Posted on 09/01/2005 8:52:24 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45
...he co-authored with theologian Jay W. Richards called "The Privileged Planet."
The book claims that Earth is so unique, it must have been created by an "intelligent designer."
One Iowa State professor, Hector Avalos, accused Gonzalez of having a hidden religious agenda...Gonzalez's academic archenemy at Iowa State is Hector Avalos, an associate professor of religious studies at Iowa State who is also the faculty adviser for the ISU Atheist and Agnostic Society.
"I didn't expect this level of vitriol," he says after hanging up. "This level of intense hostility, just knee-jerk emotional response from people...."
I think it's crazy how half the time these days when I load the latest posts page there's an ID thread that's not even from the ping list. There's a ton of these things!
So it`s all predicated on "Darwinism has nothing to do with the origin of life. It's the origin of species once life is already established."
Please explain how you hang the entire darwin theory on "once life is/was already established"
How did the first protein cell "establish" itself ?
So you`re the big kahuna?
I`m waiting for Da Man to reveal how the first protein cell made itself,on which darwinists claim everything grew and evolved from.
In fact,the whole world is waiting.
Why just the Earth the result of design? How about everything that exists in the entire universe being the result of intelligent design? Lookit, the discovery of fractal mathematics was a minor revolution in that its derivative "chaos theory" basically destroyed the concept of "random" for all "eternity". Chaos theory says that there is pattern, order, predictability even in "random" or high entropy events and processes.
A quick aside- just leave it to the mavens of the grant lackey science mafia to name a branch of mathematics that discovers order in ALL things "chaos theory". That's like naming a charging tiger "nice kitty" or a bald tire a "safety tire". What was the ideological mafia trying to hide?
Anyhow, this universe and all that contains is nothing if not one huge diagram of various time/space entities constructed and interacting LAWFULLY. Of course this will change our anthropomorphised picture of God as an old guy in a robe with an hourglass in one hand and a scythe in the other, but the major idea that we can derive from a LAWFUL universe is that it then becomes knowable.
Yes, humans can discover this puppy, figure it out and act accordingly as in the Book of Genesis injunction to subdue and utilize nature. That means that our minds do not need centralized priesthoods to interpret "spiritual" matters for us. We can then act as sentient sovereign independent free agents reflecting the lawfullness of all things. Priesthoods gave us human sacrifice, brahminic caste social divisions, slavery and birthright aristocracy overseers- everything that this nation revolted against. The result of that revolution of free will was the nation that has led all people of earth into new realms of economic, juridical and creative freedom.
Yes, there is a design. You have to lobotomize yourself not to see it.
Walter
/////////////////////////////////////////
walter alter artist - wiseguy - savant
____________________________
PORTFOLIO: http://infojockey.tripod.com/
PSYOPS: www.fortunecity.com/victorian/mill/1189
How do we know that evolution isn't the design?
If I pull a number out of a hat with a million numbers in it, the probability is 1x10-6 that I will get any one number. However, the probability is 1 that I will get a number. His idea presupposes that the Earth as it is today was the end goal, and that there are no alternatives.
Let me try this again. You seem to have missed it the first time. "Darwinism has nothing to do with the origin of life. It's the origin of species once life is already established."
Once again you fail to understand.Darwinism claims all life evolved.It evolved from something,darwinists do not know.They cannot say, all debate stops at a certain point in the past.That is intellectual dishonesty.Since they cannot explain how a the first protein invented itself then how do they predicate everything evolved from "established life".The natural instinct of every scientist is to say, "established from what? " Darwinists cannot enter the debate if they maintain there rigid theory of "we and you cannot go there".
Already punked you out OLL.I`m still waiting for your reply to the last time we met and this is the best you got this time? Pfft~
Because Natural Selection is a scientific theory, while ID is theory in the vernacular sense only. Science class is for science. Of course Natural Selection hasn't been proven -- you don't prove scientific theories. Newton's gravitational theory, relativity, thermodynamic theory, none have been proven, yet we live by them every day.
Why do evolutionists find this prospect so threatening?
I'm not threatened at all. Competing scientific theories only add to our understanding of the physical universe. It's no big deal to me if evolution is eventually supplanted by another scientific theory. I think it would be pretty interesting.
Yes, we will. Next 50 years will be biotech, like last 40 were electronics - and we better have well trained scientists to do it unless we are willing to sink to a has-been status. And mind you, this training is Darwinist, and not bibling. And then, in another 100 years we might indeed come to the intelligent design - when we learn to intelligently WRITE genomes. Why, we might even breed a bibler with a book of scriptures organically growing right out of its nose, so it would always be before its eyes.
> I`m still waiting for your reply to the last time we met
Did you ask one of your illucid questions again?
You do not understand the theory of evolution. It explains the diversity of species. It does not claim or even CARE about the origin of life. I promise you, it doesn't. Just as the theory of gravity doesn't explain the origin of matter, the theory of evolution does not explain the origin of life.
Hi Izzy,
We all loved uncle Carl Sagan on Johnny Carson telling us that there were "billions and billions of galaxies" seething with life containing planets. But old Carl, the science mafia mouthpiece, based his extrapolations on a theory of planetary formation that now has more holes than a wheel of swiss cheeze in a Baghdad ambush.
The disk accretion theory of planetary formation is dying a slow, reluctant death in the face of new data from observed solar systems. ALL systems discovered so far consist of large Jupiter, Saturn proto-sun bodies revolving very close to the parent star. These should really be considered binary star systems since the satellite body is so huge.
Disk accretion in no way accounts for the enigmatic "asteroid belt", the retrograde rotation of Venus, the various tilted axes of the planets or the lack of uniformity of impact craters- Moon, heavily impacted; Venus, Mars, no impacts, Mercury, heavily impacted; some planetary moons impacted (find a picture of Mimas!), some not, the lack of circularity of the planetary orbits, their interval distances from the sun, the size and composition of the planets themselves, and many other observations of the solar system that are exceptions to the disk accretion theory. Basically it's "disk accretion" is one huge duct tape and tie strap kluge, almost as stupid as "dark matter".
There is a competing theory of planetary formation first hypothesized by Immanuel Velikovsky in his best seller, "Worlds in Collision"- that planets can be ejected from the heart of a sun due to changes in the electrical properties of the sun interacting with the plasma Birkland currents of the parent galaxy (Try to explain the "barred spiral galaxy" in gravitational terms). Do a search on the term "electric universe" and discover that there are entire branches of science that need to be radically pruned in order to conform to observation.
Walter
/////////////////////////////////////////
walter alter artist - wiseguy - savant
____________________________
PORTFOLIO: http://infojockey.tripod.com/
PSYOPS: www.fortunecity.com/victorian/mill/1189
I guess it cannot possibly exist, since you don't know about it.
That's beside the point, though. If it WAS found, wouldn't that destroy this logic?
no, the IDers would then claim the universe was designed for life. Since we cannot (yet) detect other universes, they would assume themselves to be right without any way of testing their claims.
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.