Biology expert testifies. Professor: Intelligent design is creationism.

York Dispatch ^ | 9/27/05 | Christina Kauffman

[Dimensio]

Except that it is naturally occurring.

Wrong. Evolution does not care at all how life came to exist. The very first life forms could have been zap-poofed into existence by a divine agent and evolution theory would not be false for it.

[metmom]

In some if the previous creation/evolution threads that has happened but I don't remember specific names. I could go through them again but it would take some time.

[Windsong]

Good analogy re: ferrari engine. It is baffling that they see an engineering blueprint like the human cell (complete with Golgi Apparatus, Mitochondria, ATP pathways, etc) and say "it made itself".

Fruitcakes. All of em.

[Dr. Hog]

First, I made no claims about being a person who believes in ID, but more importantly you have just thrown something out there as a "scientific theory" about life creation that is as "off the wall" as any of other stuff being condemned on here. If all there is to creating life is what you suggest, it should be easy to do in a lab. Do we have any experiment that verifies methane gas/electricity and primordial soup equals earth life?

[narby]

Do what engineers do [evolution], break large jobs up into many small easily handled jobs [cells], start with the smallest jobs possible [bacteria/virii/prions], use trial and error to determine the best fit [mutation and selection], base new designs on modified old designs [common descent], and take a very long time [3.8 billion years].

Bravo.

[Thatcherite]

The Evolutionist believes that there is no life after death and therefore can rape and pillage as his inclination desires. The believer, on the other hand, through the scripture, knows the result of this and is compelled to live virtuously since death will be done away with.

Please let us all know if you ever get a crisis of faith. Perhaps you should also notify your local police department that the only thing stopping you from venturing on a life of rapine and slaughter is your religious beliefs. They may want to keep a close eye on you.

[b_sharp]

"Just saying so does not make it so. The Evolutionist can justify rape and pillage as survival of the fittest at any time. I do not consider rape and pillage as meaningless.

Survival of the fittest does not mean the survival of the most violent. Any fitness has to result in a reproductive advantage. Please, don't build silly little straw structures.

[Dimensio]

It is baffling that they see an engineering blueprint like the human cell (complete with Golgi Apparatus, Mitochondria, ATP pathways, etc) and say "it made itself".

When rational arguments fail (and on the ID/Creationism side, that's right at the start of the debate), resort to logical fallacies. This one is a double, an "argument from incredulity" applied to a "strawman".

[narby]

and say "it made itself".

It didn't make itself. It evolved after zillions of generations.

[Thatcherite]

Survival of the fittest does not mean the survival of the most violent.

However, "survival of the most violent" is exactly the impression that one gets from the Old Testament, so you can see where these people get their ideas from.

[b_sharp]

"You know, I really dislike these people. It's too bad they've been thrown a slow pitch right over the plate that they'll knock out of the park. It gives them respectability that I wish they couldn't get.

Try not to build false dichotomies with organizations Narby. Even bad things can on occasion do good things.

[spetznaz]

Intelligent design IS creationism by a different name.

It would be like calling evolution 'progressive adaptation,' and trying to pass it off as something different.

[Thatcherite]

Oh please. That is one of the silliest things I've read yet on FR.

It is not the first time we've seen that argument, and it won't be the last. It appears at least once a month I reckon, and usually attracts applause from others on the creationist side. I've never yet seen that argument flamed by a creationist (but in general creationists appear to be very careful not to flame the obviously flawed arguments of other creationists; it's like any lie is good enough, if it rejects evolution.)

[narby]

Even bad things can on occasion do good things.

Oh, I know. It's just that the continued survival of these organizations requires that they occasionally have successes. And the IDers have just handed them an easy success. I'm sure they'll all gather donations for years after this based on their apparent ability to deliver.

[xzins]

The prof's a political hack saying what he said for partisan purposes.

ID is not creationism.

It doesn't even say that the Intelligent Designer has to be sentient.....it could be an organizing principle.

[King Prout]

inquiry: exactly which "evolutionist" can you accurately cite as having ever said that a human cell "made itself"?

you would do well to attempt to read and understand what is actually stated by your opponents before trying to refute it.

[narby]

but in general creationists appear to be very careful not to flame the obviously flawed arguments of other creationists; it's like any lie is good enough, if it rejects evolution.

That's very similar to how the left operates. They refuse to flame the real whackos on their side, like Cindy Sheehan when she says stuff like the foriegn fighters in Iraq are "freedom fighters". They just ignore it, because the whacko is on their side.

[Vive ut Vivas]

The believer, on the other hand, through the scripture, knows the result of this and is compelled to live virtuously since death will be done away with.

Because the Inquisition sure was a fun and virtuous time in history.

[Thatcherite]

I think that ID is a legitimate theory, it is not a scientific one though.

The word you are looking for is conjecture or hypothesis, not theory. To call ID a theory devalues real scientific theories, which are the end-point and ultimate purpose of scientific investigation. Nothing in science ranks higher than a theory.