Posted on 02/13/2006 4:31:16 PM PST by MRMEAN
Biologists are beginning to solve the riddles on which intelligent-design advocates have relied
To advocates of intelligent design, the human sperm's tiny tail bears potent evidence that Charles Darwin was wrong--it is, they say, a molecular machine so complex that only God could have produced it.
But biologists now are starting to piece together how such intricate bits of biochemistry evolved. Although the basic research was not meant as a response to intelligent design, it is unraveling the very riddles that proponents said could not be solved.
In contrast, intelligent design advocates admit they still lack any way of using hard evidence to test their theories, which many biologists find revealing.
The new insights on evolution at its smallest scale were a major yet little-noticed reason why a federal judge late last year struck down a plan in Dover, Pa., that would have put intelligent design in public school classrooms. The findings the judge cited will provide the ultimate test of ideas about the origins of life, more lasting than court rulings or the politics of the moment.
Most scientists have long rejected intelligent design, or ID, on the grounds that it is a religious proposal not grounded in observation. ID adherents say biochemistry actually supports their view. They argue that many tiny mechanisms--the tails of sperm and bacteria, the immune system, blood clotting--are so elaborate they must have been purposely designed.
Yet biologists have made major strides on each of those phenomena since the first ID books were published in the mid-1990s.
Working without the benefit of fossils, experts are using new genome data to study how fish evolved the crucial ability to clot blood. A wave of new research on the evolution of the immune system seemed to stump ID witnesses in the Dover case. And even ...
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
To me it's not "magic" that can't be explained, but rather elegant rules and laws of chemistry and energy (that BTW, Quantum Physicists end up devolving into what sounds alot like magic when trying to explain the TRULY inner workings).
Nonlocality Anyone?
Every month some evo comes out with "new" evidence that "proves" evolution, and the truth is, they haven't.
Now, before I am jumped on, I would like to say, I am NOT a Christian, I am not an IDer or a creationists. What I am is a seeker of truth and the theory of evolution is too full of lies to be the truth. That is how I see it.
Let the flaming begin!
Evolution without God is a religious belief without evidence to back it up.
At least Christians have the Gospel accounts to support their view.
There are billions of recorded examples of living things being produced by other living things. I have never read a report that in recorded history, life has been produced by non-living matter. A rubbish heap can give you little rubbish heaps, if you have a shovel. But they can't do it without your help.
The unGod people (such as this editorialist disguised as a reporter) would seem to be replicating an idea from the ash-heap of the history of science: spontaneous generation.
This article makes a lot of bad assumptions and broad-brush statements. Either the author is the ultimate authority on ID and the intentions and motivations of all parties involved, or he is taking a lot of liberties.
That being said, I think he has failed in his attempt to solve the entire ID/Creationism/Evolution thing with his article. He'll have to try harder next time.
How about this instead.
Scientists don't prove their theories. Proof is found in mathematics, fine Irish whiskey and photography. Scientists supply evidence to either support, or fail to support hypotheses and/or theories.
Here are some definitions to help out (and by the way, there are lots of transitionals; the only ones who can't see them are the creationists):
Definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof.
[Last revised 2/9/06]
Are there any evolutionists who believe that God exists but that He played no role in creation/evolution?
Here's a website where the entire article can be read without registration: Unlocking cell secrets bolsters evolutionists.
I'm cranking up the ping machine.
|
Nothing in the Theory of Evolution says that any living thing is produced other than by other living things. It is creationsm that asserts this.
So the theory of evolution is taught in public schools as fact (one scientist even objected to stickers on his textbook stating that evolution was a theory) but the hypothesis of ID cannot even be mentioned.
Did any schools refernece the concept of Gia in the 1990s? Even in a non-serious manner as Earth Day approached?
What lack of transitional fossils?
Thanks for the ping. I need a good bolstering every now and then.
WRONG! All species are transitional!
The theory of evolution is taught as a theory. That's why its called a theory. But it is a well-supported theory, having been tested and strengthened by 150 years of research. Look at the whole field of genetics and DNA. If the evidence from DNA said Darwin's theory was wrong it would have been dropped like a hot potato, but instead it just supported the theory. When a scientific theory is this well-supported, Las Vegas wouldn't give you very good odds on overturning it (in other words, badmouth evolution all you want, but don't bet the rent money on its early demise).
The fact that change through time occurs is a fact. The explanation for that fact is the theory of evolution.
ID is based on religious belief and so has no place in science classes.
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.