Posted on 11/16/2005 2:38:35 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Typical liberal argument. If it doesn't agree with their propective they cast it out as having an agenda. Barf.
Typical creationist argument. If it doesn't agree with their dogma they cast it out as being liberal. Barf.
Behe has already said, under oath, that ID requires NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
What kind of science is that?
Barf all you want, but the definition you gave was written by a creationist as a strawman to attack evolution, the same as you used it here. It has nothing to do with evolution. Did you think I would not check and see who wrote it? The author is an idiot, and so are you if you think I was going to just let you put those words in my mouth so you could have an easy target. I don't believe for a second that you made a *mistake* when you made it look like I had somehow uttered that piece of crap definition. Both of you are shameless liars. And all of your lying won't change the fact that evolution has never been about the origins of life. And BTW, slavery is always evil, no matter how much you wish otherwise.
anti-science, of course
Here's one from a reliable source. Berkeley. Lets see you debunk this as a creationist view.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_12
Are you sure you are not running for some political office? The amount of times you say "liar" leads me to believe that you are on a liberal ticket somewhere.
When you lump intelligence and design characteristics with the supernatural you are defining terms to fit your preconceived bias. The only way to study intelligence and design is as natural phenomenon.
If you are defining naturalism as only that which is phenomenological you are reject such concepts as mathematics, principles of the physical universe, such concepts as random, and a host of other principles fundamental to the work of sience. You can not pour a liquid into a beaker without relying on nonphenominological reality. Reason, for example, is nonphenomenological but it is a basic component of any science.
You are correct, this is a semantic issue. Unfortunately you have defined yourself out of business.
Your link gave no definition of evolution. Did you even read it?
"Are you sure you are not running for some political office? The amount of times you say "liar" leads me to believe that you are on a liberal ticket somewhere."
When creationists stop lying I won't have to say liar anymore. It's a very simple concept.
Slavery is always an evil. :)
Please explain how to emprically differentiate between the following:
1) An irreducibly complex organism/biological mechanism
2) An organism/biological mechanism that appears complex but in actuality, naturally evolved, but we're just not 100% sure how yet
If you can give just one example of how to differentiate between these cases, you might have a case that ID is science. Until then, it is only so much pseudoscience...
side note: care to explain how "reason" - a product of electrochemical interactions in a cellular matrix - is "nonphenomenological"?
It is not I who defines intelligence and design into the supernatural, it is IDiots who claim design and intelligence without providing positive evidence in support of their assertions.
PLEASE don't partake of the IDiot error of using the term "irreducible complexity"
the proper concept which they have bastardized is "irreducible simplicity"
the proper concept which they have bastardized is "irreducible simplicity"
Point taken. Never really thought about it, but you are indeed correct.
as a machinist and sometime mechanical designer, it is a pet peeve of mine
Your insults and other ad hominem notwithstanding the positive evidence is available if you are gutsy enough to climb outside the cave and encounter it.
As to reason, are you serious about basing scientific theory on electrochemical interactions? Show me the research.
Like it or not, as some point you guys who are so wedded to a purist doctrine of naturalist science will have to give it up. Too much of naturalistic science is too biased in its philosophical and political assumptions to withstand the attack of reason.
And the "attack of reason" stems from the bible and religious belief, I presume?
so far I have not used ad hominem.
If you consider "IDiot" an insult - pity.
proof that reason is a product of electrochemical interactions in a cellular matrix can be (and has been exhaustively provided by) neuropharmacology, neurosurgery, neurotrauma, ECT, electromagnetic hallucinogenesis, etc...: Interfere with the chemical, interfere with the electrical, interfere with the cellular; "reason" is modified.
did you mean something other than the human mental faculty?
First, the notion of an irreducibly complex organism is an absurdity since all organisms are irreducibly complex. To remove a factor from any organism is to irretrievably terminate that organism. A genetic alteration in a given organism makes a different organism. The two are not the same nor is one less or more than the other. Second, natural evolution is not inconsistent with ID.
Third, claiming that science is restricted to the phenomenological reduces science to non-reality based quackery.
You may count the scales on a fish as a means of categorizing divergent populations but you can not determine mating choices without reference to motivational influences, not all of which are mechanistically categorizable.
Color, for example, has no chemical properties. It is refracted light. (To claim that light is actually materialistic but that the materialists simply have not yet figured out how it is, is disingenuous at best.) Yet color is a highly determinative factor in the choosing of mates, especially among cold blooded critters.
I have seen animals change colors to suit their environment or their mood and to communicate between species. Yet they do not do so in the same way every time. The results are not duplicatable. Again, to assume that they are duplicatable but we have not yet figured out how, is not a defensible position.
If science is nothing more than the mechanistic contrivance of chemical process it has no value. You can not have it both ways. You can not grant that science is an intellectual investigative discipline and in the same breath state that it is nothing more than an electrochemical process.
You presume too much. That is not at all the case. Philosophy and metaphysics are poking gaping holes in naturalistic sciences. The fact that biologists have chosen to isolate themselves in their own private little cave does not make them immune from the rest of the scientific community.
Step outside and consider quarks. They are coherent with the color of butterflies. Both exist in the same universe and live by the same laws.
You presume too much. That is not at all the case. Philosophy and metaphysics are poking gaping holes in naturalistic sciences. The fact that biologists have chosen to isolate themselves in their own private little cave does not make them immune from the rest of the scientific community.
Step outside and consider quarks. They are coherent with the color of butterflies. Both exist in the same universe and live by the same laws.
What part of the sky should I scan for quarks?
On a more serious note, some definitions for metaphysics:
Thanks, I'll stick to science, with those things like data, facts, hypotheses, and theories. They are as far out as I need.
And it will take a lot of doing for astral travel and psychicism to beat out a good, practical theory. But you know, if anyone could make astral travel and psychicism work, it would be a good hard-nosed show-me-the-facts scientist.
I can't tell what point you're trying to make here. All organisms are reducibly complex because changing anything about their genes would result in an altered organism? I thought that was what evolutionary theory already stated.
Second, natural evolution is not inconsistent with ID.
I thought that was my whole point. What does ID have to offer at all, then, besides adding a needless complication?
Third, claiming that science is restricted to the phenomenological reduces science to non-reality based quackery.
Again, this doesn't make sense. You're not clarifying much of anything here. Please, explain (clearly and specfically) what you mean by "non-reality based quackery" and how the "non-phenomenological" can generate a testable hypothesis.
You may count the scales on a fish as a means of categorizing divergent populations but you can not determine mating choices without reference to motivational influences, not all of which are mechanistically categorizable.
Again, please clarify. What does determination of "mating choices" have to with ID or evolution in this context?
Color, for example, has no chemical properties. It is refracted light. (To claim that light is actually materialistic but that the materialists simply have not yet figured out how it is, is disingenuous at best.) Yet color is a highly determinative factor in the choosing of mates, especially among cold blooded critters.
Are you trying to say chemical properties of pigments have nothing to do with the color they reflect? Again, what are you talking about? Materialists don't know what light is? I can't even tell where you're trying to go with this.
I have seen animals change colors to suit their environment or their mood and to communicate between species. Yet they do not do so in the same way every time. The results are not duplicatable. Again, to assume that they are duplicatable but we have not yet figured out how, is not a defensible position.
More of the same of the above.
Let me rephrase my question - How can we differentiate between Intelligent Design and a creature/mechanism that evolved naturally that we just don't have complete knowledge of yet? If we can't, what use does ID have at all? Can you answer this question without lending credence to my tagline?
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.