Posted on 10/24/2005 5:27:52 PM PDT by gobucks
PRAGUE, Czech Republic -- Hundreds of supporters of "intelligent design" theory gathered in Prague in the first such conference in eastern Europe, but Czech scholars boycotted the event insisting it had no scientific credence.
About 700 scientists from Africa, Europe and the United States attended Saturday's "Darwin and Design" conference to press their contention that evolution cannot fully explain the origins of life or the emergence of highly complex species.
"It is a step beyond Darwin," said Carole Thaxton of Atlanta, a biologist who lived with her husband, Charles, in Prague in the 1990s and was one of the organizers of the event.
"The point is to show that there in fact is intelligence in the universe," she said. The participants, who included experts in mathematics, molecular biology and biochemistry, "are all people who independently came to the same conclusion," she said.
Among the panelists was Stephen C. Meyer, a fellow at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that represents many scholars who support intelligent design.
He said intelligent design was "based upon scientific evidence and discoveries in fields such as biochemistry, molecular biology, paleontology and astrophysics."
Many leading Czech thinkers, however, boycotted the conference, insisting the theory - which is being debated in the United States - is scientifically groundless.
Intelligent design holds that life is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying a higher power must have had a hand. Critics contend it is repackaged creationism and improper to include in modern scientific education.
Vaclav Paces, chairman of the Czech Academy of Sciences, called the conference "useless."
"The fact that we cannot yet explain the origin of life on Earth does not mean that there is (a) God who created it," Paces was quoted as telling the Czech news agency CTK.
ID observes that man evolved over millions of years from simple organisms AND that there is no evidence of intervention by God in man's evolution AND therefore, we should teach our children that God may be dead.
See Mr. Behe's sworn testimony.
A little difficult, but you can foward reference using View Replies.
See post #92.
(Hint, its not missing.)
"Anybody find that missing link, yet?
See post #92.
(Hint, its not missing.)"
So the scientists were lying all that time?
Please expound.
===========
See post #92.
(Hint, its not missing.)"
===========
So the scientists were lying all that time?
Please expound.
===========
I posted substantial data in #92. Others have posted substantial data as well.
But all you have done in about your last six posts is nitpick; you have posted no substance at all. Unless you can come up with something better, why should I bother to respond?
I think you are probably a YEC and that you won't believe any data which contradicts your beliefs, no matter how well-documented.
Fine. No problem. Believe what you wish.
But what you are doing is trying to bend the long-established rules of science, with no good reason, and trying to destroy the public's confidence in science's methods and findings, only to try to wedge your beliefs in through the back door.
Do you really think that this will benefit either you or your beliefs in the long run?
Its not missing.
Mostly within the past 60 years, our culture has had a wondrous gift bestowed upon us - fossils showing the evolution of our species from an upright-walking creature with a brain the size of an ape's. And in the same time we've been gifted with other wonders - the understanding of the genetic code (which was a great test of evolution's validity -- it passed) and the inner workings of all life necessary to learn more and more about the mechanisms and origins of our planet's life,
and the deeper understandings about our universe and the structure of matter that allow us to understand the mechanisms and origins of the universe we inhabit.
Actually, I see no reason why God could not have created our beautiful world via evolution.
However, the more I read about evolution, there is really no firm evidence to back it up.
There is a large and growing number of sciences who are very skeptical of the evolution theory.
These are the curious scientists, who will look at new evidence, and are not stuck in the past.
For your reading pleasure re: fossils:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=119
In those days the cell was a black box, a mystery. But in the 20th century, scientists were able to open that black box and peek inside. There they found not a simple blob but a world of complex circuits, miniaturized motors, and digital code. We now know that even the simplest functional cell is almost unfathomably complex, containing at least 250 genes and their corresponding proteins.
Explains New Zealand geneticist Michael Denton, each cell is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms.
The odds of a primordial soup randomly burping up even one protein strand of moderate length are dramatically less than 1 chance in 10150.
Its hard to grasp how long these odds areone followed by 150 zeros. We know that a lot of strange things can happen in a place as big and old as our universe, but as mathematician and philosopher William Dembski explains in the Cambridge University Press book The Design Inference, the universe isnt remotely big enough, old enough, or fast enough to generate that much complexity.
Nor have attempts to explain this complexity as the natural outworking of the laws of nature proven successful. The best explanation? Intelligent Design.
excerpt from http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...nd=view&id=2350
Yeah? And your breath stinks.
Darwin had nothing to do with the origin *of life* and when he is applied to such, the resulting "science" is a mockery to what is plainly observable.
Life gives birth to life, intelligence to intelligence and until you can prove/show otherwise then all the proposed change-over-time solutions to life's origins are wishful thinking.
And ironically the attempts at starting life up are a model for what you think you're disproving: intelligent design.
Sorry if my terminology isn't just right.
I was using organic in a more generic way to describe life as a living and self-replicating organism. To my knowledge that line has not been crossed.
Am I wrong?
Well is that what an ID scientist would say about himself?
If not, it is possible that you have created a straw man.
I personally don't believe that the ID starting point and Genesis are related in any way.
Which is what I also have been taught, which is why I am confused when folks use Darwin in the same sentence with an origin of life idea.
"I'm not sure there have been any serious experiments attempting to replicate the origin of life on earth in any of the ways it has been believed to have happened. Many experiments have tested components of it. The reason for not replicating the whole shebang is pretty simple - you'd need a lab the size of the earth in which you recreated the primordial atmosphere. If you could do this, I suspect you'd get your replication in a fairly "short" time, like maybe a hundred million years."
Ah, the special ingredient: time ..."a hundred million years." And that's supposed to do the trick? Somehow? While nobody is looking? In some isolated place? When in fact we cannot replicate such a perfect primordial ennvironment in any lab?
That is why ID says the sophistication of what has begun points to the need for more than time and chance, i.e., a designer.
Time plus a lab can't do it but a primordial environment plus time could?
It sure appears to me that in this case time is being given too big a job, one that it cannot accomplish. That's why I am sympathetic to ID as an observation from nature (not Genesis) that the problem and the solution don't match.
Proof by assertion.
And ironically the attempts at starting life up are a model for what you think you're disproving: intelligent design.
Lovely variant on a standard creationist canard.
Creationist: evolution has never been proven. You can't even duplicate it in a lab.
Scientist: sure I can, look, I grow this population under selective pressure, it changes, that's evolution.
Creationist: but you did it in a lab. It's a designed experiment! That's noi evolution, it's ID!
Well put.
"We're always clear that the origin of life is on the bleeding edge of biological science."
Again, well put. That's what I've been taught.(if I understand you correctly)
The introducing of Darwin to explain the origin of life is probably one of the most frustrating misconceptions in this whole discussion.
"This is clearly impossible, as multicelled organisms are way too complex to spontaneously come together from random arrangements of organic chemicals."
"way too complex" Interesting choice of words given our topic under discussion. There are limits and boundaries for scientific conclusions to be viable.
ThirstyMan: Every experiment to prove spontaneous generation is initiated by a scientist yielding the very model of intelligent design.
jennyp: Now this I consider an evil argument. (But it's subtle, so I don't blame you for using it.) If the very fact that an experiment is intelligently designed invalidates any finding of non-design in nature, then that automatically invalidates every experiment that has ever been made about anything.
Yes you are very right. In our situation though, the lab environment, primordial as has been said, must have been able to exist without the aid of a controller/designer. From what I've seen so far that environment cannot have existed outside of a lab (due to the presence of hydrogen?).
Nice discussion jennyp, thanks. Sorry for my disjointed participation, my wife went in for surgery yesterday and my 'puter time is very limited.
Interesting. Thanks for pointing that out!
WT,
You posted a chart to me about Ev/ID. It is interesting,
but why did you post to me?
ampu
I do believe in a Creator. Does that make me a creationist?
Secondly, if you look at how jennyp answered my questions, she dialogued with me and lit a path for me to follow. I did not get labeled and dismissed by her as I did with you.
If this is a quest for truth, as I believe it is, then why not hold back on the labeling?
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.