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

Skip to comments.

Profs debate design theory
The Battalian ^ | 2/16/05 | Ji Ma and Steve McReynolds

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 ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: academia; behe; crevolist; debate; id; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 last
To: orionblamblam; Shryke
A wing without feathers is a wing without feathers

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.

61 posted on 02/19/2005 10:48:38 AM PST by Agamemnon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo

>religious people did not come to the debate to learn about science.<

Certainly secularists learned nothing about science via this debate.


62 posted on 02/19/2005 10:53:24 AM PST by G Larry (Aggressively promote conservative judges!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
The debate should be on where did the THIRD human come from...
He/she obviously came from the first Two..
but where did the first two come from.?..
or even the where did the second one come from...
In all of recorded history humans have been humans..

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..

63 posted on 02/19/2005 11:04:25 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Agamemnon
A simple concept that is clearly too difficult for either of you two evotwirps to grasp.

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?

64 posted on 02/19/2005 4:14:10 PM PST by Shryke (My Beeb-o-meter goes all the way to eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Frumious Bandersnatch

> 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.


65 posted on 02/19/2005 8:02:13 PM PST by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Agamemnon

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!


66 posted on 02/19/2005 8:03:52 PM PST by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
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

Ah, but you see, your premise is that evolution happened in a Darwinian fashion. Therefore, all your conclusions must support your premise. Any argument which calls into question your basic premise is then thrown out as "silly."

The odds against? Pretty low, it seems, as it has happened.

This is backwards logic. Your premise has already predetermined your conclusion, therefore any inconvenient facts either don't matter or must be explained away as irrelevant in your world view.

If it happened, then the odds must be pretty low? Really now, using faith to back up a logical argument sounds rather cultish.
67 posted on 02/21/2005 7:47:59 AM PST by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Frumious Bandersnatch

> 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?


68 posted on 02/21/2005 9:08:28 AM PST by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
Obviously you know nothing of science. Name a scientist who *wouldn't* be thrilled to overturn current undersatnading and win the Nobel.

There is also the bandwagon mentality in science. The establishment wants to ban any ideas that runs counter to Neo-Darwinian evolution. What we must do is put forth the evidence and force them to examine it. If they will not examine it, we should force them out of the ivory towers. Viva la revolution!

It is time to shake up the narrow minded establishment!
69 posted on 02/22/2005 7:08:43 PM PST by nasamn777 (The emperor wears no clothes -- I am sorry to tell you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: nasamn777

> 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.


70 posted on 02/22/2005 9:07:41 PM PST by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 last

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.

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