The Case Against Intelligent Design. The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name.

The New Republic ^ | 8/11/05 | Jerry Coyne

[b_sharp]

"Even the reference to "laws" implies the existence of a Legislator.

I forgot to mention that it is called equivocation.

[Moral Hazard]

" Even the reference to "laws" implies the existence of a Legislator."

Does that mean God is a politician?

[Junior]

[I]t defies the science of logic.

Please explain. This should be interesting.

[Sloth]

No, a monarch.

[PatrickHenry]

Am I getting grumpier, or are things really degenerating around here lately?

[Sloth]

Not at all. Either the laws of science came from somewhere or they came from nowhere. The latter option strikes me as absurd.

[Junior]

Even the reference to "laws" implies the existence of a Legislator.

No it doesn't. Once again, someone is conflating the common use of a term with the scientific use of that term.

[malakhi]

Show me how matter appears from nothing.

Matter appears from nothing all the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_fluctuations

[Moral Hazard]

"Show how the human eye developed by chance from primordial soup. "

You can see how it developed in modern creatures right now. You can see the early stages in the starfish, which has light sensing cells and react to movement, but lacks a central nervous system. You can also see it in insects which have primitive multi-faceted eyes that provide very low resolution but good detection of movement. You don't need to jump straight from "no ability to sense light" to "fully functioning eyes."

[malakhi]

Show me how to create consciousness from primordial soup. Show how the human eye developed by chance from primordial soup.

Provide evidence that they were intelligently designed.

[narby]

This is classic mountain out of mole hill stuff and is commonplace among ecclesiastical battle, such as this one. One side, or perhaps both, cloak their religious rhetoric in science, but it has nothing to do with science.

I take from the above that you are incapable of determining how religion and science are different from one another. You apparently believe that science makes up it's mind on the facts in the same manner as one does their faith.

Now I understand your confusion.

[Junior]

The liberals are going to run with this like no one's business. They can tar the entire conservative movement with the brush of scientific ignorance and paint us all to be a bunch of backward bohunks.

We conservative evo types need to get our POV out before the public as quickly as possible to perform basic damage control.

[VadeRetro]

Yes! Where are the Young-Earth Creationists who criticize ID?

Oh, wait! Some of them do that.

[Junior]

Yes and yes.

[narby]

It all depends on your definition of "involved". The Kansas school board involved itself in science by force.

[RadioAstronomer]

Am I getting grumpier, or are things really degenerating around here lately?

You are not getting grumpier.

[VadeRetro]

Certainly!

[VadeRetro]

We conservative evo types need to get our POV out before the public as quickly as possible to perform basic damage control.

OK. Tonight I finally agree to do that CNN interview they've been pestering me for.

[balrog666]

"Evolution is stupid." You said it. And unscientific,too--it defies the science of logic.

[Mush MouthPhil]

Over billions of years,by random chance,from a tiny one-celled organism,more complex species evolve until you just happen to get the most complex creature of all--man(all of this by accident, of course). If none of this was by accident, then how did each species arrive at the decision it wanted to evolve into something else? I don't see how the socialism-serving doctrine of evolution can be anything but illogical. Belief in a First Cause(God-the Intelligent Designer) makes a sensible explanation for an orderly Universe. Blind faith in random chance over billions of years does not.