abstractions. And either side can find examples of the other side misbehaving. But the broad-brush statement that faith is incompatible with science is bigoted and unworthy. Many scientists have based their desire for personal excellence and accurate scientific work on their faith.
As an aside, why is it impossible to have discussions on FR? I'd like to talk about ideas, not play some vague debating game with vague rules and no referees.
Shalom.
So many???? Out of what total, do you suppose? Do you think that ratio improves or falls off if we just consider scientists whose opinions are worth a tinker's poop on this subject: biologists. Do you think that that ratio is as high as the ratio of galactic astronomers to scientists who read their horoscopes every day?
And what, in your view, was Galileo's 'crime'? Is it your position that the church should be above criticism?
...and rarely seen here coming from the defenders of evolutionary theory posting here, nor from scientists, that I am aware of.
As an aside, why is it impossible to have discussions on FR? I'd like to talk about ideas, not play some vague debating game with vague rules and no referees.
Just off hand, I'd guess that your distaste for some particular thrust of rhetoric is probably not universally the same thing as "playing some vague debating game". Let me recommend that you endulge a little in "the debating game" by studying the debating Principle of Charity--you can probably massage all the ideas you want if you are willing to reach out for it.
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.