Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
Posted on 10/07/2005 4:03:19 AM PDT by gobucks
All of those subjects are important. We are living in a society where technology is key to our competitiveness. Sadly, we are turning into a society where the understanding of our technology is in the hands of fewer and fewer people. That is not a good position to be in.
This article is truly hard to refute, except by saying "it's dumb" ...
ID will win out for the very reasons that he states, just as Relativity won out over Newtonian physics. Most of the time Newtonian mechanics works just fine, but it is in the breach that it is proven insufficient.
You certainly can't have the Bible and evolution. The Bible clearly states man was created by GOD - not evolved from apes. How do you reconcile that?
I'm not sure if I see which side of the creationist arguemetn you are on, but I will say that creationism and genetics do not mix. Genetics is supported by evolution and is used to establish ancestral relationships. If you believe in creationism, then you cannot, in good faith, understand genetics.
http://www.atheists.org/evolution/
How about this?
Are you saying there can be no advances in technology without the fervent belief in the TOE?
I'm glad you highlighted the Darwinism...exit paragraph.
There are too many folk who seem to accept that this is just an attempt to add a few sentences to a general biology class.
It is an attempt to replace science with theology.
Upthread there was a post pointing out that, of all the reasons listed for id "winning", none was that it's scientifically correct!
I'll go find it and post a ref
Oh. Well since you say so, what you've said about the integrity of the scientific method MUST be true, and I MUST by faith accept its veracity.
Conflict over, yea!
Wrong.
An atheist organisation can say anything it wants...you need to get a ref from the field itself.
Relativity did not 'win out' over Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics is the basic material taught in undergraduate science classes. Relativity is a refinement of Newton for more extreme conditions.
Your statement theat ID will 'win' over evolution has two problems when compared to your physics example. First, by making this statement, you are arguing that evolution is real and ID further refines evolution. In other words, you are saying that ID incorporates evolution which means you support evolution.
Secondly, and more importantly, you are saying ID offers and extrapolation of evolution. It offers testable predictions that evolution does not have. Unfortunately, you don't understand that ID makes no testable predictions and offers no new insight. It is a supposition at best and has no observed evidence to support it. Nor does it have any means of testing to falsify it. Therefore, it is not science and it does not 'fill the gaps.' Remember, EVERY scientific theory has gaps, but that is not sufficient to invalidate those theories.
"Becuase it is mathematically provable that there exist no computable test that can differentiate between a random sequence and a highly complex sequence."
But that may be because a random sequence doesn't really exist in the first place and that they are ALL highly complex sequences. Have you been trapped by your own logic?
How can it be when it doesn't explain anything.
One REALLY important thing a theory about the history of life has to address is how did animals end up where they are today. For example how did marcupials end up predominantly in australia, why does Hawaii have no indiginous mammals. Why does it have the plantlife it does?
How can ID take over from evolution when evolution presents a very good answer for these questions, but ID hasn't even put forward any answer to this question?
I am saying that advancement in science is limited when "God did it" becomes an explanation. And in biology, yes, advances will be limited because evolution is the framework through which much of biology is based. I guess you are not worried about the next avian flue pandemic because evolution doesn't work. Species were created accoriding to their kind and don't evolve into other kinds. So the avian flu virus cannot evolve into a form that is human transmittable. I guess you can say that to the 50 million people who died last time such a virus EVOLVED.
Actually that's God.
It was post 64 by Kjobs.
"Why is it non-scientific? First because it is not testable: it is impossible to design a test which potentially falsifies ..."
--->
Astronomers, Cosmologists, and other Physicists have been working on explaining certain other non-biological natural phenomena which similarly have no 100% bullet-proof "testable", way to do experiments and recover definitive data from those tests. For one very simple example, consider the problem of what happens to matter and information when it enters a "Black Hole" ... yet we endorse this type of research as being "science" though there is (apparently) no physical way to verify such hypotheses.
Many other high energy physics and cosmology endeavors are similarly working in the blind most of the time.
What is the difference between such research and ID hypotheses and research?
The flu virus is still a flu virus, isn't it? It didn't mutate into a frog or spider, did it?
Nop. This means that you have not developed a model to distinguish between random and seqwuential. It is intellectual bias that prevents this from being developing.
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.