Posted on 11/01/2007 5:53:26 PM PDT by truthfinder9
It’s hard not to “condescend” when people continually state obvious falsehoods. Coyoteman repeatedly asks me for “scientific evidence” of ID, then completely ignores me when I provide it — and continues to demand it.
And if you honestly believe that the complete failure of modern science to explain the origin of the first cell by naturalistic, random mechanisms, is not at least “evidence” of ID, then you are profoundly confused.
Also, as I said before, the problem is not just that science hasn’t “figured it out yet,” though evolutionists would have us believe that. The problem is that the random origin of the first cell would be comparable, as Fred Hoyle put it, to having a tornado in a junkyard result in a fully assembled Boeing 747. I use a slightly different analogy. It would be comparable to having the entire text of the Gettysburg Address show up randomly on some desert sands due to random winds.
I’ve also pointed out that the entire notion of a random origin of the first cell in unfalsifiable and hence, by the very definitions used by many evolutionists, unscientific. Think about it. Explain to me how one could prove that the Gettysburg Address never appeared spontaneously on the sands of a desert.
It can only be done by probabilistic analysis, but evolutionists routinely dismiss such analyses with a wave of the hand. Hence, the modern theory of abiogenesis is “unscientific” according to the very same criterion that evolutionists claim that ID is unscientific.
And also if randomness is observed but order is not, it does not equal that there is no order. It may well be indications to depth width and scope limitations inherent in the observer and/or his tools/methods, or his base assumptions.
And I think you are aware that even those analogies do not even remotely touch the universe of improbabilities complexity that is the cell, and all the untold bio processes which exist nowhere else but in the cell.
Interesting statements. Let's discuss them, please:
Detecting, deciphering, whatever you wish to call it, Intelligent Design would be, in fact, purposeless unless we could act on that knowledge. Would you not agree? Other than saying "God did this", there is nothing else to be learned, correct? Unless you are suggesting that man, once we have detected God's design in a cell, can now copy, modify, and even improve upon God's work? If you are not saying that, then WHAT is the point or purpose of detecting design - specifically design of divine origin? I can think of none. Help me out here.
Let's move to your second statement, which appears at a glance to equate SETI's mission with ID's intent. Or is it? Is SETI there to detect and measure God's cosmic messages? Could mankind do anything with such data? We both know the answer to those questions: no. However, SETI's true missions fouses on alien (non-divine) communications. Could mankind do something with that data? I believe most of our best and birghtest think so.
What I am trying to focus on here is what can be done with the data. Please tell me what can be done with data collected from a divine source, because I can think of nothing.
Doggone interesting post. I had never even considered that angle before. Thanks for bringing it up!
Obviously this isn't really science that we are talking about. Science is all about curiousity, and challenging limits. When science becomes dogma, it also becomes religion.
I’ll support exposing godless, liberal hypocrisy.
You have company. Ben Stein has a place on the movie web site for people to recount their experiences in martyrdom.
Most Freepers would fit rght in. Check it out.
So you believe that only “applied” science is worth pursuing, and “pure” science is worthless? I’ll bet many scientists would be very disappointed about that. And I’ll bet that not many cosmologists have thought of a practical application of their work!
You are stating the obvious...
This is tangentially analogous to an atheist challenging the plain-as-day notion that “atheism isn’t a religion” on an effectively immaterial technicality (God/no god) - completely ignoring that atheism (like Christianity) is held on faith and guides actions and is for all intents and purposes a religion, with no rational basis for exemption from the same separation-of-church-and-state arguments. (Notwithstanding that the arguments themselves are of course specious - a grotesque out-of-context perversion of what Jefferson actually wrote. But then if there’s no afterlife, and no ultimate punishment for evils committed in this life, then there’s no reason not to lie if it advances one’s standing in the Darwinian cycle...)
I wrote:
I have repeatedly offered the complexity of the simplest known living cell as an example of “evidence” of ID.
You replied:
So is it your recommendation that scientists give up?
I reply:
If someone wants to pursue the matter on their own time or on private funding, that’s fine, but I would certainly recommend cutting off taxpayer funding for anyone who is trying to show that life can arise spontaneously. And I’ll bet you’d be surprised at how much of your money and mine is spent on that little exercise in futility. It’s an ideal pork project, because it sounds so intriguing — and it will go on forever.
Oh, I’ll bet they’re getting closer to solving the problem every day. Yeah, and I’m getting closer every day to leaping over the moon. Just give me a few more years.
Thanks for the ping!
[[ If you are not saying that, then WHAT is the point or purpose of detecting design - specifically design of divine origin? I can think of none. Help me out here.]]
None? What can be done with the knoweleldge of intelligent design? Plenty- Because If nothign has common descent, as has been proposed for 150 years now, then medicine will take a totally different path, as well as our understanding of the elements that make up design- When science gets out of hte broken dead end rut of searchign for common links, the path of discovery will venture in the much more realistic line of design instead. If two elements of a system are sdpecifically designed, then that would lead a person to reason that all other elements will be conjoined by their own design features instead of some random mythical mutational line. The possibilities of discovery with design are endless.
What do you do when somethign threatens to undo a preferred hypothesis? Answer- first you malign and ridicule the opponents, then if that doesn’t work to undermine hte science, then you accuse it of being something it isn’t- when that falls flat on it’s face- you bring out hte big guns- you pass laws to prevent it from ever being presented in a fair and objective manner, and you call it a ‘threat to human rights” LOL:
“STRASBOURG, November 1, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (CoE) has adopted a resolution to ban creationism from receiving any discussion in schools outside of religion classes. “The Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist ideas within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies,” said the resolution adopted on October 4 by the Parliament made up of 626 members elected from each European Member State.
“If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights which are a key concern of the Council of Europe,” said the resolution.”
“A Discovery Institute analysis of the resolution countered, “Isn’t science supposed to permit - and even embrace - skepticism and doubt? By equating Darwin-doubting with a thought-crime against humanity, the resolution exposes the CoE as being the very types of dogmatists they claim to eschew.””
Whether you choose to recognise it or not, evoution is a key driving point in the assault on religion that is taking place in our culture and in our schools.
It is absolutley critical for the people of God to address this assault on the same plain and w/ the same language, that is the language of science. Naturally this is not a simple thing in as much as religion is primarily metaphysical in nature.
You can rest assured though that the Truth will win in the end, I know I am.
I actually said I could think of nothing to produce with ID's stated mission. I've asked you, twice, to discuss this. Will you or not?
What you have suggested here only requires a person to believe that nothing has common descent, and then design his research, etc., around that. And, more importantly, you are still *quite* free to do that yourself, as are the people at the various ID websites. I am almost positive they *have* been trying this, to absolutely no success.*
*You can dispense with the "science conspiracy" antics with me. If you go to a medical company with research that could lead to profits, you'll be funded. I've read about all kinds of "frowned upon" ideas getting money for research, this is no different.
If that is the case, then why aren't the "evil" scientists trying to sue their way into religion classes and churches?
I have never called scientists evil or for that matter "evil", I will however point out that you are a pinhead.
The Wedge Strategy is a roadmap for a dishonest plan to push religion in the guise of science, with the ultimate goal to replace science "with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." The only way to do that is to destroy science as it has been practiced for a couple of centuries. In fulfilling this goal, a theocracy would be the ideal mechanism. These are a couple of the reasons that the Wedge Strategy, and the anti-science fundamentalism behind it, are "particularly ominous" to me.
Whether you choose to recognise it or not, evoution is a key driving point in the assault on religion that is taking place in our culture and in our schools.
It is absolutley critical for the people of God to address this assault on the same plain and w/ the same language, that is the language of science. Naturally this is not a simple thing in as much as religion is primarily metaphysical in nature.
You can rest assured though that the Truth will win in the end, I know I am.
You are assuming that the theory of evolution is not true.
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.