Posted on 02/18/2005 7:09:03 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University and thought by many to be the chief proponent in the intelligent design movement, battled Vincent Cassone, department head of biology at Texas A&M University regarding the key points of the controversial intelligent design theory Tuesday evening in Rudder Auditorium.
Intelligent design is the theory that certain aspects of the natural world were created by a source of intelligence for a specific purpose, rather than evolving from random patterns.
As applied to biology, Behe said the design is not a mystical process, but is deduced from solid physical and empirical findings, whereas Darwin's theory of evolution appeared to have glaring holes.
(Excerpt) Read more at thebatt.com ...
A simple concept that is clearly too difficult for either of you two evotwirps to grasp.
It's quite likely that neither of you know enough anatomy between the two of you to even play the old Milton Bradley game, "Operation," successfully.
The self important belches of what either of you think passes for brilliance on these threads shows what a truly dismal command of science you have.
Get some education in science that begins with anatomy 101, and then we'll talk. Until then we're all still laughing at you, and all the other willfully blinded fools on your side that refuse to recognize the abundant, direct, self-evidence of design in nature.
>religious people did not come to the debate to learn about science.<
Certainly secularists learned nothing about science via this debate.
OH! I get it now..
Evolution is a story of NON-recorded human history..
but it is NOT a theory.. hold it.. hold it..
Let me think about this a minute...
(((( TILT ))))...
[ RESET ] Now.. lets go over this one more time.. I obviously ain't too smart..
More insults instead of argument, much less evidence. And you accuse others of "belching". I must tell you, this is fun to watch.
Lastly, who said I refuse to see "design" in nature?
> Thus we see, in this case, that feathers are an irreducibly complex component for the function of flight.
That's true, but it's also irrelevant. As I *hope* you can understand, the flight function is a *result* of the capability produced by the evolution of long arms and feathers. Irreducible complexity thus shows itself to be a silly arguement
> What are the odds against, not only a complex organism like the bat evolving the way Darwinists say, but a parallel evolution with the same form and function?
The odds against? Pretty low, it seems, as it has happened.
WOW! I must admit, you produced a *brilliant* parody of the arrogant, no-nothing bleatings of the Creationist whose faith is weak and threatened by facts! Bravo!
> your premise is that evolution happened in a Darwinian fashion. Therefore, all your conclusions must support your premise.
Obviously you know nothing of science. Name a scientist who *wouldn't* be thrilled to overturn current undersatnading and win the Nobel.
> Any argument which calls into question your basic premise is then thrown out as "silly."
No. Only the silly ones. And IC turns out to be silly, since it does not present a serious issue... but is repeatedly touted as some sort of proof.
> If it happened, then the odds must be pretty low?
The odds *against,* yes, when stacked up to the imaginary "one chance in 10R164" statistics that Creationists dream up.
Now, if you're done with the lame attempts at tarrign the arguement by tarring the personailty, try to re-focus. How does IC preclude the utility of feathers and arms?
> It is time to shake up the narrow minded establishment!
The narrow minded establishment *was* shaken up. Hense the fall of Creationism as an origins story that scientists took seriously.
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.