Here is a bunch of threads referencing ID
ping
Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
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 ...
Show me how. If there are plenty of ways, you should be able to tell us about one of them, right?
"I do not however do it out of fear of retribution of a God"
So many people reject a sixth-grader's concept of religion, apparently thinking that's all there is.
And they seem often to be the same people who slam others for being inadequately versed in the physical sciences.
Ironic.
In response to your question, though, I'd rather have my kid watched by someone who is good because they're hoping they make it into paradise, because:
(1) As Will and Ariel Durant point out, "Does history warrant the conclusion that religion is necessary to morality -- that a natural ethic is too weak to withstand the savagery that lurks under civilization and emerges in our dreams, crimes, and wars? ... There is no significant example in history, before our time, of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion."
In plain language, people who are good because they want their own regard and that of their fellows have a history of caving when the steel starts smacking the flesh. They don't march into the Colosseum singing and giving thanks as the lions munch on them.
and (2) They have their eyes on eternity, rather than presuming any evils they do in this life will be erased with their physical death.
Such people are far more reliable than those who rely on a faux morality with no sounder foundation than, "I think..."
"Such people are far more reliable than those who rely on a faux morality with no sounder foundation than, "I think..."
Faith is just as much of an "I think" as anything else, some people just happen to regard it on a higher plane.
I don't think I've ever addressed a post to you that was not civil, Right Wing Professor. I'm terribly sorry that you're having such a bad day that you have forgotten your manners.
If I have misremembered or misattributed a quote, than I am perfectly prepared to admit that I am in error.
The point I am making, with which you may disagree if you choose, is that the root of the controversy is in philosophy, not biology.
Puzzles me, too.
"Faith is just as much of an "I think" as anything else, some people just happen to regard it on a higher plane."
Sorry, but that's a factual error.
Guys like Galileo? That kind of scientist?
WOW!!! You make many a leap to assume what I believe and what I don't believe. How is my belief in God = "you do not see God as a possibility"?
The 6K'ers will simply tell you "It doesn't matter". Light created in transit means that God is tricking us. God gave us these brians to USE, and when we use them, the 6K'ers say that the desire to understand our surroundings "don't matter". THAT is the problem I have with the 6K'ers and the SAME argument that most uniformed people have against any teaching of "intelligent design".
You posted an imflammitory, fabricated quote that defames a wholw family, and you think RWP was rude? If you are truely sorry, ask the mods to remove your post.
Quibble: I.D. hasn't been tested. I don't know how it could be done, but it strikes me that those in the I.D. debate should be able to suggest a way by which genetically manipulated species could be detected.
If they're not sure how to go about it, there's enough manipulation by human scientists that they could look for a possible touchstone between naturally evolved and genetically manipulated there.
I.D. is intriguing philosophy and theologically -- I'm inclined from a philosophic point of view to think it's likely true. But until scientific studies are proposed and carried out to develop methods of identifying intelligently made from naturally evolved organisms there it's not science.
Even if there is no pre-human I.D., such studies may be useful. In the future, we may need to determine whether some pandemic is the result of random mutation or biological warfare.
This is the United States. Why should people stop performing any experiments that interest them? We don't have an Authority with the power to "adopt" Intelligent Design theory to the exclusion of other concepts.
Agreed.
Of course we didn't. This is exactly the sort of thinking we need to put in charge of the new science curriculum
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.
You know, I believe I should request that the post be removed. 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.
Posting untrue material with callous disregard as to its truth or falsity is a lie in my book. And trying to smear people who disagree with you by suggesting prurient motivation, using a non existent 'quote', is bad manners.
It would be a minor miracle if your quote is accurate. I couldn't find any of the phrases on google or dogpile.
I have requested that it be removed. I clearly used poor judgment.
Here is a bunch of threads referencing ID
ping
Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
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.