Skip to comments.
What is wrong with intelligent design?
EurekAlert! ^
| 22-Feb-2007
| Suzanne Wu
Posted on 02/22/2007 6:22:34 PM PST by Boxen
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 641-649 next last
To: Boxen
wow. u r all .... something. just not sure what.
id is a philosophy/ideology, evo is a scientific theory. apples and oranges. get over it.
61
posted on
02/22/2007 8:34:23 PM PST
by
jbp1
(be nice now)
To: Westbrook
Very well stated.
I have also noticed the similarity between the typical evolutionist and "liberal" style of dealing with new information that may conflict with their world view.
Darwin did an excellent job selling his theory; he presented a purely abstract idea and convinced people by relating his ideas to known qualities in their lives. He then suggested they would have to reject all these known facts in order to reject his theory.
Here is a very interesting interview about Darwin's style.
http://www.uctv.tv/library-test.asp?showID=7007
When you start to investigate the claims of the theory it completely falls apart. Much like the typical liberal beliefs regarding economics, social policy, foreign policy etc.
62
posted on
02/22/2007 8:34:56 PM PST
by
be4everfree
(Liberals are "Thick as a Brick" ......JT)
To: Panzerfaust
and who designed the designer, or how has it come into being? has it naturally evolved?
postulating a designer, you will run into the reductio ad infinitum fallacy
63
posted on
02/22/2007 8:35:31 PM PST
by
GSlob
To: unlearner
Funny you should mention the "Hand of the Lord"! It seems that the "First Hand" made the letters!
Stan Tenen shows how all the Hebrew letters can be made by projecting this "hand" onto a two-dimensional surface. When we talk about these things, we have to use models and projections of higher-dimensional things into the world as we understand it. That is not making idols, unless you worship them.
64
posted on
02/22/2007 8:39:03 PM PST
by
SubMareener
(Become a monthly donor! Free FreeRepublic.com from Quarterly FReepathons!)
To: Rudder
> You lost me right at this point.
Indeed, and you just proved mine.
.
65
posted on
02/22/2007 9:02:34 PM PST
by
Westbrook
(Having more children does not divide your love, it multiplies it!)
To: Boxen
A second common criticism of ID is that it is untestable.The author should have said parenthetically (see previous paragraph).
I think Sober has it wrong. The problem with ID as a scientific theory is that it makes no predictions. Take his example that the statement that an intelligent designer created the vertebrate eye entails that vertebrates have eyes, which is an observation. Vertebrates having eyes is not a prediction of that statement, it is baked in.
Alternatively one could view this lack of predictiveness as a lack of explanatory power.
66
posted on
02/22/2007 9:13:15 PM PST
by
edsheppa
To: taxesareforever
You seem to have a problem with scientists conferring and peer reviewing their work?
Checking and double checking and testing hypothesis is how you get to a sound answer.
Or, you could wave a few snakes and claim its a miracle. Or beat a drum and wave a stick at evil, or summon the sun god and make a sacrifice to ward off bad intent....
67
posted on
02/22/2007 9:16:32 PM PST
by
Central Scrutiniser
(Never Let a Theocon Near a Textbook. Teach Evolution!)
To: Central Scrutiniser
Or, you could wave a few snakes and claim its a miracle. Or beat a drum and wave a stick at evil, or summon the sun god and make a sacrifice to ward off bad intent....Or you could read the Bible.
To: Boxen
Stephen Jay Gould's well-known example of a trait of this type is the panda's thumb. If a truly intelligent designer were responsible for the panda, Gould argues, it would have provided a more useful tool than the stubby proto-thumb that pandas use to laboriously strip bamboo in order to eat it. Yet the Panda survives when 99.9% of all species are extinct, not too bad.
The human body itself proves we where designed, and by an engineer no less, for only an engineer would run the sewage waste system through a playground.
69
posted on
02/22/2007 9:28:32 PM PST
by
RJL
To: taxesareforever
Ot the Koran, or the Talmud, or the Baghavad-Gita, or whatever the hell else.
Otherwise, you're just engaging in "my god can beat up your god." That gets real boring real fast.
To: grey_whiskers
To: ReignOfError
Otherwise, you're just engaging in "my god can beat up your god." That gets real boring real fastYou got it all wrong. My (God)trumps all other (g)ods. Get it? Besides, all other gods require acts to be accomplished in order to get to wherever they are supposed to go. Those that follow those other gods never know whether they have done enough. Pretty depressing if you ask me.
To: Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek
I assume you are referring to the "religious consensus" that marks the mindset of evolutionists, who, by the way, hold their theory to be unquestionably true and correct, and thus unfalsifiable.
73
posted on
02/22/2007 9:51:37 PM PST
by
Elsiejay
To: Boxen
1. America is not perfect.
2. But people sometimes say it is.
3. You can't trust that America is any good at all. SOCIALISM NOW.
1. Evolution can't explain where all of existence came from.
2. But people sometimes act like it does.
3. You can't trust that evolution explains anything at all. INTELLIGENT DESIGN NOW.
Just seems like a familiar argument, that's all.
74
posted on
02/22/2007 10:04:01 PM PST
by
Generic_Login_1787
(Just so there's no confusion, YAY AMERICA)
To: edsheppa
I think Sober has it wrong. The problem with ID as a scientific theory is that it makes no predictions. I thought that was his point. What am I missing?
To: grey_whiskers
But what was his A for?
It was not for using Boyle's Law, for that broke down in the first sentence :-)
76
posted on
02/23/2007 1:33:01 AM PST
by
RunningWolf
(2-1 Cav 1975)
To: ReignOfError
Well, I'm sorry that creationists cannot see God's hand in evolution and the progress of life and intelligence and the human soul. Because if you are relying on a literal creation of Adam and Eve, a flood that killed all but one family, etc., the evidence certainly refutes you and there is no reason to discuss theories or "data points". You are relying on pure biblical faith, which is fine by the way. However, I am not a literal creationist.
I see the problem as an insistence that God is a very personal Creator, almost a human figure. God by any religion's definition is an all knowing all powerful mystical being whose nature and power are beyond anything we can imagine. That God created the enormous universe you make reference to, and that God set it in motion in whatever mysterious ways and for whatever mysterious reasons, we cannot begin to understand.
So if I want to look at evidence and science, my conclusion is that scientists and some faithful are both missing the boat. Scientists can't disprove God with a microscope nor should they try, and the faithful can't prove their version of God with analogies involving potholes.
Whatever we are, whatever the universe is, and whatever God is, these things have an undiscovered reality which exists beyond our ability to debate what makes theories work.
Just my thoughts.
77
posted on
02/23/2007 4:48:57 AM PST
by
Williams
To: DaveLoneRanger
Unless someone specifically addresses a question or challenge to me, I'm too tired to put up with this stuff tonight.I always think of you as challenged.
78
posted on
02/23/2007 5:05:53 AM PST
by
js1138
(The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
To: RJL
Bump for laughing later ...
79
posted on
02/23/2007 5:16:55 AM PST
by
MHalblaub
("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
Comment #80 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 641-649 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson