Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: RussP
I've acknowledged already that I lack the creativity, intelligence, and experience to devise an experiment that can explain how our ear came to be in such a manner that conforms to both the scientific method and your personal dogmas.

But, since it's so "obvious" to you that this is proof of "intelligent design," why don't you write a paper and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal?

I mean, if it's really so clear to anyone who has more than half a brain, as you wrote, then your intelligence should be more than enough to write a paper that shows why our ear is the product of intelligent design.

Oh, that's right. My mistake. You can't because you're invoking the supernatural, which makes it impossible for you to get your paper published in a peer-reviewed journal.

82 posted on 06/12/2007 9:24:49 AM PDT by Abd al-Rahiim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]


To: Abd al-Rahiim

quote:

But, since it’s so “obvious” to you that this is proof of “intelligent design,” why don’t you write a paper and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal?

my reply:

I don’t need to do that. All I need to do is to note that no paper has ever been published that even remotely explains how the ear could have evolved *without* ID. That doesn’t “prove” ID for the ear, but it sure suggests it rather strongly.

I urge you to open up a physiology text some day and study the ear so you have a vivid idea of the level of complexity we are talking about here. (I have a funny feeling you don’t even *care* about the actual complexity of the ear. I’ll bet your mind is made up, and you don’t want to be confused with the facts.)

But if the ear doesn’t impress you, how about the first living cell. I sincerely hope you are not so ignorant as to believe that modern science has explained the formation of the first cell by purely naturalistic mechanisms. It hasn’t even come close — and that is an understatement.

So what is it that you believe? Do you believe that ID *must* be ruled out for evolution *after* the first cell — even though it *cannot* be ruled out in explaining the first cell? If so, that’s some funny kind of science — where the rules change dramatically at some apparently arbitrary point in time.

Oh, and please don’t give me the usual crap about how we just don’t “yet” understand the formation of the first cell, but it is just a matter of time. If you think you can “predict” what science will find, that is nothing more than a bias in favor of a certain result.


88 posted on 06/13/2007 12:36:15 AM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson