Intelligent design revisited

http://jewishworldreview.com ^ | David Limbaugh

[manny613]

On those rare occasions that I write a column touching remotely on science, especially if I depart from the conventional wisdom of the greater scientific community, the contemptuous e-mails fill my inbox.

[BibChr]

On those rare occasions that I write a column touching remotely on science, especially if I depart from the conventional wisdom of the greater scientific community, the contemptuous e-mails fill my inbox.

Gosh, who knew the FR theophobes had Limbaugh's email address?

Dan
Biblical Christianity BLOG

[Ford4000]

I love it when I hear answers which start with "All/no scientists believe...." because who is recognized as a scientist and what constitutes science is only what other self-appointed scientists say they/it is.

Limbaugh is certainly correct that the macro-evolution crowd is infused with a lot of circular reasoning. Funny that it takes a non-scientist to point this out.

[From many - one.]

Maybe because it takes a non-scientist to so misunderstand science.

[Mylo]

Rush's less intelligent brother seems to be caught up with the ID'ers mantra that Scientists somehow have this unreasonable fetish for 'Materialistic' explanations. So I ask any "God of the Gaps" theologists out there two simple questions...

1) How successful have supernatural explanations been in observing and predicting the universe and settling issues of factual disagreement?


2) How many scientific theories are dependent upon an unquantifiable and unknowable power that is impossible to observe or predict?

[From many - one.]

Nice.

What are your expectations of reasonable sounding responses to your questions?

[trebb]

1) How successful have supernatural explanations been in observing and predicting the universe and settling issues of factual disagreement?

The Bible made many predictions that have come true well after the fact. Evolutionists made predictions about what had already been observed, but don't make any predictions about what will come. I thought that scientific equations let one make accurate predictions about future events - like that an atomic bomb will make a big boom.

[uncbob]

How many scientific theories are dependent upon an unquantifiable and unknowable power that is impossible to observe or predict?

Sounds like a desciption of religion

[Mylo]

Wrong.

Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection would predict that bacteria subjected to selective pressure through antibiotic usage would develop antibiotic resistance. This has been shown in the lab.

It would also predict that selective pressure for starvation resistance would lead to a strain of fruit flies that could better survive starvation through a change in the genetic makeup of the population. This has also been shown in the lab.

Observing and predicting the UNIVERSE, not the Messiah. And as far as 'factual disagreements'; there doesn't seem to be much consensus between Christians and Jews as to whether Jesus was the Messiah or not. So much for settling issue of factual disagreement.

[trisham]

Prepare for more hate-mail, Mr. Limbaugh. The ID movement must be squashed at all costs, don't you know?

[trebb]

Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection would predict that bacteria subjected to selective pressure through antibiotic usage would develop antibiotic resistance. This has been shown in the lab.

It would also predict that selective pressure for starvation resistance would lead to a strain of fruit flies that could better survive starvation through a change in the genetic makeup of the population. This has also been shown in the lab.

You don't find it amazing that you have to use bacteria and fruit flies to try to show "predictions" made by evolutionists? You would probably also deny that the two cases you note would have had other observations that indicated this would be the case because of past experiences. "Gee Holmes, all them farmers and laborers seem to have calloused hands, I bet that if we keep applying friction to skin it will develop callouses!"

Observing and predicting the UNIVERSE, not the Messiah. And as far as 'factual disagreements'; there doesn't seem to be much consensus between Christians and Jews as to whether Jesus was the Messiah or not. So much for settling issue of factual disagreement.

???

There is so much wrong with that as an argument that I don't know how to approach it except to say that there are enough scientists that fall on different sides of the origins of the universe and of evolution vs. ID, that there is also no consensus, although many would want to pretend there is....

[xjcsa]

The thrust of the e-mails was that ID is not science-based but is purely a matter of faith — Biblical creationism in disguise. It cannot be tested in a lab (can macroevolution or any historical science be reproduced in a lab?).

Anyone?

[Mylo]

I don't find it amazing at all. They are an easily used model that racks up generations in time for one scientist to do the work within his lifetime.

And so you admit that the predictions of Evolution through Natural Selection are borne out in the lab? Good, because they are. Your statement about callouses is a nonsequeter.

And if there is a lack of 'consensus' because less than 1% of Biologists refuse to ascribe to the theory of evolution through natural selection; at least we know how the argument will be settled- through experimentation and interpretation of results, not through interpretation of divine Revelation.

See the difference?

[Ford4000]

There is a huge difference between the practice of hard science and soft science. Equating the two is usually one of the first red herrings to appear in this debate.

2) How many scientific theories are dependent upon an unquantifiable and unknowable power that is impossible to observe or predict?

Macro-evolution, for one.

[Mylo]

Soory chap but "macro-evolution", a creationist term for what scientists refer to as speciation, has been both predicted and observed. Moreover it is dependent upon a quantifiable phenomenon (mutation) from a known power (electromagnetism) that is possible to both observe and predict.

That answer is incorrect, thanks for playing.

[Ford4000]

If ir has been proven and observed then tell us all about it. And bacteria and fruit flies don't count.

[trebb]

I don't find it amazing at all. They are an easily used model that racks up generations in time for one scientist to do the work within his lifetime.

You miss the point that many of the "predictions from using bacteria and fruitflies are the results of "new experiments" to see if they can duplicate that which they have already observed, thus taking them out of the realm of true predictions.

And so you admit that the predictions of Evolution through Natural Selection are borne out in the lab? Good, because they are. Your statement about callouses is a nonsequeter.

See above for the "predictions" part. The callouses example may be a simplification, but fits right in with the general gist, which is that trying to duplicate that which has already been observed is not the same as predictive science.

And if there is a lack of 'consensus' because less than 1% of Biologists refuse to ascribe to the theory of evolution through natural selection; at least we know how the argument will be settled- through experimentation and interpretation of results, not through interpretation of divine Revelation.

See the difference?

What I see is another attempt to take an example out of context to nullify it without a successful argument. My point was in response to your allusion to the difference between Jews and Christians being at odds about the Messiah - you intimated that it negated the Bible, but you forgot to note that Jews don't look at the New Testament, just that they disagreed. The fact that there are so many more Christians than Jews didn't make a difference in your mind, but it seems to make a big difference to you that more scientists believe in evolution than in ID.

In short, you use the same type argument to come up with different decisions on whether the argument supports or hurts an argument. I would think that a "scientist" would be more careful and less emotional in framing arguments and might actually try to use a scientific type argument. But, that doesn't appear to be the case in many of the folks that preach evolution and sneer at ID.

By the way, if you study up on the fruitfly experiments, you might discover that they seem to make claims about what they expect to do, quietly fess up that they haven't quite got there yet, but assure us that they really expect to get there someday.

SeeWhatIMean?

[texan75010]

I found a watch in the woods. It was running and had the correct time. I didn't think anyone had walked those woods in hundreds of years. I thought someone must have been there recently and lost it.

However, my scientist friend said that the no one lost it. Actually, the right conditions existed and millions of years past and the watch was produced as a by product of those conditions and time.

Wow, he's so smart! I would have gone around thinking someone lost their watch.

[Mylo]

No, because your wrong, wrong, and don't even wish to be right.

The fruit flies are "there" in that the strain developed through SELECTIVE PRESSURE have a greater than 90% survival rate for a starvation that kills 90% of unselected flies.

Unsubstantiated claims and non-sequeter arguments seems to be your forte. So maybe you can explain how showing something in the lab that is predicted by a theory is somehow invalid if past experience or knowledge of past events indicate that the result that is reproducible derived at is also in line with previously observed phenomenon?