Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: betty boop
I don't think that ID is offering itself as an "alternative" to evolutionary theory.

IMHO, it is trying to.

Indeed, I understand it as attempting to fill in the glaring gaps in Darwinist theory -- e.g., the role of information in the evolution of biological life. I know of no ID theorist who is "pushing God."

Gaps yes, but such is science. Some are being filled in a we speak, other may never be. Welcome to a scientific theory. :-) And yes "ID" by the very nature of the wording posits a diety. Thusly ID is "pushing" God.

It is quite clear (to me at least) that life is an evolutionary process.

For me as well! :-)

But somewhere along the line, matter had to "get smart" in order for life to evolve. ID seeks to explain the mechanism for this. No more and no less.

Why?

The fact that Darwinism (at least neo-Darwinism) refuses to admit that there is any shortcoming in its theory whatsoever suggests to me that it has become a cult, in the strict meaning of that word. As such, it is a victim of "arrested development." FWIW, it seems to me that science is not well served by the Darwinist's relentless closure to ideas being developed in physics, information science, and other fields that purport "fill in the gaps" of the Darwinist account -- which is the method of (the most unfortunately named) Intelligent Design. Had they called this field something else -- anything else! -- it probably wouldn't be encountering all this irrational flak from "true believers."

As far as I know, there is no theory called "Darwinism". However, the theory of evolution is being tested every day.

254 posted on 12/22/2004 10:28:07 AM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies ]


To: RadioAstronomer

RadioAstronomer, I would tend to agree with you that Intelligent Design implies a Creator. We surely disagree on the theory that accumulated mutations can account for the diversity of life on earth.

However, agree or disagree, let me also wish you a Merry Christmas and say thanks to you for your polite demeanor in discussing issues here.


256 posted on 12/22/2004 10:32:18 AM PST by puroresu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies ]

To: RadioAstronomer; betty boop
"ID" by the very nature of the wording posits a diety

I would claim that ID by the nature of the idea itself posits a deity. (Although not necessarily the Christian God) I have posted this argument a few times and have never had a response from an ID proponent:

ID is the idea that life cannot evolve without the guidance of some intelligent designer. Presumably "life" would include intelligent life. Therefore, in order for intelligence to exist, there must be a designer. However, if this is true, where did the intelligent designer come from? There are two possibilities. First possibility: there must be another, even more intelligent designer who designed the intelligent designer, in which case where did THAT designer come from? This leads to an infinite regression of intelligent designers. Second possibility: the intelligent designer must have either created itself or must have existed eternally. In this case, I think most people would recognize this entity as a deity, although maybe not one with all the characteristics of the Christian God.

400 posted on 12/23/2004 5:36:45 AM PST by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson