Posted on 10/12/2005 10:43:32 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
Horse feces ping!
My wife doesn't think she was Intelligently Designed. She tells me that every month.
(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,
Furiously scribbling notes...
"My wife doesn't think she was Intelligently Designed"
Mine doesn't think I was! :)
Well, well; it seems Behe's Prized Canard (Irreducible Complexity) is a ruptured duck....
Good conservativs can agree to disagree on this issue. Of course, we will secretly believe a whole host of usavory things about those on the other side, but such is life I suppose.
So, we have to assume that the good professor who wrote this article is of the Darwinian mind given that he is in the evolution department.
I only last week, watched a video on intelligent design, not wanting to take it on it's face. I have always been skeptical about the theory of evolution.
I am no scientist, but I am not sure how one can make the leap to say that intelligent design is done, based soley on the biology of the secretory function of the bacterial flagellum. It does show that another function exists, but ID is a very new science in terms of discovery, and I think that it's sole purpose or functions are not yet known. I don't think we can dismiss it altogether just yet.
When you watch the function of the bacterial flagellum, it's make-up being much like a machine with independent parts of a whole, it is astounding that it would develop simply by evolutionary processes. Perhaps it did, but I have my doubts.
But were you staying at a Holiday Inn?
I don't get the criticism of Dr. Behe's acuity by conservatives. He is trying to illustrate scientifically that Darwinian theory is not the end all be all answer to the creation of life.
I am not saying that I totally agree with Dr. Behe, but I also think Darwin was a good man, just off target. Even Darwin himself admitted the possibility that discoveries may be made to negate his theory.
What does that mean?
That's actually not true. ID has been around for a very long time. It's a new name for an old, tired idea.
That's actually not true. ID has been around for a very long time. It's a new name for an old, tired idea.
So new that it doesn't have even one peer reviewed paper in the National Library of Medicine on the subject.
Now that's leading edge.
Maybe someday the Discovery Institute will hire some scientists to do actual research on ID, rather than hunt for ways to criticize evolution, and they'll publish a paper.
Waiting,.... Waiting .....
I think many here are using ID as a proxy for Genesis, which is silly, because of all the other creation myths out there which can claim ID as their own.
On the other hand, evolution is just plumb full of science except for the many empty holes in the chain. In those cases the hole is filled in with "theory".
Okay, but I still don't get why it seems to be dismissed as lunacy. How long has it been around exactly? Surely not as long as Darwinian theory.
I would think conservatives would be interested at least in hearing options other than evolution. I'm not saying that ID is fact, but I'm willing to hear other theories.
That ID video you watched probably gave you the sum total there is worth saying about ID, not counting the time spent on nonsense rhetoric and fallacies designed to distort and mislead. Put that up against the sum total of research supporting evolution - the vast mountains of confirmation supporting evolution - and then make an assessment. The evidence for evolution is more than the dozen pages of dumbed-down text that the average person might have vaguely paid attention to in HS sophomore bio class..
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.