Posted on 12/12/2005 8:01:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
ID even misrepresents ID. After Behe's comments in Dover, no on knows what ID is.
It actually proves my point. If ethics is defined this way, then there is no such thing as purpose, which means that nihilism is the only logical and valid worldview.
How many times does this have to be explained? The odds of a deck of cards being in numerical order are exactly the same odds as it being in any other order. There is NOTHING special about numerical order except that we may value that specific combination above others.
IOW, if our numerical system went in order 5 2 6 3 9 0 1 7 4 8 $, base 11, then your perfectly ordered deck of cards would have no special value, being out of order, and you wouldn't think twice about 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9... popping up randomly.
It is the Discovery Institute that couldn't muster enough evidence to debate in open court. They said so. They have no research and no plans for research.
I've pointed out several possible lines of research for them. All they need to do is point out the underlying principles that would allow a designer to make a new creature. Just figure out what mutations and changes are required to make the a new and unique object, the way an engineer plans a product before going to the expense of manufacturing it.
Basically, demonstrate that design is possible.
What is religion, then?..
I beleive Jesus came to make ALL religion obsolete, and did..
What do you see religion "as"..
We might be on the same page...
You make a good argument for the position that the source of morality is something other than the evolution - a notion at which your Darwinian brothers would scoff.
The only changes that can be shaped by Darwinian evolution are the changes that are encoded in the genes (and some associated structures). Human thought simply isn't passed along that way! It's passed along in books, it's passed along in arguments, it's passed along with facial expressions, it's passed along on the dinner table, it's passed along with a birch switch.
Human thought (culture) does change over time--in that loose sense it "evolves". But that evolution has nothing to do with the Darwinian evolution that nettles your sensibilities. Crucially, its transmission doesn't depend on one's own survival, or on the survival of one's children. That's how it escapes Darwinian evolution.
Are you claiming that human intelligence is anything other than "matter-based"?
No. I sincerely believe that all human thought is the result of the material workings of the physical brain. But to claim that such meaning is an intrinsic, inheritable property of the matter is as foolish as asserting that tomorrow's New York Times lies latent in a jar of ink. There is matter and energy, and there is (as you seem to have forgotten) the pattern in which the matter and energy are arranged. I've seen no evidence that anything more is necessary to explain the human mind.
Precisely what an evolutionary biologist would, quite justifiably, say to you.
Ok. Which one are you? Mickey Dolenz, Davey Jones, Michael Nesmith or Peter Tork? :-)
You know humans exist, and that they have the ability to order the cards. You know the 'order' corresponds to the way humans order cards.
In the case of ID, we don't know the identity or nature of the designer; we don't know by what means such a designer could implement the design; and we don't know what form the design would take. Three strikes, you're out.
You evolutionists are true masters at aggressively missing the point. One the one hand, you make general philosophical assertions about ID theory ("isn't even a theory," "is unfalsifiable," etc.), then when you are challenged on your logical principles you revert to particular cases to obfuscate the underlying philosophical point.
You IDers argue by analogy, the weakest form of argument; and then when we point out the flaws in the analogy, retreat into vagueness.
You understand my point perfectly, I think. ;)
Thanks for the conversations. I'll probably check back in on the thread but chances are I won't continue to respond to every post - at some point, a thread is meant to end and life goes on.
Thanks again.
Many are still fighting the ancient battles. Communism was the great enemy of conservatism, and communism was seen as scientific, so things scientific must be against conservatism. However, to deny science is very difficult anymore. Did God create the universe? Okay, fine, but did God create the SUV and the Internet? Did God create the Federal government? Did God create science? How about money? Does money grow on trees? Etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum. The ultimate conservative would live under a leafy tree and eat bugs and berries and marry the first woman he could catch and drag home. Everything else is reform, and anything but conservative.
That is correct. Evolution has zero, zip, zilch, nada to say about gods.
So "nothing to do" does indeed equal "completely irrelevant". Thanks for noticing.
Evolution has a great deal (and almost exclusively) to say about flora and fauna other than humans, yet somehow it's the "origin of man" that raises the fur of religious fundamentalists.
Sorry, but that is a very profound anti-religious position whether the evolutionists are willing to admit it publicly or not.
Only if you're a religious paranoid.
The evolutionists claim that any notion of ID is "unscientific" and "outside the domain of science,"
It's not the notion of ID that's the problem, it's the research; There is none.
Nothing to observe, nothing to predict, nothing to test -- ergo: "not science".
... then later they claim that ID has been thoroughly refuted by science.
As far as I know, you're the first to make that claim.
Scientists need "something" to test to support or refute a hypothesis. ID doesn't have that "something".
When the premise and the conclusion are the same, what is the value of the conclusion?
Like Intelligent design?
"Social Darwinism" refers to natural selection, not evolution per se. I believe fully that natural selection occurs. I expect there's little doubt about that among conservatives. What I doubt is that you and I are descended from single celled organisms as a consequence of an incredibly long series of mutations. It's this latter concept that many conservatives reject, but leftists embrace.
Again, why don't you just take a little time and go visit the site and see their statement. I note when your caught lying, you love to switchthe subject. It's laughable that they would listen to you give them "possible lines of research" LOL
You remind me Murka trying to tell Bush how to run the war.
Why would this damage the conservative movement? Do we all have to agree on EVERYTHING?! Geez, it isn't like it's Mao's Red Guard or something.
No one is going to vote for Dems on account of this.
"Ok. Works for me, too. Just one question. What is the benefit of survival?"
For most people, it seems preferable to the alternative. ;-)
I've already addressed the second part of your post, so I shan't do it again.
"I have therefore no difficulty accepting, say, the view of those scholars who tell that the account of Creation in Genesis is derived from earlier Semetic stories which were Pagan and mythical."
You're probably right. :)
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.