Absolute proof of intelligent design! How could anyone believe in evolution after such a proof. QED!
Good Hunting... from Varmint Al
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 ...
Intelligent Design is not science hummm.. OK, tell it toe this guy: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_physci_jmorris
Good Hunting... from Varmint Al
Evolution is not science. Show me otherwise.
Congressman Billybob mistakenly implies that the existance of a prime mover means that Intelligent Design is as an alternative to evolution. There's no problem believing that God created everything. The problem is when belief in God is taken as refuting evolution.
Take gravity for example. Scientists don't fully understand the underpinnings of gravity. But, it would be non-scientific to dispute the law of gravity with the argument that God (or an intelligent designer) makes things fall. It's equally non-scientific to dipute evolution with the argument that an Intelligent Designer created the universe.
ID is faith, not science.
My understanding of "intelligent design" is that it is a particular theory, advanced in opposition to evolution, that contents there must have been some a priori intelligent designer of supreme intelligence for much of what we find in life, as opposed to it all having evolved by the accident of mutations and natural selection.
My understanding of Einstein's belief is that he deeply believed in something profound beyond our practical or scientific knowledge. This quote from Einstein captures this:
A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and this alone, I am a deeply religious man.I am quite unable to get from this 'something we cannot penetrate' (Einstein's terms) to 'postulating an a priori designer of supreme intelligence' (intelligent design, as I understand it).
A prime mover need not be intelligent nor a designer.
I am not persuaded that Dennett is dumb, not that he is perpetrating a hoax. I doubt that either is the case.
I am at a loss to see how these quotes do that.
Rather, as you concluded in this post, they show something more akin to deism or pantheism.
ID has been taken over by the creationists. It is no longer compatible with evolution.
Why. He has no expertise in this subject.
This thread (and you) is pathetic.
One might argue that a belief in evolution requires at least a bit of faith also, despite the impressive claims of its adherents.
On the other hand, in a fox hole or bomb shelter or concentration camp, not one evolution believing soul has been found to cry out to Darwin, Einstein or Dennett.
I see you read only the creationists' website and have done NO study of evolution.
I'm not aware of any evidence for this contention, and I've read a good bit of Einstein's correspondence on issues philosophical. While Einstein was a theist, everything I've seen from him indicates that he believed in a seamless continuity of natural law. By contrast ID asserts that there are "seams" in what is explainable by natural law which must have been stitched together by the "Intelligent Designer". (Although they'll never say when or how the "stitching" occurred.)
"This is sheer speculation and is not science."
It is not only sheer speculation, it is sheer idiocy and ignorance! :)
Ah the eye. Another one of God's botched inventions ...
------------------------------------------------
Evolution of the Eye:
When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they often point to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years?
If evolution occurs through gradations, the critics say, how could it have created the separate parts of the eye -- the lens, the retina, the pupil, and so forth -- since none of these structures by themselves would make vision possible? In other words, what good is five percent of an eye?
Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.
Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.
Bilogists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.
Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.
I take it that means you agree that your source has no expertise in this subject ...
To quote you, "Brilliant rebuttal."
On the other hand, people in the arms of prostitutes presumably cry out for God.
Now that is a fact.
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.