Posted on 11/24/2009 6:50:51 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Pro-Darwin consensus doesn't rule out intelligent design
--snip--
(CNN) -- While we officially celebrate the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" on November 24, celebrations of Darwin's legacy have actually been building in intensity for several years. Darwin is not just an important 19th century scientific thinker. Increasingly, he is a cultural icon.
Darwin is the subject of adulation that teeters on the edge of hero worship, expressed in everything from scholarly seminars and lecture series to best-selling new atheist tracts like those by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. The atheists claim that Darwin disproved once and for all the argument for intelligent design from nature.
And that of course is why he remains hugely controversial. A Zogby poll commissioned by the Discovery Institute this year found that 52 percent of Americans agree "the development of life was guided by intelligent design." Those who are not scientists may wonder if they have a right to entertain skepticism about Darwinian theory.
Read a leading Darwin proponent's view that evolution leaves no room for intelligent design theory...
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
That's nice. And it's also meaningless.
When we hear from them, let us know.
"Religion" has multiple meanings. If you follow the response/reply thread back to the comment I was originally replying to, you will see that "religion" was being used in a different context and with a different meaning than you are using. My reply was to that person, and I used the word consistent with the meaning and context that was implicit in their comments.
God cannot be denied by true scientists, and that’s why many are agnostics. But faith cannot be argued scientifically either.
The issue I raised wasn't about "spontaneity", but rather "self assembly". Molecules forming crystals are "self assembling".
It's one of the most fundamental properties of matter you can find.
I'm arguing that the God of Creation simply made it possible for His Creation to lift itself up out of the dust and grime of a trillion worlds across the expanse of space and time.
I think you want me to believe in some sort of god who is just one of many who went about tinkering with materials here on Earth. Prove me wrong.
Multiple? Perhaps strictly, but, all those ‘meaings have a common denominator. A belief system, a set of practices of a group of people.
So, really, just one.
True, crystals are "self-assembling", now try to follow this.....crystals will self-assemble spontaneously
The God of Creation told us how it was done.
I think that you think that you know what I'm thinking, but I'm not sure that what you think is right. What I would Hope for you is to realize that your Creator wrote His Word down for you, that it is true and contains all you need to get back to Him.
And I've already had someone else reply to me listing four of them.
Can anyone on this forum, subscribing to the evo standpoint READ? Were you all brought up and educated AFTER the start of the Dept of Education?
I said, Yes there are multiple ‘definitions’, but that all have a common thread to them. Sheesh.
That's nice. And it's also meaningless.
Not meaningless at all in the context of an answer to someone who wanted to know how there could be organic compounds where there was no life.
“Not meaningless at all in the context of an answer to someone who wanted to know how there could be organic compounds where there was no life.”
Organic means living basically. So again, how can life have begun before there was any life in the atheist view? All that has been offered is that life began from life which is a totally ridiculous argument when discussing proof that life began without God creating it.
Nobody claims that the first life was anything the size of a beagle. If you're going to ask questions, you have to learn to listen to the answers rather than working on your next straw man. Your question makes as much sense asif I asked why Jesus didn't change my Brita pitcher into wine overnight.
No, it doesn't. VanShuyten addressed that in #100. See what I mean about listening to the answers?
Let’s ask the Religion Moderator if they’d like to move the Mac/PC war threads over to the Religion forum.
If you think I am "aligned with the Atheists" because I point to the undoubted fact that the Darwinian mechanism can be harnessed to create novel complex algorithms, you are mistaken. I suggest you read Alexander Kalomiros's The Six Dawns to disabuse yourself of such notions.
Why would a scientific theory or any kind rule out or even address a theology in the first place?
Darwin is not just an important 19th century scientific thinker. Increasingly,
Uh oh...I think Stephen here is saying Darwin thinks scientifically. What say YOU?
Polls on "how many of the People believe X" are hilariously irrelevant to ANY truth. People will believe some crazy stuff.
Those who are not scientists may wonder if they have a right to entertain skepticism about Darwinian theory.
Great set up for pointing at the "rights-stealing atheist boogeyman" Go ahead...show me someone the is not a scientist that is afeared that they have no right to be a skeptic of ANYTHING and I'll show you someone that is too scared to speak their mind and is likely uneducated in EITHER evolution or ID and will sound like a doofus if they DO speak their mind.
We are told that a consensus of scientists supporting the theory means that Darwinian evolution is no longer subject to debate
....and I will tell you that if you want to "debate" a scientific theory, you do it with science. You wanna disprove evolution, disprove it with actual science, not "it's complicated and tiny, so THERE....God did it."
You wanna "debate" it in your living room....have at it.
But does it ever happen that a seemingly broad consensus of scientific expertise turns out to be wrong,
Sure....when politics is involved.
GREAT....attach evolution to geocentrism and eugenics. Why not just get it over with and bring up the Holocaust, Mao, Marx.....?
Sorry, Stephen, the Cambrian explosion does not refute the ToE....but it's good to see that you toss around figures like 520 million years.
Fossil finds repeatedly have confirmed a pattern of explosive appearance and prolonged stability in living forms, not the gradual "branching-tree" pattern implied by Darwin's common ancestry thesis.
This does not refute the Teory of Evolution.....it shows that there were environmental circumstances for MILLIONS OF YEARS that favored a great diversification of life over MILLIONS OF YEARS. Wow....
Yeah yeah....you've used the key phrase "micro-evolution" and compared it with "macro-evolution"....next up...."irreducible complexity"....
I see Stephen is trying to build a concensus of his own....science is not a "concensus" to be won in an ad numeram.
Increasingly, there are reasons to doubt the Darwinian idea that living things merely "appear" to be designed. Instead, living systems display telltale signs of actual or "intelligent" design such as the presence of complex circuits, miniature motors and digital information in living cells.
There's the irreducibly complex nonsense. Earth to Stephen, those little flagellar motors are comprised of some parts that also have another function...one of protein secretion...as in ...complex AND reducible. Just because something is tiny and complex doesn't mean it id designed. It means it is tiny and complex. Of course, to sway the uneducated masses, one must use common words like circuits, motors, and digital...things Man has made.
The structure of DNA allows it to store information in the form of a four-character digital code, similar to a computer code.
Actually, it's a chemical code that Man made digital....but good job bringing computers into the mix...probably get you another few followers.
This discovery highlights a scientific mystery that Darwin never addressed: how did the first life on earth arise?
D'UH....that's because the Theory of Evolution HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.
To date no theory of undirected chemical evolution has explained the origin of the information needed to build the first living cell
.....and if you're a real scientist, Stephen, you'd know that failure to come up with something...yet...means exactly....NOTHING in the science world. Failure to discover or explain something in the science world does not mean it does not exist in the science world.
Instead, the digital code and information processing systems that run the show in living cells point decisively toward prior intelligent design.
ONLY if you want it to and ONLY in the non-science world where one can believe whatever they want so long as they don't wanna bring it INTO the science world as "science" or a "refutation of science."
Indeed, we know from our repeated experience -- the basis of all scientific reasoning -- that systems possessing these features always arise from an intelligent source -- from minds, not material processes.
False claim, Stephen.
DNA functions like a software program.
No, it does not, but you need it to sound like a Man made machine to suit your purposes. I didn't know that computer software was all about random changes in the programming code, but lemme take a computer program and randomly alter the code and see what happens.
We know that software comes from programmers.
Yes, we do...continue with the false analogy.
Information -- whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, or encoded in a radio signal -- always arises from a designing intelligence.
hieroglyphics, books, and radio signals are not biochemicals......
The question of biological origins has long raised profound philosophical questions.
Yes, philosophical and theological questions indeed.
It's not surprising that such a worldview-shaping issue would illicit strong passions and disagreements.
Yes, in a world dominated by religions, things that are naturalistic don't gibe well.
All the more reason to let the evidence, rather than a supposed consensus, determine the outcome of what is, in fact, a very legitimate and important debate about the Darwinian legacy.
All the more reason to let science deal with science and theology deal with theology.
Why not, they’ve moved the ecvolution threads to the ‘SCience’ forum.
“Organic means living basically.
No, it doesn’t. VanShuyten addressed that in #100. See what I mean about listening to the answers?”
Yes it does...you can not have organic without life...I posted the definition for you long ago. VanShuyten is wrong.
So, you still have not answered the question about how life could have begun before life existed. The reason is because you cannot. No one can, except those who understand that God created life. It is really a no brainer...really. If you would spend a little time contemplating the question and not just accepting crap for fact you will come to see the truth. If, we understood how life was created before life we could create new life (not duplicate what is here or vary what is here, truly create life), we cannot.
Now, how come there is not new life, not variations of existing life, but new species popping up in your yard everyday? We truly have a soup now to create new life, but somehow it does not occur. Indeed, from what we are to understand there are fewer species now...how can that be? Don’t just parrot what others have said, think think think!!!
Well, then go right ahead. I'll watch.
“what is the theory for the creation of life without God and why are there not new life being created every day? Why not new something the size of a Beagle for instance?
Nobody claims that the first life was anything the size of a beagle. If you’re going to ask questions, you have to learn to listen to the answers rather than working on your next straw man. Your question makes as much sense asif I asked why Jesus didn’t change my Brita pitcher into wine overnight”
If you actually read what I posted in the first paragraph you may be able to discuss this in a more rational manner. It is impossible to debate or discuss if one party will not put in any effort to read accurately what the other party is saying.
Seriously? The idea was yours, I only tried to point out the asininity of it. You want to reform FR? Have at it. I am happy as is, evo’s notwithsatnding.
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.