Posted on 08/21/2007 9:53:14 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
More fantasy facts. Biologists don't care that Dr. Behe said that creationism is the same as astrology.
Evolutionists refuse to debate facts because their hypothesis has failed to muster any material chemical, biological, mathematical, or archeological support.
The whole hypothesis is propped up by a stubborn resistance to the obvious creative genius in every living thing.
One need only examine the fabulous complexity of the simplest cell to conclude that this thing couldn’t have sprung itself into existence.
He concedes that Darwinian processes can make new species, but argues that they are incompetent to generate new kingdoms, phyla, or classes. The creative limit, the "edge of evolution," lies somewhere between the level of species and the level of class. Darwinian processes can account for the difference between a dog and a wolf, maybe even a dog and a bear, but not the difference between a lizard and a bird.
Interesting, somewhat intuitive and corresponding with human experience, and conforming with the fossil evidence.
The ID crowd is adding to our knowledge regarding the development of creatures. Can't say the same for the evolution community, which seems to be positively reactionary.
It's a logical and intriguing possibility. The problem is, no such mechanism has been identified, as yet, as far as I know.
What?
Are you kidding?
The entire fossil record is the fact.
bump
“Richard Dawkins [reviewed] for the New York Times”??
That’s preposterous. Dawkins is an evangelical athiest. That’s like having Ahmadinejad review “Satanic Verses.”
Also the lack of development of any new species in any of the billions of organisms in the area of Chernobyl with the billions of mutations and generations would support this conclusion.
A bishop and cardinal were sponsoring Copernicus' research into heliocentricity at the same time that Galileo was hauled before a (fallible) tribunal.
Galileo antagonized the Church because he wanted the Church to confirm his theory. Interestingly enough, Galileo's scientific evidence for his theory of heliocentricity was insufficient, at the time.
Huh? (1) At one point in time, they had no evidence that the Earth revolved around the sun. Did that mean the Earth DIDN'T revolve around the sun? (2) (Some forms of) Intelligent Design does not require a supernatural entity -- just an input different from purely random mutation. (My bet is some type of feedback that is not at all understood or even recognized yet.)
Why all these Creation threads? Is it part of some Design?
When global warming wipes out all life on earth, there won’t even be anybody left to witness the final proof that evolutionary theory is total bunk!
“He concedes that Darwinian processes can make new species’
Ooops. Did he just condemn himself to hell?
Right. That it is not a theory to begin with might contribute to that demise.
As for monotheism the reviewer writes:
“. . .He (Behe)was denounced by the self-styled defenders of science - biologists like Ken Miller and Jerry Coyne, and non-scientists like Michael Ruse and Barbara Forrest. They accused Behe. . . of trying to slip God (disguised as “the intelligent designer”) into public-school science classrooms.”
This controversy has been going on for awhile. Some of the scientific community fears that if ID is recognized as a valid alternative theory it can be interpreted by religious groups as a “scientific proof of God” and used as a political or legal argument to “pollute” education and science with religion.
I appreciate that the scientific method, in order to accomplish anything, can’t be mixed up with religion or mysticism or anything else because the scientist can become a root doctor casting juju.
As for atheism, Richard Dawkins, evolutionary scientist and author, reviewed Behe’s book for The New York Times. I can’t say for sure but I would guess Dawkins was asked to review the book because he is a critic of religion. Dawkins is a public, outspoken atheist. I believe Atheism is a religion. I can argue that but I can’t prove it.
As a layman I hope the scientific concept of Intelligence Design lingers long enough to be proved or disproved.
Why must you attempt to wedge religion into a science thread?
= 9
Natural Selection isn't "random"...it is "design within a system" in the form of an alogorithm of selecting the more effective direction. While it won't always proceed in the direction of what might be a most-efficient end structure, it does work to build complexity and functinality. In fact, "Natural Selection" is now being used in many fields where a computer model is allowed to select parameters that are applied in a next generation of a computer model...after repeated runs, the computer model is able to improve itself and get closer to a solution.
Behe seems to have missed the past 10 years, where it can be seen that intermediate steps do occur on the path to complex structures, sometimes for entirely different functions from the "final" structure.
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.