Posted on 10/01/2005 5:09:16 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Professor focused on intelligent design as theology, not science, at Dover trial Friday.
HARRISBURG — If there is a God, then he could have made the monkey and the human with similar genetic material.
In the fifth day of Dover Area School District’s trial over intelligent design, John Haught, a Georgetown University theology professor, agreed that was true.
So, the idea that “we came from some monkey or ape is conjecture at this point?” Dover’s lead attorney Richard Thompson asked Haught under cross-examination.
Haught disagreed.
In a First Amendment battle in U.S. Middle District Court in Harrisburg, the Dover district is defending its decision last year to include intelligent design in its biology curriculum. Eleven parents filed suit against the district arguing the concept is a veiled attempt to force religion into science class.
On Friday, Thompson, in trying to cast doubt over the theory of evolution — referred to as the unifying concept of modern biology — raised the issue of common descent.
But Haught said that in the world of science, there is little debate that humans share a common ancestor.
The professor, who spoke deliberately and extensively on the philosophical differences between religion and science, was the day’s sole witness.
Questioned by plaintiffs’ attorney Alfred Wilcox, he said intelligent design’s basic premise — that the complexity of life defies all explanation but the existence of a designer — is essentially an old religious argument based on the 13th-century writings of St. Thomas Aquinas and the “watchmaker” analogy put forth in 1802 by British philosopher William Paley.
A person walking through a field stumbles upon a watch. It is carefully assembled and wouldn’t function without all its parts working together. The person’s inevitable conclusion? The watch must have a maker.
Under cross-examination, Thompson asked if there was a controversy in the scientific community over the idea of irreducible complexity — essentially, the watchmaker’s observation that if a single working part of an organism were to be removed, the entire system would cease to function.
Haught told him that there exists a controversy between Lehigh University biochemistry professor Michael Behe, who coined the term, and most of the scientific community.
“So, you agree there is a controversy?” Thompson asked.
While most of plaintiffs’ expert testimony this week focused on establishing that intelligent design is not science, Haught’s focused on why it’s theology.
Science asks, “How?” he said. Religion asks, “Why?”
As an example, Haught compared the differences to water boiling on the stove.
What causes it to boil?
Well, one could answer it’s because of rapidly vibrating water molecules.
Another answer could be because “I want a cup of tea,” Haught suggested.
Both are correct answers, but one doesn’t discount the other.
One doesn’t bring the subject of desiring tea into the study of molecular movement.
It’s also a mistake to say, Haught said, “It’s the molecular movement rather than I want tea.”
I named 3 or 4 fallacies in this thread. That's enough for now - until you people can solve those I need not list any more.
You still haven't addressed the alleged fallacy you cited that I pointed out was in error.
But, oh well, I guess we can conclude that the Intelligent Designer's prophet has spoken and we are left to attempt to interpret and understand the revealed wisdom on our own.
Really??
You know this how?? Your scientific education is what?? About an 8th grade education, I would guess.
The Grand Master is pleased.
You know, I don't even bother answering "ad hominem" posts to me. It's a waste of time. Ad hominem is usually an indicator of personality disorder, lack of argument and/or lack of vocabulary, or all three. Whichever, it always is a reflection on the perpetrator not the object.
And precisely how does that addition change the fact that Lewis refutes materialism? It doesn't. Materialism is fully refuted. If you like, I can post more proofs. I have a big library on philosophy. Materialism is indefnsible.
All you did was convolute the error. I'm not sure what error you refer to, but see my post 66.
All you did was convolute the error. I'm not sure what error you refer to, but see my post 66.
See post #51 and go from there.
I would love to see what the actual passages were, as this one appears to be very fragmented on the web, mostly on religious sites. Maybe I can find the text on Amazon.
Q represents a common relationship based on similarities. Therefore it has logical significance as follows:
Prediction: If X and Y share certain calculated similarities in their genetic codes, then they are of common descent.
Test: Compare the genomes of X and Y for predicted similarities.
Conclusion: X and Y do share the calculated similarities, therefore they are of common descent.
Corollary: If X and Y share common descent, it follows that they have a common ancestor, Q.
Here is another fallacy I didnt' mention: The attributes of a part cannot be applied to the whole.
For this to be the case, the statement would have to be 'X has Z attributes. X and Y are both part of Q. Therefore Y has Z attributes'. That is not what the statement says.
Notice the first part of the logical premise by evolutionistis: X is SIMILAR to Y in Z. Similar is not the same as IDENTICAL, so the fallacy of equovication also applies. Humans and giraffes have the same number of neck vertabrae - should we assume we share a common ancestor with them?
If this is a fallacy of equivocation, then what word was misconstrued? If you are claiming it is the use of the word 'identical' where 'similar' is meant, then I challenge you to show where I used the word 'identical'. And if you are saying 'similar' was used when 'identical' was meant, then allow me to clarify: Wherever I said 'similar' I MEANT 'similar'.
As for the giraffe, no we should not assume common ancestry based solely on the evidence you cite. But making such a claim after taking all of the evidence available into account is another story.
Here's another important point: The evolutionist is assuming that the existence of similarity in designs or processes is evidence AGAINST design, when in fact this type of evidence is perfectly consistent with a designer.
Scientifically, evolutionists don't care in the least if there was a designer or not. That of course isn't to say that there are no evolutionists out there that use evolution as a club to bash religion. Just that they are overstepping the realm of science when they do so.
Really, what about:
Ad hominem is usually an indicator of personality disorder, lack of argument and/or lack of vocabulary, or all three. Whichever, it always is a reflection on the perpetrator not the object.
Neowarwinists sure have rich imaginations. Too bad it has nothing to do with science
but you can drop the intellectually superior attitude
I think we are done since you are unable to coherently respond to the problem
Seems pretty ad hominem to me.
Hypocrite.
Two things:
1. Einstein helped us to understand that atomic measurements are relative. (i.e. During the Creative process, was the atomic clock clicking relative to the speed He produced the matter?)
2. Is light pliable in the hands of God (He instantly painted light across the heavens).
These are Biblical perspectives of the data. Scientists are considering these metaphysical possibilities as we speak. Remember, mankind is very stupid. That's why theories are ever changing.
Well, timing is everything. Anyway, CS Lewis is one of the most facile word-smiths who ever lived. He'll switch the meanings of words when you're distracted, and then he'll end up with a conclusion that seems okay, until you back up and trace his tricks. He's good. He's very good. (I'm not commenting on the quote in this thread, because before I could do that I would need to see a larger portion of the text.)
I made no claim about the reliability of math in the distant past. I claimed that Thane_Banquo based his use of math on a faulty premise.
I also fail to see the relationship between my challenge over statistical use and abiogenesis not being addressed by the ToE.
Say we have a one celled bacteria (laying aside problem of origins for a moment), I have yet to have an evolutionist explain to me precisely by what mechanism that information is added to the genome in order to "evolve" into the different phyla. Information MUST be a added. Where does it come from? How is it added?
Through heritable random mutations and changes in the allele frequencies of genetic traits, which through natural selection result in beneficial changes being encouraged through successful survival and reproduction, while detrimental or neutral changes are not so encouraged.
(Thane_Banquo pinged as a courtesy since I mentioned him in this post.)
And precisely how does that addition change the fact that Lewis refutes materialism? It doesn't. Materialism is fully refuted. If you like, I can post more proofs. I have a big library on philosophy. Materialism is indefnsible.
I have pieced together more of the Lewis quote. It is difficult, as many of the sites which have this quote do extensive piece-mealing, and almost all leave out the "nonsense" passage. The best I can do without my books (which are a thousand miles away at the moment), and by combining versions on two different sites, is:
if [naturalism] were true, every thing and event would, if we knew enough, be explicable without remainder … as a necessary product of the system … [But] all possible knowledge … depends on the validity of reasoning. If the feeling of certainty which we express by words like must be and therefore and since is a real perception of how things outside our own minds really ‘must’ be, well and good. But if this certainty is merely a feeling in our own minds and not a genuine insight into realities beyond them-—if it merely represents the way our minds happen to work—then we can have no knowledge. Unless human reasoning is valid, no science can be true. It follows that no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be real insight. A theory, which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid, that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument which proved that no argument was sound--a proof that there are no such things as proofs--which is nonsense. [pp. 11-26?]http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/2003_fall/cleveland.html and http://www.makeoutcity.com/Archives/2005/08/16/192933/But Naturalism, as commonly held, is precisely a theory of this sort. The mind, like every other particular thing or event, is supposed to be simply the product of the Total System. It is supposed to be that and nothing more, to have no power whatever of 'going on of its own accord'. And the Total System is not supposed to be rational. All thoughts whatever are therefore the results of irrational causes, and nothing more than that. [p. 28] [C.S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1953)].
Now that we have more of an idea of what the full passage says, let me ask something. Do you really expect one passage from a philosopher, loaded with opinion and "philosophy" to invalidate all of science? Especially when "if" is used at least six times?
I'll leave something to the other folks on the thread, but the passage "A theory, which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court" relies on the phrase "but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid." Where do you see this in science? Scientists go to great lengths to avoid errors of various kinds.
In some previous posts you indicate the bible is the primary or only source of wisdom for you, so I think I'll end my part in the discussion at this point.
Yes, it's real. It also isn't applicable of the statement that you want to use it on, as I pointed out in my direct reply to your post that makes that assertion. In fact it took me a while to decide if you were misapplying the fallacy of composition or had reversed the fallacy of division. I finally assumed the former, and apparently that bears out as correct.
If God did such a thing, then He is a liar for giving us a universe full of false information.
Let your brainwashing go through the dryer. It might work out the wrinkles. :-)
See post #92.
100
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.