Skip to comments.
Being Stalked by Intelligent Design
American Scientist ^
| Nov-Dec Issue 2005
| Pat Shipman
Posted on 10/20/2005 8:00:33 PM PDT by Rudder
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 141-157 next last
To: staytrue
I regularly watch O'Reilly and agree with him mostly, but one time he had a scientist on his show and the topic was evolution-intelligent design. He was arguing with the scientist about how intelligent design should be in the SCIENCE class, because most Americans believe in God and, thus, it is their right to know about intelligent design in a science class. I kind of found it amusing that Bill there unwittingly admitted the UNscientific nature of intelligent design.
Most people believe in "up" and "down", but they don't really exist. Your "up" might be waaaay "down" to those in China, for example. So, should the science class teach stars are "up" there?
61
posted on
10/20/2005 9:13:51 PM PDT
by
sagar
To: shuckmaster
62
posted on
10/20/2005 9:14:28 PM PDT
by
freebilly
(Go USF Baseball!)
To: Rudder
YEC INTREP - arrogant Clymer ALERT
63
posted on
10/20/2005 9:14:30 PM PDT
by
LiteKeeper
(Beware the secularization of America)
To: sagar
I think you are looking at it all wrong. All science does is make us increasingly aware of how little we really know about anything. There are any number of questions that science will never be able to answer for us. In fact you could argue that science and faith are so intertwined that one could not exist without the other.
64
posted on
10/20/2005 9:16:02 PM PDT
by
willyd
(Good Fences Make Good Neighbors)
To: freebilly
Well, Galileo proved, ...He did nothing of the sort. Proof is a deductive concept. Scientific theories are never proved but may be or disproved by evidence. When the evidence aligns with the theory we say it confirms the theory, but this isn't the same as proof.
Now you know.
65
posted on
10/20/2005 9:17:48 PM PDT
by
edsheppa
To: staytrue
I don't like to mock scientists. I mock those who adhere to bad science. So far as I can tell, evolution is bad science....
66
posted on
10/20/2005 9:18:02 PM PDT
by
freebilly
(Go USF Baseball!)
To: edsheppa
When the evidence aligns with the theory we say it confirms the theory, but this isn't the same as proof.Spoken with your best high school science teacher voice. Don't you get tired of something you read in a textbook?
67
posted on
10/20/2005 9:19:31 PM PDT
by
freebilly
(Go USF Baseball!)
To: GregoTX
There are allot of scientists, that say that their are problems with evolutionary theory. There probably are, but there are more problems with every other theory based on the evidence today.
68
posted on
10/20/2005 9:20:04 PM PDT
by
staytrue
To: edsheppa
PARROTING something you read in a textbook.
69
posted on
10/20/2005 9:20:22 PM PDT
by
freebilly
(Go USF Baseball!)
To: willyd
"All science does is make us increasingly aware of how little we really know about anything. There are any number of questions that science will never be able to answer for us."
Given all the tools required, science will be able to answer everything in nature. Otherwise, it wouldn't be science.
"In fact you could argue that science and faith are so intertwined that one could not exist without the other."
I agree. They both are required. But I don't think they are intertwined. One involves realistic models and detaches itself from the humanity, while other is totally supernatural and feeds on human imagination.
70
posted on
10/20/2005 9:22:31 PM PDT
by
sagar
To: staytrue
but there are more problems with every other theory based on the evidence todaySo I have to swallow a bucket of evolutionary s*** because it has fewer worms in it...?
71
posted on
10/20/2005 9:22:46 PM PDT
by
freebilly
(Go USF Baseball!)
To: freebilly
Aristolean theory
...was before science existed.
Gravity has been especially problematic. It's everywhere we go and Newton is credited with it's "discovery." Yet, it was only recently that a group of scientists announced they thought they had built the right detector that could measure gravity.
No theory is proven in science, just the probabilities of certain events being observed are presented. Why is that? Because there may just exist an exception which cannot be ruled out with 100% of confidence.
72
posted on
10/20/2005 9:23:36 PM PDT
by
Rudder
To: staytrue
that is a thin theory. monkeys and humans share 99.84 percent of the same DNA yet they can't reproduce with eachother. so if one animal has a quantum leap as you say, who is it going to reproduce with? There would have to be a large number of simultaneous quantum leaps each exhibiting very specific genetic sequences to make that quantum leap sustainable as a new species. based on your own statement, you said that the probability of a quantum leap happening was statistically small, but could happen in certain circumstances when the population of the animal numbered in the millions...what is the statistical probability that this same quantum leap would happen simultaneously at the same time, in the same geographic area with enough frequency that a sustainable new species arose from it? would you at least admit that a monkey has a better chance of randomly typing war on peace on a typewriter?
73
posted on
10/20/2005 9:25:31 PM PDT
by
willyd
(Good Fences Make Good Neighbors)
To: LiteKeeper
YEC INTREP - arrogant Clymer ALERTI can process Clymer...but not the rest of your reply.
74
posted on
10/20/2005 9:27:11 PM PDT
by
Rudder
To: Rudder
Because there may just exist an exception which cannot be ruled out with 100% of confidence.You mean there's a possibility that ID might be true...?
75
posted on
10/20/2005 9:27:52 PM PDT
by
freebilly
(Go USF Baseball!)
To: freebilly
So I have to swallow a bucket of evolutionary s*** because it has fewer worms in it...?Well...yes, until you come up with something that has more data to support the alternative.
76
posted on
10/20/2005 9:31:46 PM PDT
by
Rudder
To: willyd
monkeys and humans share 99.84 percent of the same DNA yet they can't reproduce with eachother This is a theory of yours that has yet to be tested. I would say that if a million couplings took place, one or two might have viable offspring.
77
posted on
10/20/2005 9:31:56 PM PDT
by
staytrue
To: Rudder
If one takes a critical view of ourselves, and examines the details of our "design", one may suspect that we were designed by a committee.
We might be advised to consider, as our understanding of life and biology and genes, and our technical powers advance, to embark on intelligent redesign.
Improvements to suggest anyone?
78
posted on
10/20/2005 9:33:23 PM PDT
by
dr huer
To: staytrue
There are allot of scientists that would disagree. Not all, but there are a growing number. That is why I agreed with Dover, when they said to the students that many scientists agree with evolution, and some disagree and see problems with it. They said that creation or ID will not be taught in the class, but books on those topics will be available in the library. The wham-o.... the ACLU had a fit and people dont want students to even have access to other ideas other than evolution. It is a force fed science that will not allow challenges if somehow God could be referred. Karl Marx would be proud. I disagree with the ACLU's stance on this. I disagree with your stance. I am sure their are other topics on FR we would agree, but not this one.
79
posted on
10/20/2005 9:33:53 PM PDT
by
GregoTX
(The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.)
To: Rudder
The answer is experimental design, blind studies, randomization of subjects, analysis of variance, counter-balanced assignment of experimental conditions, etc., etc., peer review and demonstration of repeated replicability of results...not to mention empricial observation. So much for Heisenberg and his Uncertainty Principle....
80
posted on
10/20/2005 9:33:53 PM PDT
by
freebilly
(Go USF Baseball!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 141-157 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson