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 ...
I think evolution is a silly notion.
More power to you, you can think whatever you want, it doesn't change reality.
That's EXACTLY what I say about evolution! I'm glad we see eye-to-eye on this!
Yup, I agree we're each entitled to our own opinions. The difference is evolutionists aren't filing lawsuits to teach science in your church.
I thought it was athetist parents filing lawsuits to not teach ID. I didn't realize Christians were the ones filing lawsuits. I apologize as I was apparently misinformed.
Simply impossible in one step, but no one believe it happened in one step, or even a thousand steps. Natural replicators can be brewed up in any college chemistry lab . Chemistry does not have to be close to life to achieve self-replication. No one knows what steps might have led to replicating cells, so no one can calculate the odds. Perhaps it is impossible, but it is not outside the realm of science to find out.
You might be surprised to hear that many of the scientists I have worked with support ID, believing that evolution leaves out important factors.
It is not that they deny evolution occurs, any more than they would deny that E= 1/2 m v^2 is a good approximation to the more accurate representation of Einstein. To many, ID seems as if it might be a more accurate refinement of the way life developed on earth, and they believe that there are very important difficulties posed by a strict "survival of the fittest" explanation.
You were.
From today's York Dispatch
Bryan Rehm's family used to be able to count on friendly exchanges in restaurants or other public places around Dover. But on the witness stand yesterday, he told the court how different the Dover area community became once it was divided by the battle over intelligent design.
The kids at school tell his daughter she "came from monkeys," he said.
They ask her why her parents are helping to sue their school district.
Rehm, who said he and his wife are active in their church and vacation Bible school, said people call him an atheist.
And they have said worse things than that, but Rehm said he wouldn't repeat them in court.
Huh? I didn't say anything about "one step". The analogy is NOT that the monkey produces King Lear in a single keystroke.
That's why these threads are so worthless, everyone's debating their own strawmen.
So which Christians are the ones who filed the lawsuit? And what was the basis of the lawsuit?
The basis of the lawsuit is that the school board policy violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Gosh, you're discussing the suit, but you don't know what it's about?
But it wouldn't hurt anyone to be a little more complete, would it?
Click THE JULIAN HUXLEY LIE. You'll find this fellow sounds a LOT like a rational leftist, and this article discusses in huge detail how Julian was originally 'slandered'. Oh and this:
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption.
The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality.
We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.
The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning--the Christian meaning, they insisted--of the world.
There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever." [Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means, 1937]
So, Tax Chick, you were not too far off - there is a Huxley out there who liked to 'confute' these people..
Of course, the dude who compiled all this is an evolution defender with lots of free time on his hands, and he does mental pretzels showing that the Huxley's are really ok people. From his point of view, it seems the philosophy of scientific materialism is disconnected from the philosophy of meaninglessness. That evolution is somehow, 'meaningful'. But I didn't get how. I get the distinct impression that evolution is firmly rooted in meaningless, in unadulterated materialism.
Anyway, it was nice to see all the civility...
I repeat for you, and others:
You might be surprised to hear that many of the scientists I have worked with support ID, believing that evolution leaves out important factors. I'm talking about only the top shelf types you would be proud to have working in your university or company.
It is not that they deny evolution occurs, any more than they would deny that E= 1/2 m v^2 is a good approximation to the more accurate representation of Einstein. To many, ID seems as if it might be a more accurate refinement of the way life developed on earth, and they believe that there are very important difficulties posed by a strict "survival of the fittest" explanation.
I know exactly what it is about - atheists making sure students believe God doesn't exist. Does that sum it up?
"The hysteria about "the death of science" and "ruin the schools" (what's this we've got now?) ... as if no one will ever do a chemistry experiment or a physics experiment again ... makes it clear that the basis of the controversy is religion."
You are so correct, and just like liberals, evolutionists found a way for the tax payers to pay for their religion, "public schools".
No. You evidently can't read. Have your mom read what I just posted to you, and get back to me.
It would be interesting to see if the "meaningless, purposeless, non-created" universe is propounded by the majority of evolutionists or not. By evolutionists I don't mean Joe Sixpack who believes in the TOE but the scientists and academicians who actually teach, write about and publicize it.
My mom is dead. You liberals certainly are cold-blooded.
Okay - I'm pinging the list again - Moral Absolutes Ping - but THIS time I'm including your names in the "to" box...
Too much pinging, too little time, and I'm just not evolved enough....
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
(thanks, gobucks - all I can say is "duh".)
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.