Skip to comments.
In Explaining Life's Complexity, Darwinists and Doubters Clash
NY Times ^
| August 22, 2005
| KENNETH CHANG
Posted on 08/22/2005 3:29:51 AM PDT by Pharmboy
At the heart of the debate over intelligent design is this question: Can a scientific explanation of the history of life include the actions of an unseen higher being?
The proponents of intelligent design, a school of thought that some have argued should be taught alongside evolution in the nation's schools, say that the complexity and diversity of life go beyond what evolution can explain.
Biological marvels like the optical precision of an eye, the little spinning motors that propel bacteria and the cascade of proteins that cause blood to clot, they say, point to the hand of a higher being at work in the world.
In one often-cited argument, Michael J. Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University and a leading design theorist, compares complex biological phenomena like blood clotting to a mousetrap: Take away any one piece - the spring, the baseboard, the metal piece that snags the mouse - and the mousetrap stops being able to catch mice.
Similarly, Dr. Behe argues, if any one of the more than 20 proteins involved in blood clotting is missing or deficient, as happens in hemophilia, for instance, clots will not form properly.
Such all-or-none systems, Dr. Behe and other design proponents say, could not have arisen through the incremental changes that evolution says allowed life to progress to the big brains and the sophisticated abilities of humans from primitive bacteria.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: anothercrevothread; behe; crevolist; darwinists; enoughalready; evolution; inteldesign; makeitstop
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 321-338 next last
To: Physicist
"...Scientists don't remotely share your assessment, and their assessment is what counts (or rather, what should count) in public policy."
Ah-h but wait until the Official High Council on Irreducibility" is put in place.
It will be so easy then. If three of the Council say: "I dunno, can't figure how such-and-so happened" it'll go into the IC box and be done with. :-)
To: jwalsh07
Your post is exactly the reason the founders of this country made a point of saying that "we are enowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights" for if we are not then our rights, the right to life among them, depends on which of your laundry list is in power. Who was the "we" in that sentence at the time it was written? And what is the "Creator's" antecedent for the subsequent expansion of the covered "we"?
102
posted on
08/22/2005 10:08:37 AM PDT
by
atlaw
To: Junior
Except for Ted Kennedy - he descended from the Bandersnatch.
103
posted on
08/22/2005 10:09:10 AM PDT
by
Liberty Tree Surgeon
(Slow down, save gas, defund terrorism (Iran) & Marxism (Venezuela).)
To: jwalsh07
I think you have a misapprehension about what "unalienable" means. It does not mean that rights cannot be abridged, and behavior limited by laws and government.
104
posted on
08/22/2005 10:09:36 AM PDT
by
js1138
(Science has it all: the fun of being still, paying attention, writing down numbers...)
To: Stark_GOP
Southerners supported states rights because the southern states would vote to allow slave owners to keep their 'property'. They did, of course, have the Bible on their side, as anyone who grew up in the South knows.
105
posted on
08/22/2005 10:11:09 AM PDT
by
js1138
(Science has it all: the fun of being still, paying attention, writing down numbers...)
To: Liberty Tree Surgeon
A 30-tonne, white, single-celled critter... I can see it.
106
posted on
08/22/2005 10:37:05 AM PDT
by
Junior
(Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
To: Mamzelle
"But, you know, they're the same goat. Mr. Earless can marry Ms. Earful and they'll have kids." They are still different species.
"Are these bacteria a new species? It's kind of hard to define such a thing when you only have one cell going on."
That depends on whether you use the definition of species that science uses, or the definition creationists use.
107
posted on
08/22/2005 10:54:14 AM PDT
by
b_sharp
(Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
To: b_sharp
re: "But, you know, they're the same goat. Mr. Earless can marry Ms. Earful and they'll have kids." They are still different species.)))
Really? A goat bred for the alpine is a different species than a goat bred for the delta of India? Dairyists think differently. Are you an evo-promoter, then?
I guess I'll tell my spaniel to stop crying over that hussy of a poodle. They're different species.
To: Gumlegs
O.K., you stated:
2. The theory of evolution does not address origins of life (our Creator). So it specifically has nothing to do with human rights under the Constitution or how or why they are "endowed."
And I say to that, "That is pure hogwash."
Darwin most certainly DID comment on the "Origins of Life". In fact, in the first edition of "The Origin of Species" he stated quite clearly the following:
Chapter XIV,
...Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the
CHAP. XIV. CONCLUSION.489
first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled.
...It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external con-
490 CONCLUSION. CHAP. XIV.
ditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms.
...There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
How dare Darwin, the author of the theory of evolution itself, suggest the involvement of one greater than science itself as the causation of the existence of life on this planet!
109
posted on
08/22/2005 11:01:18 AM PDT
by
BedRock
("A country that doesn't enforce it's laws will live in chaos, & will cease to exist.")
To: Liberty Tree Surgeon
Behold our Designer!
110
posted on
08/22/2005 11:03:25 AM PDT
by
Junior
(Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
To: RobRoy
If we are not designed, then we, by definition, have no purpose. A thing that has no purpose has no intrinsic value.
Not seeing the logic there.
To: b_sharp
re: That depends on whether you use the definition of species that science uses, or the definition creationists use.)))
Now this is a revelation to me, and I hope you'll expound.
It was heretofore my assumption that one defining, and really inarguable, feature of what constitutes a species (at least a species that requires sexual reproduction, not a one-cell creature)is that cross-breeding of two identifiably seperate species would not result in fertile offspring, if offspring at all. I would call the goats in my example breeds, as a farmer would, not species. Holstein vs. Jersey...etc.
You say, it is not so?
Back to getting my goat expample...are you saying that the Arctic goat and the Nubian (it's the Nubian with the long ears and the rich cream) have their own latinized names of genus and species? Goatus Earless, and Goatus Earful?
To: Vive ut Vivas
Amen. Raw diamonds are not designed, but they have great intrinsic value.
113
posted on
08/22/2005 11:09:26 AM PDT
by
Junior
(Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
To: RobRoy
Most of what is taught in astronomy can be called science. Most of what is taught on evolution is not.
I see no difference. I want to know why you accept the evidence in astronomy but not biology. I'm baffled.
To: BedRock
The book is not titled The Origin of Life. As you point out, Darwin credits the origin of life to a Creator, which ought to make you feel better about the whole thing. But creation is outside the theory, no matter how devoutly you wish it were part of it.
The phrase about their Creator is in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration does not have the force of law; our government is based on the Constitution, so unless youre worried that the theory of evolution will repeal the Declaration of Independence and make us part of England again, whats your problem?
115
posted on
08/22/2005 11:17:16 AM PDT
by
Gumlegs
To: Antonello
Are you really citing as proof of God the fact that you really, really want Him to exist so you can feel better about your rights? No, I am more suggesting that the people who are so all fired up about proving that God does not exist have motivations of their own, not necessarily benign.
116
posted on
08/22/2005 11:18:25 AM PDT
by
gridlock
(IF YOU'RE NOT CATCHING FLAK, YOU'RE NOT OVER THE TARGET...)
To: gridlock
re: not exist have motivations of their own, not necessarily benign.
Looks a little like a turf war, doesn't it? Like the pro-evos should not be required to answer questions?
To: Mamzelle
Looks a little like a turf war, doesn't it? Like the pro-evos should not be required to answer questions? Well, of course not. They have the (lack of) God on their side...
118
posted on
08/22/2005 11:27:27 AM PDT
by
gridlock
(IF YOU'RE NOT CATCHING FLAK, YOU'RE NOT OVER THE TARGET...)
To: Mamzelle
"Really? A goat bred for the alpine is a different species than a goat bred for the delta of India? Dairyists think differently. Are you an evo-promoter, then? " Give me the full genus, species and subspecies names of both and I'll be able to answer that.
"I guess I'll tell my spaniel to stop crying over that hussy of a poodle. They're different species.
So far different breeds of dogs are still considered different sub species.
119
posted on
08/22/2005 11:30:49 AM PDT
by
b_sharp
(Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
To: balrog666
"Touched by His Noodly Appendage" placemarker. "You are truly blessed." placemarker
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 321-338 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson