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 ...
Scientists don't remotely share your assessment, and their assessment is what counts (or rather, what should count) in public policy.
>>Scientists don't remotely share your assessment, and their assessment is what counts (or rather, what should count) in public policy.<<
Hogwash.
My statement stands.
We weren't talking of "who God is"; we were talking of how people behave.
The poster was indicating that a lack of religion would cause bad behavior. If that were the case, you'd think that scientists would be more religious than the U.S. prison population. Despite their widespread atheism, however, very few of them end up behind bars.
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.
By making it clear that these rights are inalienably ours they make it clear that it is righteous to crapcan any group coming to power that seeks to abridge them.
Gementria?
Interesting. Are you saying that most scientists agree with you, or that your opinion outweighs the sum of theirs on issues of science?
If evolution doesn't happen, how do bacteria develop antibiotic resistance?
Anecdotal evidence only. We have "good" atheists and "bad" atheists, just like we have the same in the religious community.
There are volumes of biblical concepts touched in the "apparently" trite bumper sticker phrase "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven."
But, you know, they're the same goat. Mr. Earless can marry Ms. Earful and they'll have kids.
Are these bacteria a new species? It's kind of hard to define such a thing when you only have one cell going on.
How heavy are these scientists?
Seriously, is this supposed to be a compelling argument, "I have more scientists than you do?"
The major religions of the ancient world (worship of Baal, Maloch, Adrammelech and Anammelech, etc) DID NOT value human life except as a sacrifice. Human sacrifice (including infants) was the norm.
That's just silly talk. You have completely ignored functional, working societies outside "the ancient world" (which you seem to have defined as solely existing in the middle east) that had no reference to the Judeo-Christian god.
For instance, if your version of history were true, neither China nor Japan would have existed in ancient history, and yet there is ample evidence that the Chinese and Japanese lived and thrived. What is your explanation for that?
I am saying your assertion is hogwash. First and formost, you did not say "some scientists," "most scientists" or even "a lot of scientists." You merely said "scientists." The assertion is absolutely false and was offered with no support.
It is merely a statement of opinion and I responded with a statement of opinion.
This is contradiction. I came here for an argument!
No--I am a Darwinist. Never said evo doesn't happen. But at any rate, your bacterial example really shows natural selection rather than evolution per se.
Short of God Himself coming down and enforcing these rights, I'd submit that it is, rather, the widespread belief in the sanctity of human rights which is their guarantor.
Where was this divine endowment of rights to be found prior to 1776?
I'm feeling like a Barbie doll here.
"Four elements" theory alongside the periodic table.
read later bump
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.