Skip to comments.
Why scientists dismiss 'intelligent design' - It would ‘become the death of science’
MSNBC ^
| 23 Sept 2005
| Ker Than
Posted on 09/28/2005 6:31:31 AM PDT by gobucks
(snip) But in order to attract converts and win over critics, a new scientific theory must be enticing. It must offer something that its competitors lack. That something may be simplicity (snip). Or it could be sheer explanatory power, which was what allowed evolution to become a widely accepted theory with no serious detractors among reputable scientists.
So what does ID offer? What can it explain that evolution can't?
(snip) Irreducible Complexity (snip)
Darwin himself admitted that if an example of irreducible complexity were ever found, his theory of natural selection would crumble.
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down," Darwin wrote.
Yet no true examples of irreducible complexity have ever been found. The concept is rejected by the majority of the scientific community. (snip)
A necessary and often unstated flipside to this is that if an irreducibly complex system contains within it a smaller set of parts that could be used for some other function, then the system was never really irreducibly complex to begin with.
It's like saying in physics that atoms are the fundamental building blocks of matter only to discover, as physicists have, that atoms are themselves made up of even smaller and more fundamental components.
This flipside makes the concept of irreducible complexity testable, giving it a scientific virtue that other aspects of ID lack.
"The logic of their argument is you have these multipart systems, and that the parts within them are useless on their own," said Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown University in Rhode Island. "The instant that I or anybody else finds a subset of parts that has a function, that argument is destroyed."
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: anothercrevothread; cluelessdweebs; crevolist; crevorepublic; darwin; enoughalready; evolution; intelligentdesign; superstition
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 261-274 next last
To: Williams
Read the article and found it silly. Some bacteria can digest nylon, which is synthetic so there are 3 possible explanations for this and scientists "prefer" the third one (that a nylon eating gene recently evolved) for some very unconvincing reasons. The other argument against intelligent design was (I kid you not) that it is "boring" because it would answer everything. Seems to me that there is a missing possibility. The "nylonase" gene could exist because it served another purpose -- maybe to break down something that was similar to nylon.
101
posted on
09/28/2005 9:03:49 AM PDT
by
Celtjew Libertarian
(Shake Hands with the Serpent: Poetry by Charles Lipsig aka Celtjew http://books.lulu.com/lipsig)
To: js1138
The matter is in the hands of the Almighty Mod :-).
102
posted on
09/28/2005 9:04:29 AM PDT
by
Tax-chick
(Start the revolution - I'll bring the tea and muffins!)
To: wallcrawlr
aw crap...it formatted correctly on my screen prior to posting...
sorry about that.
103
posted on
09/28/2005 9:04:40 AM PDT
by
wallcrawlr
(http://www.bionicear.com)
To: Tax-chick
I believe it was Julian Huxley (but it might have been a different Huxley) who said, "Darwin's theory allowed us to get rid of God, and God was really getting in the way of our sex lives." My memory of the exacting wording and source of the quote is sufficiently vague that it's not verifiable without more effort than it's worth.
**************
I googled it, but couldn't find it among any of his writings available online. Which doesn't really mean anything. Nor does it justify you being accused of lying.
104
posted on
09/28/2005 9:04:47 AM PDT
by
trisham
(Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
To: Critical Bill
What do you mean? I thought Rolexes evolved into existence.
105
posted on
09/28/2005 9:05:40 AM PDT
by
The Ghost of FReepers Past
("Let the wicked man forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the Lord" Is 55:7)
To: js1138
Actually, there could be evidence of manipulation, but there isn't, which is why the Discovery Institute isn't participating in the trial. They know there is no way to test ID. I'm unclear here.... Do you mean there is no way to identify manipulation. Or that there could be evidence, but none has turned up.
And would that be turned up or turned up yet, but there's still possibilities that haven't been looked at? Seems there are a lot of species and a lot of genes to consider.
106
posted on
09/28/2005 9:06:19 AM PDT
by
Celtjew Libertarian
(Shake Hands with the Serpent: Poetry by Charles Lipsig aka Celtjew http://books.lulu.com/lipsig)
To: trisham
Nor does it justify you being accused of lying.No, I don't think so, either, but I'm not going to have a Spasm over it. Given how vague my memory was, it was a poor decision to offer something so fuzzy.
107
posted on
09/28/2005 9:07:16 AM PDT
by
Tax-chick
(Start the revolution - I'll bring the tea and muffins!)
To: gobucks
I.D. is based entirely in the metaphysical, positing that nature works through an unprovable supernatural being. It is NOT science, nor does it belong in any science curriculum.
What makes you think, btw, that ALL nonreligious folks are leftists?
108
posted on
09/28/2005 9:09:23 AM PDT
by
Clemenza
(Giuliani endorsed Clinton and Cuomo)
To: Tax-chick
I have requested that it be removed. Then I retract and apologize for posting my belief that you were lying.
As a matter of policy, I find it's so easy to check quoted material out these days, and the likelihood of being refuted is so high if one doesn't and is wrong, that I try to check out even things I'm sure I remember.
To: jihadjim
Of course then there is that sticky problem of when time began and where did all that matter come from that was involved in the big bang. Unlike IDers who see no problem issuing NOYB explanations for whence the intelligence came. Are you postulating that the explanation you mock scientists for not currently having is one they will never understand?
110
posted on
09/28/2005 9:10:19 AM PDT
by
laredo44
(Liberty is not the problem)
To: trisham
I could say something equivalent about you, and it would show up on google in a few days. Inflammatory quotes by famous people will show up.
It's a false quote, even if it was qualified with an "I'm not sure".
Why would you say something derogatory about an entire family if you're not sure?
111
posted on
09/28/2005 9:10:20 AM PDT
by
js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
To: Tax-chick; trisham
you stated you weren't sure about the quote when you originally posted it and have even offered to remove it.
you are more admirable and honorable than any of the hundreds of postings done by others (that will remain nameless) stating false/misleading/disparaging/inflammatory comments on Christianity.
thanks for taking the high road.
112
posted on
09/28/2005 9:10:20 AM PDT
by
wallcrawlr
(http://www.bionicear.com)
To: Tax-chick
No, I don't think so, either, but I'm not going to have a Spasm over it. Given how vague my memory was, it was a poor decision to offer something so fuzzy.****************
I know much more about Julian Huxley now. I consider it a gift to my continuing education. :)
113
posted on
09/28/2005 9:10:35 AM PDT
by
trisham
(Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
To: js1138
I could say something equivalent about you, and it would show up on google in a few days. Inflammatory quotes by famous people will show up.It's a false quote, even if it was qualified with an "I'm not sure".
Why would you say something derogatory about an entire family if you're not sure?
****************
I didn't say it. Someone else did and was called a liar.
114
posted on
09/28/2005 9:14:29 AM PDT
by
trisham
(Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
To: wallcrawlr; Tax-chick
you stated you weren't sure about the quote when you originally posted it and have even offered to remove it. you are more admirable and honorable than any of the hundreds of postings done by others (that will remain nameless) stating false/misleading/disparaging/inflammatory comments on Christianity.
thanks for taking the high road.
****************
Agreed.
115
posted on
09/28/2005 9:16:20 AM PDT
by
trisham
(Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
To: trisham; js1138; Tax-chick
Tax-chick did the right thing. When she did, I asked the moderator to remove my response, and retracted my accusation. I would hope that this is also the right thing, and the matter is closed. I request that you treat it as such.
To: Celtjew Libertarian
Do you mean there is no way to identify manipulation. The kinds of manipulation being done in laboratories would cause trouble if found in the wild. Pig genes in tomatoes and such.
The problem for ID is that everything found in the wild supports a common genetic lineage, a family tree.
The greater problem with ID is that it doesn't know how to predict anomalies, and hasn't predicted any. I suppose if we found a stray gene, someone would try to say, Ah Ha!
But predications after the fact don't carry much weight. What is it that ID would look for? None of the ID advocates have been able to come up with anything.
117
posted on
09/28/2005 9:17:53 AM PDT
by
js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
To: Clemenza
I.D. is based entirely in the metaphysical, positing that nature works through an unprovable supernatural being. It is NOT science, nor does it belong in any science curriculum.One can't put it much plainer than that.
Just what is it some folks don't get about science?
It's a method, folks, not Revealed Truth.
Sheesh!
118
posted on
09/28/2005 9:19:09 AM PDT
by
headsonpikes
(The Liberal Party of Canada are not b*stards - b*stards have mothers!)
To: gobucks
"The most basic problem [with ID] is that it's utterly boring," said William Provine, a science historian at Cornell University in New York. "Everything that's complicated or interesting about biology has a very simple explanation: ID did it."< snip>
It begins with complexity a Supreme Being and also ends there.
He doesnt realize how close to the truth he is.
119
posted on
09/28/2005 9:20:38 AM PDT
by
wallcrawlr
(http://www.bionicear.com)
To: trisham
The phrase "why would you" was a figure of speech. It wasn't directed literally at you.
All of us have made claims in the heat of argument that we had to retract, or should have retracted. This has been done, and the case is settled.
120
posted on
09/28/2005 9:21:20 AM PDT
by
js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 261-274 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson