Posted on 10/21/2005 10:26:36 AM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
ID says God played no hand in evolution and may be dead.
I don't care what you think ID says. I just would like to know the facts.
Those were the facts. The fact is the creos are pushing ID which is pushing teaching school children that God may be dead since we have seen no evidence of God in the evolution of man.
I do not understand your table at all. Please explain or just simply ask me the questions you want me to answer.
Let him "condemn" it all he wants. Then let him explain it later to the One who counts.
The table gives some of the basic tenents of ID. Do you support or do you denounce those tenents and ID?
"The table gives some of the basic tenents of ID. Do you support or do you denounce those tenents and ID?"
Here is an excerpt from an ID website:
Intelligent Design
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.
In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.
ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.
Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.
Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement that includes a scientific research program for investigating intelligent causes and that challenges naturalistic explanations of origins which currently drive science education and research.
In general I am ok with the above. I believe that God created the universe and human beings for a purpose. I also believe that the earth is billions of years old and that the creation of life started from small and simple and "evolved" to larger and complex by divine direction. This is not a new concept and was apparently held by both GK Chesterton and C.S. Lewis, two popular Christian writers. This idea predates the ID movement.
I absoolutely do NOT believe that children should be taught that God is Dead, and I don't know where you got that from, other than a couple of posts on another thread where I, and a Darwinist, exchanged humor about Frederick Nietsche.
So the Name of the Designer is revealed: Giovanni Giacomo Casanova.
Welcome the the cre-evo threads. Got a hard hat and a flame proof suit?
Damn, I can't believe I just called called Richard Harter - John Harter. Sorry Richard. Too many Johns at t.o.
No you don't. What you want to know are the facts, or approximation of facts that agree with your belief system.
Since they are both immaculate conceptions of constipated university professors?
======
Since they are both immaculate conceptions of constipated university professors?
Big Bang is a part of science. It may be undergoing a modification, but it is not undergoing a modification because of CS or ID criticism! It is the normal working of science to learn and advance, and to discard any theory that does not pass repeated tests.
And to refer to the theory of evolution as "pseudoDarwinism" establishes your starting point way out on the fringe. What, did you hope nobody here would notice your bias? No scientific criticism, no attempt to reason, just an ad hominem attack. That reflects poorly on you and your position.
As far as "immaculate conceptions of constipated university professors" -- I think you have gone farther around the bend than I can possibly follow. That is neither a rational argument nor a reasoned criticism. It also does not do you any credit.
That you should sully FR with this kind of reasoning bodes ill for FR, and for all of us.
I never said that... you had better look again...
And to refer to the theory of evolution as "pseudoDarwinism" establishes your starting point way out on the fringe.
=====
I never said that... you had better look again...
The reason for this post is that in post #394 you replied to Mach9:
Am I missing something? When did Big Bang and pseudoDarwinism become "valid science"?
Since they are both immaculate conceptions of constipated university professors?
That is the reason in #395 I responded to both of you. I did my best identify which comment I was responding to.
PseudoDarwinism means false Darwinism--not that Darwinism is false.
A poorly thought out definition. ID proponents claim to be utterly disinterested in the identity of the designer. Yet here a proposed definition is the detection of "patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose."
How can the "purpose" of an allegedly designed object be gleaned without an understanding of the intent, goals, methods, history, predilections, and hence identity of the designer?
Add this to ID's minor problems of "no definition of design" and "no repeatable methodology for detecting design" and you have a "hunch-accompanied-by-a-notion" -- not a scientific theory.
"How can the "purpose" of an allegedly designed object be gleaned without an understanding of the intent, goals, methods, history, predilections, and hence identity of the designer?"
Good point. We can look at "purpose" in different ways. If one believes that the record of evidence indicates Intelligent Design, then I don't think that it is too large a jump to speculate that the end result, another intelligent being (man)who also creates, thinks abstractly, has self awareness and free will, was his purpose. Why God created man is another purpose that I don't think can be gleaned from scientific evidence. He may have created man just for giggles, we need to look elsewhere for that answer.
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.