Posted on 11/14/2009 8:48:19 AM PST by SeekAndFind
“Let’s Restore Civility to the Debate”
You can’t argue with a psychotic Leninist...it’s just not possible.
IMHO
I'd like to point out that the above sentence would be more accurate if the words "facts are" replaced "skepticism in" ... giving us ...
Once the rhetoric is toned down, perhaps we can have a real discussion about the evidence and find out which sides facts are most convincing in this intriguing debate.
The following are a few of my favorite quotes on Intelligent Design, dedicated to the geniuses who cannot find any “evidence” of it in nature.
This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), The Principia
The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation ... His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. Albert Einstein
Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us. ...the atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words. Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
The more I study nature, the more I am amazed at the work of the Creator. Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. ... The better we understand the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based. ... I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life, and man in the science classroom. Wernher von Braun, father of the American space program
I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable that happened billions of years ago. God cannot be explained away by such naive thoughts. Ernst Chain, Nobel-laureate biochemist
So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design. ... The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order. Sir Fred Hoyle, British astonomer (and self-professed atheist), from a lecture in 1982
A superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology. Sir Fred Hoyle
The Darwinian theory has become an all-purpose obstacle to thought rather than an enabler of scientific advance. Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel-laureate physicist
Much of present-day biological knowledge is ideological. A key symptom of ideological thinking is the explanation that has no implications and cannot be tested. I call such logical dead ends antitheories because they have exactly the opposite effect of real theories: they stop thinking rather than stimulate it. Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause! Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel-laureate physicist
Do you think any of these guys have “produced any “actual scientific results”?
Not a single drop on "intelligent design". If you are aware of any scientific literature on ID, I would love to see it.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” —Voltaire
That’s why people like you scare me.
I am a Christian. I also believe that science is important. Intelligent Design, up until now, isn't science. Intelligent design is faith. I'm sorry I scare you. In my real life, I comfort far more than I scare. God bless you and your faith in intelligent design.
I am a Christian too, and I am not one to judge others, but I simply cannot understand how anyone, let alone a Christian, could possibly deny the obvious reality of Intelligent Design. Do you believe that God didn’t design the universe, or do you believe he designed it in such a way that we cannot determine that it was designed? If it’s the former, then you are not a Christian. If it’s the latter, then you are at odds with the greatest scientists who ever lived, several of whom I quoted earlier in this thread and on my FR home page. With Christians like you, who needs athiests? As for your underhanded “blessing,” thanks but no thanks.
There is NO scientific literature on ID and yet ID claims to be scientific. Have faith in creationism, at least it is Biblical. ID is political nonsense.
Saying the same thing over and over does not make it true. You might be interested in an essay I wrote on the topic a while back:
I started to rebut your essay claim by claim but stopped when I realized that you have abandoned science, and logic, therefore, has no power over your beliefs.
In your essay you concede that there is no scientific basis for ID. Agreed.
I sure do not hear the Darwinists/evolutionists complaining about BamaKennedy using that scientific methodology to enforce his philosophy/theology called health care.
Now it may well take a few years of BamaKennedy's tried and true methodology for some to get a wake up and start wailing 'God' help US. It does not matter what anyone believes, we all will get that same return when our flesh dies.
>>I sure do not hear the Darwinists/evolutionists complaining about BamaKennedy using that scientific methodology to enforce his philosophy/theology called health care.<<
The difference is that the arguments for and against AGW are both scientific arguments. The people who argue that AGW is junk science are climatologists using scientific methods and principles to arrive at their conclusions.
The same cannot be said for critics of TToE.
If you have an alternate SCIENTIFIC theory that explains the billions of data points explained by TToE, now is the time to produce it.
>>Evolution is a belief, a faith, a religion. If you doubt their religion, you are a heretic.<<
I invite you to produce a scientific alternative theory to TToE.
Yeah, right! Oh, gosh, I’d just love to see your “rebuttal.”
I think you need to work on your reading comprehension skills. What I “conceded” is that ID is not “scientific” according to the Popper definition of what is “scientific.” But according to that definition, neither is the current explanation for the origin of life. Nor is SETI.
Go ahead, repeat once again that ID is not scientific. The more you repeat it, the more sure you can be that it is true.
As I said before, with Christians like you, who needs athiests? What is sad is that the ignorance you promote is keeping many others from becoming Christians.
I have never made any claims aboiut SETI. They do at least, however, have a stated hypothesis and they are trying to test it. What is ID's hypothesis and what are you doing to test it?
I’ll answer your question, but first I’ll ask you to back up your claim. Please tell me what SETI’s “stated hypothesis” is, and please tell me how they are “trying to test it.” Thanks.
I will paraphrase: “If there is intelligent life in the galaxy, then they will have created electromagnetic signals that should be detectable.”
They are searching for said signals.
First, I think the hypothesis is something more like, “other intelligent life exists in the galaxy (or universe).” As I wrote in my essay on ID, that is unfalsifiable, hence “unscientific” according to Popper’s “falsifiability criterion.” Think about it. How could anyone possibly prove that no other intelligent life exists in the galaxy, let alone the universe?
But let’s suppose your version is correct. If other intelligent life exists, then “they will have created electromagnetic signals that should be detectable.” That is also unfalsifiable. How could anyone prove that other intelligent life would not have created electromagnetic signals?
But that is all secondary. You said, “They are searching for said signals.” That does not answer my main question. How will they know if they find such a signal? In other words, how are they “testing their hypothesis,” as you put it?
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.