Posted on 09/13/2005 4:20:14 PM PDT by rob777
Sooner or later everyone asks the question, “Where do we come from?” The answer carries profound, life-molding implications. Until this question is answered we cannot solve another fundamental question that is key to ethics, religion, and the meaning of life (if any): “Are we here for a purpose?” There are two possible answers: the universe and life and its diversity—natural phenomena—are the product of 1) a combination of only natural laws and chance (the “naturalistic hypothesis)”; or 2) a combination of law, chance, and design—the activity of a mind or some form of intelligence that has the power to manipulate matter and energy (the “design hypothesis”). The latter produces purpose, the former does not.
The naturalistic hypothesis is supported by theories of chemical evolution (with respect to the origin of the universe and of life) and by Darwinian evolution (with respect to the origin of the diversity of life). The design hypothesis is supported by the purposeful characteristics of exceedingly complex natural systems that are frequently described as “fine tuned.” Each hypothesis is densely laden with philosophical and religious baggage, and clear thinking is required in order to separate the
science from the philosophy, the evidence from the implications, and reality from imagination.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at intelligentdesignnetwork.org ...
This is constantly pointed out to the creationists here but to no avail.
You simply will have to do better than this feeble first attempt.
For the millionth time, evolution is not synonymous with atheism - it doesn't offer an explanation for the origin of life.
Utter nonsense.
Actually neither accusation is accurate -- the real problem is that you don't understand the logic of your original statement.
A system DESIGNED BY HUMANS is fundamentally different from one supposedly designed by some nebulous entity.
Why? You can't get away with just saying so: you need to give some details on why human-designed things would be fundamentally different from something designed by a non-human. I'm guessing that you can't do it.
I'm talking about explaining "acts of nature", not "acts of man".
Of course you are. But do you understand that in so doing you're simply operating on an assumption? The very nature of a "designed item" precludes its being an "act of nature." But to simply assume that all things are "acts of nature" -- in the face of definite examples to the contrary -- places your assumption on shaky ground. There are both philosophical and scientific issues in play here, and I don't think you understand them.
And there is no such animal as "existence of design criteria" in nature.
Here again you're simply assuming a valid (see definition above) hypothesis out of existence.
Please cite those twin studies.
So when Wimpy first evolved....so was the hamburger....please
Some single celled life form evolved without breakfast...Thats a Miracle!
And If evolution does not explain the origins of life...then Intelligent Design is REQUIRED!
Green plants, for one small example.
Some single celled life form evolved without breakfast...Thats a Miracle!
And If evolution does not explain the origins of life...then Intelligent Design is REQUIRED!
Son, you're speaking on tongues. Do your parents know you are using the computer tonight?
To the contrary, I specifically addressed the differences between science and engineering in my previous post. It is quite true that ID has more in common with engineering than a "science" of undirected natural processes. That has no bearing on the truth or falsity of an ID hypothesis, however.
ID "theory" has no explanation of human insulin production by recombinant DNA techniques. Feel free to prove me wrong by making a deductive argument from an assumption of design whose conclusion is human insulin production by recombinant DNA techniques.
Your challenge makes no sense. After all, a process of intelligent design is precisely the explanation for why human insulin can be produced by certain strains of bacteria and yeast.
It would seem that if the processes of science are unable to yield the correct answer in a situation like this, then "science" should perhaps be a bit more humble in its claims.
And if the processes of science are able to yield the correct answer, then the claims that "ID is not testable" are false.
Either way, there is a gap that "scientists" in this debate are unwilling to face.
Obviously that was "speaking in tongues"
Eat it without a Mouth?
Digest it without a stomach?
When Life first evolved.....a source of food needed to evolve with it. And that source of food needed a source of food......and so on
Is there life today that can survive without biological substance?
Well, you sure killed off this thread, didn't you? Take a deep breath, step back from the keyboard, and come back when you are more rational.
Eat it without a Mouth?
Digest it without a stomach?
When Life first evolved.....a source of food needed to evolve with it. And that source of food needed a source of food......and so on
Is there life today that can survive without biological substance?
Well, you sure killed off this thread, didn't you? Take a deep breath, step back from the keyboard, and come back when you are more rational.
Cosmology happened in a vacuum.....an Atheist one
What does that mean? Are you coming in here and just lashing out at anyone who presents a scientific argument or what?
Please take the time to formulate a rational argument, and you will do better here.
Platonic Method....Questions
I asked you one....you do not reply
I ask again...what did the first life live off of?
Animals don't eat rocks!
So when life first began...it required other life at the same time....and that life required life...
So did a whole ECOSYSTEM evolve all at once?
Unlikely
Please reply without insult.
Well, yes, but your long discussion of "faith and belief" as opposed to science, is not particularly thorough, as you don't address the question of how to deal with design if it actually does occur in nature. Could science properly explain a "designed" phenomenon? If not, wouldn't the problem lie with the science, and not the hypothesis?
To motivate the discussion, suppose an airplane just flew over your house. How would science explain this phenomenon? Would a scientist attempt to explain the existence of the airplane by proposing some sequence of naturalistic processes, or would he simply cut to the chase and say, "it was designed and built by the nice people at Boeing?"
The scientist would of course immediately settle on the latter explanation. The question is: did the scientist make a valid scientific judgement? The answer could be yes or no, depending on what limits you draw around that term "scientific."
Aside from that, the example shows that it's not intrinsically impossible to recognize "design," though it may be more or less easy to do so in different disciplines.
In the case of biological life, we know that it's possible for intelligent agents (i.e., humans) to affect the development of life in various ways, so we cannot automatically rule out the efficacy of a more general design hypothesis. The question is whether there's a way to "know design when we see it," similar to how the scientist recognized that the airplane was a "designed object."
One of the standard complaints about ID is that it's "not testable." Conversely, we might also suggest a test of the ability of scientific processes to detect design in cases where we know for a fact that design is a factor -- for example, genetically engineered, insulin-producing bacteria.
As I noted to edsheppa above, if science is unable to detect design in cases where we know it's there, then there's a problem with the science. One thing is certain: if science a priori excludes a design hypothesis in a case like this, science will get the wrong answer, due to a serious mistake in defining the problem. In this scenario, a science that can't get the right answer in cases where we know the right answer, has no business making derogatory claims about the very thing on which it fails.
On the other hand, if science is able to detect design, then we know that the "not testable" claim is wrong as a general principle, and again "science" has no business making sweeping claims of "non-testability."
In either case, it is simply an established fact that "design" is a valid hypothesis, because we humans practice design on a daily basis. (Verification of the hypothesis in any given case is, of course, another matter entirely). As such, it would appear that the insistence that an Intelligent Design hypothesis is "unscientific" is completely untenable.
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.