Future of Conservatism: Darwin or Design? [Human Events goes with ID]

Human Events ^ | 12 December 2005 | Casey Luskin

[donh]

It is testable: it specifically predicts against certain observations-observations that would falsify it. If we could demonstrate the origin of life through natural processes then Paley's theory would be falsified.

No it wouldn't. It just lowers the subjectively determined odds. God, or something, might have designed it regardless of anything we can detect--just as is the case with the actual existence of an ether for light to travel through, or the earth being the center of the universe.

[js1138]

We're not alone. We seem to have C.S. Lewis on our side.

[b_sharp]

"The point is that *evolutionists* would claim it discredits ID theory. Are you denying that? Are you claiming that if macroevolution (you specify the extent of macroevolution) were observed in the lab, evolutionists would *not* claim that it invalidates ID theory? If so, you are either incredibly naive, or you are just a bald-faced liar.

I thought the point was to show ID is falsifiable. If scientists succeeded it would just show that evolution was correct (not that ID is false) and possible in this particular instance. ID could still be considered for other circumstances. ID needs to be generally falsifiable, or at least all of its hypotheses need to be falsifiable individually.

[b_sharp]

"This gets very tiring when people reply with posts repeating points that I have already addressed and refuted in this very thread. I just don't have time to repeat my posts for every individual.

You have yet to refute anything.

[Ichneumon]

["No, you didn't. If a scientist COULD produce what you put as the test, a single-celled organism evolving into a vertebrate, it would still in NO WAY invalidate ID."]

The point is that *evolutionists* would claim it discredits ID theory.

No, we wouldn't, because we would not be prone to make such an illogical and incorrect statement.

Are you denying that?

Indeed, for exactly the same reason that showing that a ball can roll down a hill naturally in no way disproves that a particular ball might have been rolled down the hill by intent by someone.

Are you claiming that if macroevolution (you specify the extent of macroevolution) were observed in the lab, evolutionists would *not* claim that it invalidates ID theory?

That is correct.

If so, you are either incredibly naive, or you are just a bald-faced liar.

I'm sorry, but your childish outburst does nothing to help your position. Quite the contrary.

You might want to learn more about this topic before you attempt to critique it again. You get so much wrong, jump to unsupported conclusions, and frequently substitute your frustrated outbursts for actual argument or evidence.

[aNYCguy]

Why do the atheist/evos care what is taught? Or care about anything for that matter?

Theists assign axiomatic value to a deity or deities; atheists assign axiomatic value to something else, such as a moral code. Value flows from the axiom.

There's little difference between the two methods of creating value. This is not difficult to understand.

[donh]

It was not a simple conflict between science and religion, as usually portrayed. Rather it was a conflict between Copernican science and Aristotelian science

Aristotalian scientists did not burn Bruno, or imprison Galileo and ban his books. A Papacy anxious not to let the rest of its flock entertain the idea that the earth wasn't the center of the universe, and the church not therefore the darling central focus of God's concerns, did.

[Antonello]

Not addressed to you in particular. Just something that popped up on another thread: Who said this?

"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."

I believe that is a quote from Reflections on the Psalms, by C.S. Lewis.

[edsheppa]

First, happiness, effectiveness and prosperity only exist under the evolutionary illusion. They can be nothing more than natural selections. To assign meaning to them is erroneous.

That is really quite stupid.

[Ichneumon]

["I didn't misrepresent them. The reason they opposed manditory teaching of ID, and the reason they skipped the trial is they have no scientific research to present."]

Your denial of reality is utterly Orwellian.

Since you failed to make a case for your slur, and instead just ranted at js1138 without identifying exactly what "reality" he is allegedly denying, I'd say that you just lost this discussion.

You guys really scare me sometimes.

Just how old are you?

[js1138]

You get the prize. It was posted today on another thread. I wonder if it will cause some people on this thread to declare Lewis to be an atheist communist.

[Right Wing Professor]

The creationists were almost universally united in declaring us commies, fascists, atheists, homos, trolls from DU, etc.

WERE?

(/Elsie mode)

[VadeRetro]

You always know what you're going to get from the un-Discovery bunch. Might as well be gore3000 back again every time with the same discredited stuff.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Yeah, you remember - way back in the dim mists of time? About yesterday or so? :)

[PatrickHenry]

WERE?

Yes, last time I paid any attention to their posts. Life has been much more pleasant around here since I took my tagline seriously.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

There's even better stuff:

"...for we have good reason to believe that animals existed long before men...For long centuries God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself...[Eventually,] God caused a new kind of consciousness to descend upon this organism" (PP,pp. 137,77).

"...but he (man) remains still a primate and an animal" (RP, pp. 115, 129);

"If...you mean simply that man is physically descended from animals, I have no objection" (PP, p. 72)

Seems that C.S. Lewis guy didn't get the creationist memo.

[aNYCguy]

OK, here's a prediction which, "if false, will discredit the idea." No macroevolution will ever be observed in the lab (or even in nature, for that matter).

Funny man. The prediction of your supposed theory is that something will not happen?

Okay. I have a "theory" that pigs fly. Here's my prediction which, if false, will discredit the idea: "No human will ever be observed in the lab to grow three arms and fly into outer space while speaking in tongues." If this event is observed, my theory will be falsified.

And there you have it! According to your interesting new take on the scientific method, my theory has falsification criteria. Your nobel prize awaits for this useful methodological breakthrough.

[edsheppa]

OK, here's a prediction which, "if false, will discredit the idea." No macroevolution will ever be observed in the lab (or even in nature, for that matter).

No it wouldn't. In the first place, you have presented no argument from design that would prelude macroevolution. The absence of macroevolution is therefore not a prediction of ID. (But how could it be, ID doesn't have any predictions.)

In the second place, why is that ID proponents on this board are so ignorant of ID, far more so that evos? And I guess so ignorant they can't read either. On this thread and numerous others, Behe, Denton and others have been quoted as accepting common descent, the epitome or macroevolutionary.

Hmmmm, maybe they're just too stupid to understand your argument? Nope, you're wrong - ID and macroevolution could both be true.

[Physicist]

But that is exactly the evolutionist's position.

Not at all, it's just your unaccountable misconception of the evolutionists position.

You seem to be saying that evolution may be responsible for the matter and energy but the matter and energy patterns are formed outside of Darwinian evolution through experience and thought.

That's hopelessly confused. There are matter and energy. There are also the patterns in which matter and energy are arranged (hence meaning, information). A SPECIFIC SUBSET of these patterns arise through Darwinian evolution; the rest don't. Darwinian evolution certainly is NOT responsible for the existence of matter and energy.

How can an evolutionist be anything but a nihilist and maintain a consistent worldview?

I told you before that I have values, whether the universe does or not. "Evolution"--by which you mean materialism--refers to the universe's lack of values. Nihilism refers to a person's lack of values. Why should nihilism follow from materialism? Magnets prefer a north-south orientation, even though the magnetic force itself is rotationally symmetric.

(Of course, the correct answer is "Why should a nihilist care about maintaining a consistent worldview?":)

Well, that's not really an answer, but I can't resist the observation that very few theists I've met have a consistent worldview.

[js1138]

My life has been easier since I installed BlueSkipper^® software.