Fair enough. Here's scientific evidence: 
Now, which theory best explains how the above pig came to have the gene for producing Human Growth Hormone:
#1. Evolution or
#2. Intelligent Design
Posted on 03/24/2007 10:28:12 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
Professors opposed to the Bush library aren't the only angry faculty members at Southern Methodist University this week.
Science professors upset about a presentation on "Intelligent Design" fired blistering letters to the administration, asking that the event be shut down.
The “Darwin vs. Design” conference, co-sponsored by the SMU law school’s Christian Legal Society, will say that a designer with the power to shape the cosmos is the best explanation for aspects of life and the universe. The event is produced by the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based organization that says it has scientific evidence for its claims.
The anthropology department at SMU begged to differ:
"These are conferences of and for believers and their sympathetic recruits," said the letter sent to administrators by the department. "They have no place on an academic campus with their polemics hidden behind a deceptive mask."
Similar letters were sent by the biology and geology departments.
The university is not going to cancel the event, interim provost Tom Tunks said Friday. The official response is a statement that the event to be held in McFarlin Auditorium April 13-14 is not endorsed by the school:
"Although SMU makes its facilities available as a community service, and in support of the free marketplace of ideas, providing facilities for those programs does not imply SMU's endorsement of the presenters' views," the statement said.
The school also will review its policies about who is allowed to hold events on campus, Dr. Tunks said.
The size of the dispute reflects two ongoing battles about academic freedom and responsibility.
One is local: The concern that some SMU professors have that the proposed Bush library and an accompanying policy institute would create the impression that the school tilts politically toward the positions of the current administration.
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
Thats why evolution will always be a theory and nothing more. Case closed.
Well of course its a theory. What did you expect it to be? And what more would anyone want it to be?
Your posts are apples to my oranges--are you actually reading what I post, or just typing whatever comes to mind?
You've not addressed the point I keep repeating, and I have to wonder why.
["If you want to argue within the realm of science, you need to bring scientific evidence."]
No scientific evidence would be sufficient, coyoteman, as we both know. Your mind is made up, and the facts aren't about to get in your way.
Over and over, you've been presented with the facts that show it is clearly impossible for life to have been spontaneously formed by coincidence, which only leaves room for creation.
You choose to reject that, on grounds that you simply refuse to accept this as scientific enough for you.
You also refuse to accept as scientific enough, the idea that where there is a clock, there must have been a clockmaker.
I don't know what could be less scientific of you.
The problem is, evolution is taught as fact in schools and universities. If it was taught as theory and nothing more there wouldn't be a problem.
["Do you see any similarities with the global warming wackos who say the global warming debate is over when in fact it is just beginning,.."]
The similarities are legion. Debate in both, by those who are skeptical, is not merely refuted, it is treated as heresy. I find that very ironic.
No, scientists don't fear open debate. In contrast, the Left does fear it. Global Warming. Intelligent Design.
Tell a Lefty that the Sun is warming Mars and they want to shut you up. Tell that same Lefty that only Intelligent Design explains modern genetically-altered pigs that have been made to produce human growth hormone and they again want to shut you up (even though it's obvious that Man designed the pigs).
The modern Left fears open debate.
That's not scientific.
Nonsense. Only Intelligent Design explains genetically altered animals such as pigs that have been made to produce Human Growth Hormone (HGH).
That's not religion. That's modern science.
Evolution can't explain those pigs, by the way...
Fair enough. Here's scientific evidence:
Now, which theory best explains how the above pig came to have the gene for producing Human Growth Hormone:
#1. Evolution or
#2. Intelligent Design
There is just no reasoning with the soup creation myth zealots. :-)
Many schools with religious names became humanist a long time ago.
Methodist In Name Only.
SMU is the school of the first lady.
She studied to be a librarian there (work in public education).
Schools like this have become places for humanistic training instead of Christian training.
He would probably think that ID con men are a disgrace to both science and religion. Producing no results or evidence, only throwing talking points and B.S. against the wall and hoping something eventually sticks that will topple Evolution Theory.
The Discovery Institute is making a lot of money by selling books, dvds and charging speaking fees for it's fellows, in the meantime.
And Wesley might also thank God that only Behe is showing up, and not a real idiot ne'er-do-well like William Dembski. Billy would really taint the good reputation of SMU; they would never be able to break the association with fringe cranks and anti-science anti-intellectualism a visit from him would bring upon them.
How interesting that the administration distances itself from this conference. The idea that God created the world, as plainly stated in Genesis 1:1 is clearly a subversive notion at Southern Methodist University.
In Jesus's day, the evil crowd shouted, "Give us Barabas!" Today's cry on formerly Christian campuses is, "Give us Darwin!"
Wonder what all those elderly Methodists, who have so generously endowed SMU, will think when they see that God, the Creator, is no longer honored there.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/smu-did-i-say-leprosy-i-meant-intelligent-design/
I think you may be a day late.
Darwin's Theory, too, is less "scientific" than meets the eye. He has made a theory that explains the "HISTORICAL" record. It cannot be experimentally validated; in other words we cannot create human beings in laboratories using the methods of natural selection. We can only collect historical data and ask if this data fits the theory. If it doesn't perhaps we modify or update the theory. To prove its uniqueness, that it is the only possible theory would be nearly impossible.
Lastly one shouldn't confuse the "True" with the "Provable." Even in mathematics Goedel proved that any system is either incomplete or inconsistent. In other words either there exist truths that are not provable or there are contradiction that are both provable.
A theory in science is the "end point". Gravity is a theory as well. BTW, there is more evidence for The Theory of Evolution than there is for Gravitational Theory.
That's just not true. The "Earth is flat" was a theory. It turned out to not be the end point. As for Theory of Evolution evidence, there's no evidence there that wouldn't also support ID, but the converse isn't true.
For instance, there *is* evidence that supports ID that does not support Evolution. See post #29 above.
The plain truth is that Evolution fails to explain modern genetically altered species. Only Intelligent Design explains them.
And that's the end point.
Game over.
See post #29.
"No scientific evidence would be sufficient, coyoteman, as we both know. Your mind is made up, and the facts aren't about to get in your way.
This is plain incorrect. If the scientific evidence against some hypothesis was convincing, a scientist, such as coyoteman, would be the first to accept that evidence. If I understand your comment correctly, you are not arguing with scientific evidence however, you are arguing with the use of misapplied probability.
"Over and over, you've been presented with the facts that show it is clearly impossible for life to have been spontaneously formed by coincidence, which only leaves room for creation.
This statement has a number of problems with it.
First off you are claiming that what you have presented are scientific facts yet they are far from even the common use definition of fact. (Again I am referring to the common arguments against Abiogenesis)
Second, probability calculations will not determine what is impossible unless the probability is 0. Anything more than 0 and the phenomenon is still possible. What they can do, and are limited to, is the determination of the likelihood of some phenomenon occurring given a specific set of initial assumptions, conditions and constraints. If any of those are inaccurate the calculation is also inaccurate.
Another problem is the assumption you make that life has to have formed spontaneously, rather than by slowly and incrementally bridging between non-life, pre-life, protolife and then eventually life. This assumption is a direct result of your assumption that life is 'essential' (as an essentialist would describe it).
Yet another problem with your argument is the assumption that life would have formed by 'coincidence'. Life is a by product of the complexity of specific chemical reactions and the resulting molecules. The forming of molecules from atoms is deterministic as is the formation of more complex molecules from simpler ones. Many of the building blocks of RNA are found in space, including a number of amino acids, sugars, and alcohols. That they are found in space indicates that they are easily formed whenever the requisite elements are in contact. Since the majority of chemicals formed in space are the result of the complex atom building within stars and supernovae, the contact between elements as a result of this construction would not be a coincidence. This of course assumes you are using the term 'coincidence' as meaning 'chance' not 'undirected'.
"You choose to reject that, on grounds that you simply refuse to accept this as scientific enough for you.
The main proponents of ID also understand that the 'evidence' you want to put forward is not scientific, which is why Johnson, Behe, Dembski and others want to change the definition of science, and therefore the methodology used by science, to be more ID friendly. Behe even admitted in court that the changes necessary to make their evidence for ID fit scientific methodology would also make Astrology part of science.
"You also refuse to accept as scientific enough, the idea that where there is a clock, there must have been a clockmaker.
Indeed, when you find a watch you know there is a watchmaker. However you have not shown that biology is a watch. Nor have you correctly considered why we know a watch has a watchmaker. We do not identify artifacts simply by their complexity, in fact many artifacts identified as of human construction are anything but complex. On the other hand, unless you are making an argument by definition, which a useless thing to do, complexity is not the sole purview of intelligence.
"I don't know what could be less scientific of you.
Why, because he doesn't subscribe to your definition of what is scientific?
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.