Posted on 10/20/2005 8:00:33 PM PDT by Rudder
I ignored the threat for a long time. I groaned at the letters to the editor in our local paper that dismissed evolution as "just a theory" and proclaimed the superiority of "Intelligent Design" (ID) to explain the world around us. When a particular emeritus professor pestered me with e-mails asking how I explained this or that aspect of the fossil record (How could a flying bird evolve from a non-flying species? Did I think feathered dinosaurs were real?), I answered him time and again—until I realized that he was reading neither my answers nor the references I suggested. When this same man stood up, yet again, after a lecture to read a "question" that was actually a prepared statement about ID, I rolled my eyes.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanscientist.org ...
Excuse me. Post 28.
YEC INTREP - arrogant Clymer ALERT
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.
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.
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....
Spoken with your best high school science teacher voice. Don't you get tired of something you read in a textbook?
There probably are, but there are more problems with every other theory based on the evidence today.
PARROTING something you read in a textbook.
"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.
So I have to swallow a bucket of evolutionary s*** because it has fewer worms in it...?
...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.
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?
I can process Clymer...but not the rest of your reply.
You mean there's a possibility that ID might be true...?
Well...yes, until you come up with something that has more data to support the alternative.
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.
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?
So much for Heisenberg and his Uncertainty Principle....
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.