Posted on 08/24/2005 10:47:29 AM PDT by joyspring777
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.
Such was the case a few columns ago when I broached the subject of Intelligent Design (ID) after President Bush indicated his receptiveness to ID theory being taught alongside evolution in the public schools. The hostile e-mailers pointed out what a consummate idiot and criminal trespasser I was for treading on their real estate.
They demanded I stick to law and politics, not because I know much more about them either, but by concentrating on those subjects at least I wouldn't be encroaching on their turf, which is reserved for the gifted. OK, they didn't really say that explicitly, but I divined, via supernatural intuition, that that's precisely what they meant.
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?). As such, ID should only be taught in public schools, if at all, under the rubric of philosophy or religion, not science. Besides, it is just one alternative theory. If you teach it, in fairness you must teach all other competing theories.
But not all scientists agree that ID lacks a scientific foundation. In the first place, ID uses science to confute certain tenets of Darwinism. In addition, ID proponents, such as Michael Behe and William Dembski, have developed criteria for testing design inferences.
(Excerpt) Read more at humaneventsonline.com ...
May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. (placemarker)
>> You're just repeating the same dumb-dumbisms over and over. Why?<<
It's time to move on.
Have fun!
I can only take so much heady intellectual stimulation.
All those "I've never seens."
It must be your religion that causes you to believe all those silly things.
ID don't need no stinkin' religion.
ID has class and respectibility.
ID is science.
"However, now that you bring it up, ID falls flat when it comes to science. It cannot be falsified (how does one falsify "that's just the way the Designer did it?). It makes no predictions. Indeed, the whole enterprise is based on trying to prove a negative (such and such could not evolve naturally) which any first semester logic student will tell you is logically impossible."
This is the kind of baloney that passes for reason. Of course ID can be "falsified." All you need to do is demonstrate that life could reasonably have originated and evolved without intelligent design. Evolutionists assertions notwithstanding, that hasn't been done. They haven't demonstrated it in any laboratory, nor have they shown it mathematically. Not even close.
Evolutionists who continue to repeat this claim about the non-falsifability of ID amaze me with their lack of basic common sense.
Suppose we are walking along and we see a watch on the ground. I theorize that it had an intelligent designer. But you reply, "the hypothesis that it *didn't* have an intelligent designer is not falsifiable, therefore your theory is not scientific."
Do you see what a fool you would be making of yourself?
What your position amounts to is claiming that, since I can't prove to you who designed the watch, my theory that it was designed must be wrong.
And life is many orders of magnitude more complex than any watch, of course, which only strenthens my point.
I'd follow suit (the fireflies have been abundant this year), but the skeeters would eat me alive.
Not quite. Even when it has been shown that so-called irreducibly complex structures could have evolved naturally (the eye, the flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade), the IDers come back with "well, the Designer could've done it that way, too."
Should we let other "alternative" sciences be taught too, like psychic powers, astrology and crystal healing? ID has about as much scientific merit as all these ideas; their communities have their own followings, too.
To compare ID to these is pure guilt by association.
However, some may argue that astrology and physhic does find its way into students faces in some schools.
There is no comparison between the three you named and ID. Balderdash!
Sorry, but I am far from convinced that you understand Denton's argument. In fact, I am close to convinced that you don't. Nor do I believe that Denton has changed his position fundamentally. If you can refer me to a quote by him saying so, I'll believe it.
All right...focus on the first question.
No one can say, even with the flawed ways of date testing, that the planet is billions of years old as a fact.
It is opinion based on their personal constructs. It suits the evo, in fact, he needs billions of years to get all that evolution.
What do you do with the natural clocks issue? River delta sedimentation? The expectation by NASA as to the amount of lunar dust? The long intimated time of millions of years it took for the Grand Canyon to be carved, only for Mt St Helens to do similar stuff in less than an hour?
Are there any evolutionist that have seen this change of one species into another? I have posted this question several times and can't seem to get a response. Have you heard of any?
Geologists know where the rim of Niagara Falls begins, and based on the steady rate of erosion since it has been tracked...it calculates out to the neighborhood of 5,000 years.
The oldest living trees, California's bristlecone pines, are calculated to be about 5,000 years.
Why don't we find irrefutable evidence of things that are over 10,000 years, 20,000 years?
The fossil record give evos great problems too, since fossils are all mixed up in layers that have proven the "geologic column" to have great problems.
That's easy! Check out the fossil record. Its all through there.
Course, CS/IDers won't believe any of it because the bible tells them otherwise.
This thread is getting boring. Bye.
Let me try another example.
Suppose we are walking along the beach and we see the words, "Johnny was here for the beer" etched in the sand.
I say, "My theory is that an intelligent being wrote that message." My evolutionist friend replies, "You can't prove that."
He then continues, "Your theory that the message was written by an intelligent being cannot be falsified, therefore it is not a valid scientific theory."
Let's do a little thought experiment. Let's suppose the wind blows randomly for 10 billion years. What is the probability that the message will ever occur on any beach on the entire earth? Well, it is possible, but it is extremely unlikely.
So how can you "falsify" my theory of intelligent writing? You can show that the probability of the message coming up at random is not vanishingly small. That would falsify my theory in short order.
If I handed you a deck of cards, and they were in perfect order by number and suit, would you claim that the theory that they were arranged by an intelligent person is not "falsifiable?"
I'll tell you what is going here. I'm wasting a lot of my valuable time here trying to talk reason to people who profess to live by reason but wouldn't know it if it bit them on the rear end.
Please...we have historical evidence for Lincoln, Jesus Christ, etc.
We have none for evo. No true links. Most of the late 19th and early 20th Century work on links has been proven pushed and built up from small fragments.
Most museums are embarassing. They all have these huge "supposed" skeletons, when none of what they have is real. All these impressionable young kids go wow...thinking it is all real.
They ought to have huge disclaimers posted.
WARNING AND NOTE: Less than 1% of the skeleton you see is actual bone. This is the artist rendition of what we think it was.
or better yet. No real bones were found and/or used to construct this display.
google "ring species"
There's lots of stuff, so take your time.
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.