Posted on 10/07/2005 4:03:19 AM PDT by gobucks
I don't propose to understand all of ID. I just know enough to know that it's not science. I won't even argue whether or not it's true. My ENTIRE argument is that it is not science.
I'll settle for one.
Unless you are on a school board, I doubt you will have much say in the actual debate.
It won't happen because no one is prepared to accept the deaths of nearly 6 billion people.
Or, for that matter, about the nature of numbers, random or otherwise. If random can not be proven, perhaps it is because there is no such phenomenon.
************
I couldn't agree more.
For the dumb-downed MTV generation, it might just be the ticket. Avoids all that pesky thinking, and stuff.
Frenetic, If you are talking about the bird beak thing, I believe we are only seeing an example of natural selection in that situation. These birds did not gain additional DNA/information, they simply selected for a certain beak or feathe type. I believe if you brought these "evolved" birds back into a larger (mainland) community, you would find that they would breed with the "old" type and that the offspring would be just like their ancestors. That is not the same as evolution (evolution says that new information is added by random mutations), although TOE advocates frequently use these types of things as examples of such.
A similar example: Canis lupus familiaris (domestic dog). While the many type of dogs look like examples of evolution, they are not. They are all dogs. No additional information (traits) were genetically added to get a Chiwawa or a Great Dane. Simply certain trains were selected for over and over and over. And if that male Chiwawa somehow impregnated the Great Dane female, you still have a Canis lupus familiaris dog.
I would argue that TOE truly breaks down at every level when evaluated objectively.
Regards.
You know, I haven't even read any of the responses on this thread -- but I wondered how many posts it would be before someone came along and perfectly illustrated the author's point #2, without any evidence of self-awareness whatever.
(Checking)
Well, #3 and #5 are pretty close already; #8 makes for a repeat-offender within the first ten posts; #16 is textbook.
Dan
*************
No one was keeping you from it. Feel free to post at any time.
************
Of course one can. One may or may not agree, but one can certainly understand.
It is interesting that the proponents of the theory of evolution seem to find ID very scary and threatening. Why is that? For the most part, those on the ID side don't fear the theory of evolution.
Most of us have learned all about the Greek and Roman gods at some point during our school years and that doesn't threaten us. Why can't ID be presented as a competing theory without striking fear in the hearts of dissenters?
Why do evolution and ID have to be an either/or choice? To the Christian who can't deal with evolution, I would ask: How do you deal with the concept of the Trinity? One God, or three? You can accept the fact that you don't understand it, can't you?
To the scientist, I would ask: What is light? A particle or a wave?
http://wardsci.com/product.asp_Q_pn_E_366005_A_Primordial+Soup:+Study+of+Evolution+Lab+Activity
"while the work of scientists like Redi and Pasteur disproved the reality of spontaneous generation of life under present-day conditions, it is believed that condition of the primordial Earth may have allowed it to occur."
this whole "study of Evolution" "teacher's guide" is dedicated to abiogenesis.
****************
I don't know. Fear is a powerful emotion.
Scientists do not oppose ID because it is wrong. They oppose it because it is impossible for it to be wrong.
There is no possible way to demonstrate that any given phenomenon or state of being is not the result of outside, invisible intervention.
The only thing of interest to science is whether a process can be the result of regular, ongoing rules.
Nope. It's Odin.
Thank you so much for the ping! It's a very engaging article!!!
First off: I don't believe I've ever read any "ID website". I have read the "scientific literature", including primary source material, on many subjects.
Second: I oppose people who make statements such as "If you believe Darwin, you're no Christian"
Third: I know MANY SCIENTISTS who support ID in one form or another, believing that Darwinian theory is simply not adequate to explain the way life apparently arose on Earth.
Fourth: stating that "micro-evolution is merely a subset of macro-evolution" says nothing about the veracity of Intelligent Design theory and subsets of ID.
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.