Posted on 07/08/2008 11:48:40 AM PDT by neverdem
You need to get out more, I’m a Catholic, you know, God’s one true Church.
Here goes the “rock bigger than He can pick up?” line
I'm sure any judge would be impressed with your reasoning....
You're assuming your the one who decides what is a reasoned objection against common descent and what is not. Just because you dismiss the FSM doesn't mean it isn't a valid ID theory for discussion in Louisiana schools.
Selective breeding is a form of intelligent design ... and life is quite obviously susceptible to it. Talk to any dog breeder or your local agricultural researcher.
The judge wasn't impressed with the ID arguement in the Dover case, was he? Might as well give Pastafarianism a shot.
Without data there is no empiricism.
Which means that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as valid as any other ID hypothesis.
By all means! You'll find no bigger supporter than me. I'll be right behind you!
Well, no, that's clearly incorrect.
For example, genetic engineering is a form of intelligent design, as is selective breeding in plants and animals.
The question for you is: could current scientific "theory backed by evidence" correctly identify cases where intelligent design is known to have occurred? For example, we know that most insulin used by diabetics is manufactured through the use of genetically engineered bacteria.
Absent that knowledge, could a scientist correctly describe the means by which that insulin production came about, without allowing him to make a hypothesis of "intelligent design?"
This example shows that sometimes an ID hypothesis is appropriate; and any scientific approach that dismisses it on the grounds you provided is quite simply wrong.
Note, btw, that one need not claim that all variations within and between species are the products of ID; nor does the invokation of an ID hypothesis magically obviate the requirement for evidence.
Those aliens must be busy folks. They recently allowed an e.coli to “innovate” and be able to metabolize citric acid. Several decades ago they had to give some bacteria the ability to digest nylon!
Then I await your Scientific test that gains supporting evidence for the Intelligent Design hypothesis.
Good luck.
Excellent link to the MetS article; completely coincides with the personal experience of Mrs. GB - high BMI, and PCOS that proved to be largely unresponsive to traditional infertility treatments.
3 children later, we have found the “secret cure” to infertility: serious CHO restriction. Since puberty, she was fortunate to be fertile once per year at best. Within two weeks of severe CHO restriction, normal fertility ‘appeared’. Month after month.
Now the issue is how many children are too many to have? Its a much better problem to have, trust me.
You're the one with the problem, though. I have handed you a case of undoubted Intelligent Design -- genetically engineered, insulin-producing bacteria.
In doing "science" to determine the source of that phenomenon, you apparently demand that an ID hypothesis is out of bounds. Well, OK -- that's precisely the kind of "protected orthodoxy" that this article describes. And in the example above, it automatically rejects what turns out to be the correct answer, that the bacteria were genetically engineered.
If one were to sequence the DNA of this bacterium, the signature of genetic engineering would, I suspect, be characterized in terms of "sharp edges" around the insulin-producing gene.
Now it's your turn. Tell me how you're going to get the right answer without invoking an ID hypothesis.
Oh? These are mutually exclusive now? I guess we can dismiss all evidence of subatomic particles now, since they are outside of our ability to observe directly--never mind that we can see their effects.
Funny thing: I've never observed a reptile evolve into a bird. Have you? I never saw the Egyptians build the Great Pyramid? Did you? Have you ever replicated either of these events in the laboratory?
Nope. Yet you still believe in ancient Egyptians, despite the fact that you have never seen one.
I see no more reason that the IDers should have to bear the burden of proof than those who claim that the pyramids were built by human beings should have to defend their belief against the proposition that they're just oddly symmetrical natural mountains.
The I.D. hypothesis is untestable by Science because it posits an unknown agent acting for unknown reasons using unknown powers and abilities to somehow make biological innovation possible, when it seems to be quite possible on its own without any intervention (as in the case of nylonase bacteria and citrate plus e.coli).
mega-dittoes...it’s about time!
Well, no -- that's you building a strawman.
What I'm contending is that your version of "science" says something equally ridiculous; namely, that as a matter of formal science it is impossible, ever, to recognize something as having been created, rather than arising as a result of natural processes. That is the logical result of saying that the ID hypothesis is "untestable by Science."
Further, if we take your position as being that of "Science" (why the capitalization, btw?) then "science" won't even try to test it, because it a priori assumes it's impossible.
Which is not a very scientific approach, I'm sure you'll agree.
And, as it happens, there are actually scientifically accepted tests for intelligent design in fields such as archaeology, to test the hypothesis that a particular object -- a rock, say -- was "manufactured" into a tool or not.
And, of course, you and I both have seen things in the woods or on the beach that are clearly created objects, and we recognize them as such despite the fact that they came from "an unknown agent acting for unknown reasons using unknown powers and abilities."
For you to somehow hypothesize that humans are somehow incapable of extending this power of recognition to biological manipulation is more akin to a religious belief. It's certainly not a scientific one. And, indeed, I believe I have sketched out for you above a kind of biological equivalent to the aforementioned archaeological test, that would apply to genetically engineered organisms.
So your allegedly scientific position would seem to be distictly lacking.
You are mixing the two matters, not me. The reasoned objections against common descent come from a variety of directions. Those have little to do with a discussion about what kind of intelligent designer might, or might not, exist. And, if at another time the discussion turned to the plausibility of the FSM, I would be more than happy to discuss whether that is a reasonable position to take. I don’t know a serious biblicist that would be afraid to take this on. But, it sounds as though you are afraid to confront the weaknesses of common descent.
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.