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

To: Question_Assumptions; js1138
[js1138:]When Newton proposed his formulas for gravity, he could demonstrate that all data collected to date conformed. But the successful prediction of the return of Halley's comet, based on Newtons Laws, was considered the crowning confirmation. A similar kind of successful prediction confirmed Einstein's general relativity.

[Question_Assumptions:] This is an interesting pair of examples, because I think it corresponds pretty well to a possible relationship between evolution and ID. In many ways, Newton was correct but ultimately Newtonian physics is incomplete and cannot explain some very important phsyical pheonomena. That means that the average person can generate plenty of evidence to confirm Newton's theories and may never run into those places where Newtonian physics fails to properly explain the universe. Similarly, evolution may be the "Newtonian Physics" of biology, largely correct and incredibly useful but lacking in a few normally hidden but deeply meaningful ways.

Great analogy, Q.A.

I am usually on the Evolution side in these debates, because of the mountain of evidence supporting the propositions of (1) common descent of all life from a single ancestor, and (2) mutation acted upon by selection as the mechanism for speciation. And nothing in the TOE in any way conflicts with my (Jewish) faith. But your argument is an intersting one. I am not sure that we will ever find such evidence for ID-- I believe that God created us, but strongly suspect that His interactions with the world He made left few fingerprints that will be recognizable to us as such. But that doesn't mean that no one should look.

At this stage, I still think ID is more philosophy than science-- the ID'ers have yet to come up with a truly scientific way of looking for evidence of design. But that does not mean that they will not someday be able to come up with one. (I speak here of honest ID'ers, as opposed to Young Earth Creationists who have latched on to the label "ID" to try to smuggle Christianity into a biology class.)

1,078 posted on 09/23/2005 10:13:54 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1047 | View Replies ]


To: Lurking Libertarian
Great analogy, Q.A.

Except that it doesn't support ID.

ID is the biological equivalent of the Bible Code. It will find patterns for the simple reason that the kind of pattern it searches for can be found even in random data streams.

ID talks about specified complexity. Fine. Let ID follow the rules of science and specify what it expects to find before it finds it. That's the rule that science has to live by. You want to test for ID? tell me what you you expect to find before you find it. That's the rule natural selection has lived by for 150 years.

1,080 posted on 09/23/2005 10:45:28 AM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1078 | View Replies ]

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