Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intelligent Design The Scientific Alternative to Evolution
THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC BIOETHICS QUARTERLY ^ | AUTUMN 2003 | William S. Harris and John H. Calvert

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 ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: crevolist; herewegoagain
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-219 next last
To: Tired_of_the_nonsense
Reason to disbelieve in evolution

Life comes from life.....so we cannot just appear (does it happen today?)

Life requires life to survive....so what did the first life live off of....rocks?

How do you evolve a sense (eyesight) if you do not have a sense

The start of the Big Bang is at least as troubling as an ever present GOD

If we can postulate what conditions were when life began, why can't we intelligently create life today? (isn't evolution a statistical accident?)

Evolution is an atheist story to explain creation
61 posted on 09/13/2005 7:17:22 PM PDT by Astromut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Tired_of_the_nonsense
... but [theory of evolution] doesn't negate God.

This is constantly pointed out to the creationists here but to no avail.

62 posted on 09/13/2005 7:21:50 PM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Astromut
Go back and read about 100 previous creation/evolution threads. You are seriously behind the curve here.

You simply will have to do better than this feeble first attempt.

63 posted on 09/13/2005 7:22:48 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Is this a good tagline?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Astromut
Evolution is an atheist story to explain creation

For the millionth time, evolution is not synonymous with atheism - it doesn't offer an explanation for the origin of life.

64 posted on 09/13/2005 7:28:29 PM PDT by JasonSC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Astromut
Life requires life to survive....so what did the first life live off of....rocks?

Utter nonsense.

65 posted on 09/13/2005 7:31:40 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Strawman and "bait and switch" logic.

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.

66 posted on 09/13/2005 7:36:06 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Tired_of_the_nonsense
I'd turn to twin studies to support this notion - a twin feels the pain of its twin, though they are seperated by great distances - suddenly the twin feels a pain in its chest, and low and behold, at that exact moment, the other had a heart attack.

Please cite those twin studies.

67 posted on 09/13/2005 7:39:07 PM PDT by MRMEAN (Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of congress;but I repeat myself. Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: js1138

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!


68 posted on 09/13/2005 7:43:47 PM PDT by Astromut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Astromut

Green plants, for one small example.


69 posted on 09/13/2005 7:49:29 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Astromut
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!

Son, you're speaking on tongues. Do your parents know you are using the computer tonight?

70 posted on 09/13/2005 7:49:51 PM PDT by onewhowatches
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa
You are confusing science and engineering.

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.

71 posted on 09/13/2005 7:50:40 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: onewhowatches

Obviously that was "speaking in tongues"


72 posted on 09/13/2005 7:51:20 PM PDT by onewhowatches
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"Green Plants"

But how did this first life find Green Plants without eyes?

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?
73 posted on 09/13/2005 7:53:46 PM PDT by Astromut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Astromut
"Green Plants" But how did this first life find Green Plants without eyes?

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.

74 posted on 09/13/2005 8:08:05 PM PDT by onewhowatches
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Astromut
"Green Plants" But how did this first life find Green Plants without eyes?

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.

75 posted on 09/13/2005 8:08:40 PM PDT by onewhowatches
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: onewhowatches
Rational?

If you were rational you would answer the question

What did the first life live off of?

Don't know?

Neither does Science.....and we are intelligent

Cosmology happened in a vacuum.....an Atheist one
76 posted on 09/13/2005 8:15:45 PM PDT by Astromut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Astromut
I can't quite figure out what you are trying to say.

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.

77 posted on 09/13/2005 8:20:47 PM PDT by onewhowatches
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice
I don't understand the need to push Intelligent Design. Belief in God requires only faith.
 
Anyone who demands that science acquiese to their religious beliefs needs to work less on their science and more on their faith.

 
In order to believe in anything you must have faith in something. The logic upon which all science rests requires the induction of certain presuppositions. These presuppositions can be proven neither right nor wrong. These are the rules of logic known to man since Plato. Many atheists, in their delusion, have chosen to ignore logic. Instead of addressing the fact that all logic must be based on premise, they choose instead to cloud the waters with a façade of intellectualism while ridiculing the very foundation of logic in which the pretend to operate. It may feel good to scoff at the idea of some greater intelligence. But let us summarize the proposed alternative: in the beginning there was a big bang, all laws of physics and mathematics immediately existed, and it was good. On the 10^99999999th day the laws of physics had created man. In essence, the atheist’s view of creation differs from the theist’s only in the impersonality of The Laws of Physics verses the Personality of God (and perhaps the time span).
 
Exodus 3:14 - God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM "; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.' "
 
John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.
 
The God of the Christian Bible is presented as the beginning of all logic, the premise upon which all existence rests. But this God is much greater than the god of the atheist (for the atheist does indeed have a premise, a logos, a god, or what ever you wish to call it). The God of the Bible cares about the recursive result of His premise, whereas the god of the atheist is just as uncaring as the atheist construes him to be.
 
"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties." - Sir Francis Bacon
78 posted on 09/13/2005 8:26:08 PM PDT by Perspicac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: onewhowatches

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.




79 posted on 09/13/2005 8:28:38 PM PDT by Astromut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Science is a process, not an absolute, and the results are explanations (theories) not "proof."

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.

80 posted on 09/13/2005 8:31:44 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-219 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson