Interesting claim. Source?
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 ...
You're right.
I worry that we are in a last ditch effort to pevent the lights from going out.
Talk about Intelligent design is hate speech. It's politically incorrect. It must be silenced, and silenced now. If it can't be silenced, it must be destroyed. We must adhere to the thoughts of the great collective. There is no other alternative.
>>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."<<
Baloney. You seem to want desperately to put yourself at the same level, intellectually, as your creator.
As if...
Vaderetro and many others here are stark reminders that education, intelligence and wisdom are three distinct things, the least of which is education.
"We also have writings that claim Circe existed.
I sure hope so. We've met many times in my dreams and I'd like to think there's a chance......
"To the extent that ID has made actual claims -- irreducible complexity -- they have been disproven."
In your dreams it has.
I've read some of the arguments against Behe, and all they have proven to me is that the author doesn't understand the concept of irreducible complexity.
"To the extent that ID has made actual claims -- irreducible complexity -- they have been disproven."
In your dreams it has.
I've read some of the arguments against Behe, and all they have proven to me is that the author doesn't understand the concept of irreducible complexity.
It takes a lot of "faith" to make a billion year species jump like the Darwinists do.
From nothing to humans...now that's blind faith.
I notice you haven't checked out the Denton link.
Agree 100%. I always look forward to your creation stories in these threads. Keep up the good work!
"I notice you haven't checked out the Denton link."
Are you spying on me?
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me the approximate ratio of harmful to beneficial mutations for any species at any time anywhere -- your choice.
Can't you see that without that information your theory is worthless? How could the theory possibly be tested, either analytically or in simulation -- without that information?
Evolutionists don't have a clue about what is needed for a mathematically viable theory. The emporer is buck naked, folks!
I may just post my own thread to find out if any evolutionist here on FR has an answer to that question.
Your a pig. Or at least soon will be...
I've been fighting something that's making sure I don't get much sleep. Chalk it up to sleepy eyes and sluggish brain.
Correct.
On Tuesday: The Theory of Intelligent Design has been disproven [sic] and discredited.
Not quite. There is no evidence for an Intelligent Designer. There is a difference.
Premise: If any God or any "intelligent designer" exists, He/It is beyond the realm and scope of science.
True. He is supernatural and thus cannot be tested for using the tools of science.
Conclusion: The existence of an intelligent designer is unnecessary to explain life.
So far that is the case.
Hey, wait a minute! The premise and the conclusion look suspiciously alike!
Not quite. The premise you gave is that God cannot be tested for. The conclusion that an Intelligent Designer is unnecessary does not follow from the premise without numerous other steps in between, including being unable to find any evidence for the Designer, and not finding anything that could be "irreducibly complex" (which in itself is an impossibility, as it would be trying to prove a negative).
There are a number of problems with ID. It does not add anything to the body of scientific knowledge. It cannot be tested for (what would you look for?). It cannot be falsified (the Designer just did it that way). It cannot be used to make predictions (as the Designer could have built life in any old way He chose). It has absolutely no POSITIVE evidence in support of it. Instead, ID proponents rely on shooting at the walls of evolution in the mistaken belief that if the latter should fall ID wins by default. They don't realize that science doesn't work that way. Until you have evidence that supports ID (and only ID) you really don't have a dog in this hunt.
Evenings are starting to get cool here. No bites last night.
Interesting claim. Source?
By the virus whose DNA got stuck in cellular DNA? The cell that made the repeat error? Or is the cosmic ray zipping in from space really a thunderbolt from Zeus?
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.