Posted on 08/28/2005 2:14:36 PM PDT by AZLiberty
...
Is "intelligent design" a legitimate school of scientific thought? Is there something to it, or have these people been taken in by one of the most ingenious hoaxes in the history of science? Wouldn't such a hoax be impossible? No. Here's how it has been done.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Respected astronomer and crackpot antievolutionist Fred Hoyle wasted a lot of computer power doing something like this in the early 80s. He was apparently modeling the odds of a simple modern cell jumping together all at once from amino acids, or some such silliness. It was part of his thesis that half a cell is no good and would promptly disassemble before it could be further built up.
Of course, his simple components did not jump all at once into a cell. The problem is, only creationists believe in the "poofed all at once" model. Dirt to man in one afternoon.
Possibilities he did not address:
Should have said "... from simpler precursors" to make a new point and not repeat a previous one.
Is a "precursor" something like hitting your thumb with a hammer or muffing a golf shot?
Yeah! Work that into the conversation!
That's OK. I've BEEN UP IN THE BLACK HELICOPTERS! OK?
The quote, itself, was a fabrication. However, as I stated earlier it was something he certainly could have said . I knew him for a few months and he was a flaming commie and a hater of Israel (the "warts" of my earlier post). For a Jew I found that both disturbing and senseless. I believe he was a New York Jew and I have never understood why so many Jews are politically on the opposite side from what it seems they should be, especially those in the liberal Northeast. I am often left with the impression after discussions with these people that they feel guilty about something, but I can't identify it.
Perhaps some of our Jewish freepers can enlighten me about this.
No. The author says he found the eggs in dirt. I could find nothing at the MSUN site that would corroborate his story.
A note to only you and the other Christians on this thread. You are casting your pearls before swine. All you are going to get for your trouble are insults. I appreciate the effort you are putting forth, but I'm afraid you are wasting your time.
Anyone who can look at the Taj Mahal and insist their was no architect is beyond hope, but such a person would be much more reasonable, than the man observing this awesome grand universe and its complexity, and then denying a creator. They would rather follow a moron who believed whales could evolve from bears and that blacks were an inferior race, than believe in a Creator.
Darwin's great disciple, Karl Marx, did his best to build a godless society. Thankfully, our Founding Fathers established this nation on the principle that there is a Creator and that we have inalienable rights that come from Him, not the state.
The problem with the rabid secularist is not an intellectual problem, but a sin problem. "The fool hath said in his heart [not his head] that there is no God."
God's Word gives us the perfect commentary for our day:
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
Rom 1:19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
Rom 1:21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man; and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,
Rom 1:25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
Rom 1:27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
Rom 1:29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,
Rom 1:30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;
Rom 1:32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
That's why they give themselves the out of "spontaneously arising?" If someone comes back with the evolution of self-replicating molecules, the "prize committee" could always say, "you didn't show how it could have arisen spontaneously."
I have been thinking about my engineer experience and maybe I really have been exposed to a "bad" cross section of engineers. I spent most of my time in the oil patch, so the engineers mainly came from places like Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri and Kansas, a good piece of the Bible belt and maybe that's the answer.
Nonetheless, those that I met from many National Laboratories also operated "creationistically", ORNL, INEL, PETC, METC, BETC, NREL, etc.. I have had little experience with the east coast or west coast National Laboratories.
I am no scientist. I am a Christian. I acknowledge that evolutionary theory may have some merit. I have my questions about evolution, but given my lack of scientific background, I am probably not competent to even formulate those questions properly for those who would give them serious consideration.
I also recognize that what I believe, I believe by faith, not fact. That's what makes it faith. My religious belief is not science, not likely provable by science, but perhaps disprovable by science (but my faith says that it won't be disproven-- that's why I believe what I believe).
I believe in the Bible as the inspired word of God, but I cannot say that every word was intended to be interpreted literally. I believe there is room for symbolism in much of scripture.
I believe God is all powerful, and created the universe for His own reasons, most of which are beyond my (and because I am a fairly intelligent guy, relative to others) and most others' understanding. I believe God is all knowing and all good and loving, although I confess I cannot understand everything about Him.
If God is all powerful, and if among God's purposes was for us to discover and love Him by faith, rather than by His demand or by making Himself obvious to us, then He may have made the world just as it is-- ambiguous and problematic as to its origins, purposes and destiny.
God may have (but need not have, and in fact may not have) created the world in 6 days, or less if He were so inclined. I believe that however God created the world, the day after He finished, it looked older than it was-- perhaps millions or billions of years older, by human reckoning. Alternatively, He may have started the universe by a Big Bang and "cultivated" it to its current state, but my faith suggests not.
I acknowledge the shortcomings that many may see in my belief system, but I suggest that every belief system, even those purportedly based in science, contains shortcomings large enough to allow a total destruction of their validity.
Where does this statement of belief get me (us)? Perhaps nowhere, but hopefully a little further toward a mutual tolerance of others' beliefs (and by tolerance I mean true tolerance, not like that of the left, but an attitude that allows others to have their beliefs without ridicule, while not requiring anyone to adhere one's own beliefs).
Have a great week...
Actually it's Rather simple to do.
(Amusing that Wycowboy is accusing anti-creationists of being "like democrats" and at the same time using the same tactics the MSM/DUmmies used against the FR Pajamadeen)
Must? Where do you get must? "Must" mechanical engineers keep up with the latest in electrical engineering? "Must" an architect who specializes in building apartments and condos "not avoid" designing factories?
Scientists work on whatever research problems are intriguing to them, or whatever they think is worth their time, whatever is necessary to provide the groundwork for solving other problems they'd like to address, and etc.
A scientist isn't "avoiding" problems A and B just because he or she decides to work on X and Y instead.
C: Yes, and perhaps a willingness to ignore what doesn't fit, thereby taking what does fit on "faith."
I can point to lots of evidence that has altered our understanding of evolution (or just about any scientific theory), since Darwin's time, but what's the evidence that's been ignored because it doesn't fit?
What is typically referred to as the "intelligent design" movement asserts that the complexity of biological systems implies such systems were directly designed by an intelligent agent.
Einstein most definitely DID NOT believe that. He believed, as do many scientists, that the laws of nature were intelligently designed to work as well as they work. This belief, which in no way contradicts modern science, IS NOT what is commonly referred to as "intelligent design," even though it would seem to be given the name.
The label, "intelligent design," is as much an abuse of language as is the "intelligent design" movement an abuse of science.
Intelligent design: bad science, bad philosophy, bad theology, and bad philology.
As defined and advocated by the Discovery Institute, it is. They have, unfortunately, co-opted a perfectly good philosophical term and applied it to their junk science.
In the context of the political debate, when someone uses the term, "ID," they usually mean it in the way the Discovery Institute means it. It is a real shame, but that's the way it is.
Oh No!
Bad, bad, bad, bad...
Ever watch a Woody Allen movie?
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.