To: Matchett-PI
This guy is just using the old ID dodge of criticising evolution without offering positive evidence for ID. There is a college experiment that breaks up the class into a design team and an evolution team. They each attempt to create an airplain out of a drinking straw and two pieces of paper. The design team has access to all of the aeronautical engineering literature available at the school along with calculators and computers. The evolution team just has multiple lengths of straws and dozens of different wings to select from. The evolution team rolls a die and and tests the wing formation indicated randomely. Over a very short period of time the evolution team has found the optimum configuration. This is because form follows function, so physics determines the wing shape, not some random event. Randomness is simply part of providing the alternative formations from which evolution can select. The design team usually comes up with very nearly the same configuration for the same reason, form follows function. The purpose of the experiment is not to prove evolution, but to demonstrate that evolutionary processes mimic design.
8 posted on
04/25/2008 1:20:55 PM PDT by
Soliton
(McCain couldn't even win a McCain look-alike contest)
To: Soliton
10 posted on
04/25/2008 1:22:58 PM PDT by
Soliton
(McCain couldn't even win a McCain look-alike contest)
To: Soliton
"This guy is just using the old ID dodge of criticising evolution without offering positive evidence for ID." Not so. He doesn't believe it is possible to offer positive evidence for ID.
You didn't read the link to the thread (or to the other conversations).
You reeeeally might want to. :)
11 posted on
04/25/2008 1:28:14 PM PDT by
Matchett-PI
(Driving an Operation Chaos Hybrid that burns both gas AND rubber.)
To: Soliton
This guy is just using the old ID dodge of criticising evolution without offering positive evidence for ID Probably not. This seems to be neither.
12 posted on
04/25/2008 1:36:53 PM PDT by
RightWhale
(Repeal the Law of the Excluded Middle)
To: Soliton
This guy is just using the old ID dodge of criticising evolution without offering positive evidence for ID Probably not. This seems to be neither.
13 posted on
04/25/2008 1:37:27 PM PDT by
RightWhale
(Repeal the Law of the Excluded Middle)
To: Soliton
The purpose of the experiment is not to prove evolution, but to demonstrate that evolutionary processes mimic design.Indeed, since the designers of the experiment pulled together the elements required to make a plane, then provided sets of hands to put the elements together in varying combinations until something works.
For the experiment to truly mimic the theory of evolution (without a designer guiding it), they would just have to sit around and wait for an airplane to occur by itself.
16 posted on
04/25/2008 1:52:16 PM PDT by
MEGoody
(Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall cause you to vote against the Democrats.)
To: Soliton
The purpose of the experiment is not to prove evolution, but to demonstrate that evolutionary processes mimic design. Chesterton once said that God writes straight with crooked lines.
21 posted on
04/25/2008 3:58:17 PM PDT by
RobbyS
(Ecce homo)
To: Soliton
And guess what, chum? That experiment showed that the optimum airplane was created by Intelligent Design, not random selection. Thanks for adding it.
29 posted on
04/27/2008 12:09:54 PM PDT by
Robwin
To: Soliton
The evolution team just has multiple lengths of straws and dozens of different wings to select from.
I would personally like to know how the evolution team came up with the different straws and the wings to start with...
34 posted on
05/13/2008 12:02:01 PM PDT by
redtetrahedron
("Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee" - Jer 1:5 | RIP Fred'08)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson