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.
Prague sounds more prestigious than Podunk.
The Darwinian evolution of life is an explanation, albeit not a complete one. So the fellow has a partial point...but its a red hearing. The fact that no one can explain what the universe is doing here is more relevant. The idea that it simply always was here seems to have been shot down by thermodynamics (increasing entropy, eventual heat death) and the big bang theory.
They could have found free lodging in Podunk.
Is "red" the Czech version of "pretrial" :-)
Yeah...but would you want free lodging in Podunk?
Sure then I could have a spaghetti dinner at the Wednesday evening prayer vigil with like Minded (?) people (?)
I always thought it was lasagna. But you do have a point. ;o)
I don't know how many times I heard the "Steve" argument. Is that all they got?
The biblical creationist starts out assuming that the Genesis account is literally true.
The Intelligent Design scientist starts out assuming that the Genesis account is basically correct, albeit way too specific in its details to pass the Lemon Test.
All attempts to create an origin of life experiment start with an intelligent carefully controlled environment............and have failed.
That's the real model for creating life that I see.
His observation is not just a conclusion it is a very possible explanation, albeit the implications of such are what drive materialists crazy.
Let me ask you:
Spontaneous generation or self formation from nothing without the aid of any intelligence, what kind of scientific observation is that?
You've diverted our discussion to your pet peeve.
Chris: If you want an example of a being born from a being less intelligent than they are, it happens at least 1/2 the time on average, for some definition of "intelligent". Or is there actually some meaningful pont you are trying to make?
Well yes, that is an example of evolution, i.e., change over time. What I wanted was an example of an inorganic forming into an organic. The distinction is not irrelevant unless you've preconceived that such is religious talk.
Sounds like a huge helping of ad hominem to me.
So you ask:
How can you debate a person who does not exist on a subject that isn't real?
I totally agree with you! It can't be done!
OK, but I'm up early!
TM: "Show me one example of an intelligent being that isn't born from another intelligent being.
b_sharp: That's an interesting question.
If I were a creationist I would say 'God' fits that bill.
Since I'm not a creationist, I would have to agree with you that God was created by man.
The problem as posed? I would agree with you.
The observation that is being challenged though is the something from nothing premise of material science.
ID observes that nature yields no evidence of intelligence arriving from non intelligence.
To anser your question on the same plane:
The ability of science to explain any and everything is what a materialist believes. That has no ability to be proven from science either. It is a pact among equals to say it is so, not science.
From where I sit, the honest observation from nature can only lead one to one conclusion: that all intelligence comes from intelligence, inorganic never births organic, never has never will.
The speculation that it happened once upon a time was called spontaneous generation and mocked. Now it is believed as a scientific explanation? I personally don't think so.
Every experiment to prove spontaneous generation is initiated by a scientist yielding the very model of intelligent design.
D,
It was sarcasm - a reflection of the usual postings
on FR critical of ID. I have no link :-)
best,
ampu
LK,
If you add a sarcasm tag, it dilutes the tension
of a humorous post. :-)
ampu
Except that all your facts are wrong, you write well.
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.