Posted on 02/22/2005 7:34:15 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Or, "It's not a transitional fossil unless it's a horse with wings or a fish with hair or etc. etc...."
Obviously neither Paley nor Darwin knew about DNA, but DNA is just a confirming bit of evidence for common descent.
The cambrian explosion was known about nearly 200 years ago and was troubling to Darwin at the time. Since then we have a much better fossil record extending over a much greater period of time.
There are no new concepts in ID.
And there is nothing new in science which disproves God either.
Factually wrong. Subsets of the flagellum code are quite functional to the organism and evolved prior to the flagellum.
What are the odds that your legs could have grown purely by chance to the exact length needed to reach the ground?
Of course we wouldn't be here if the laws of physics were different. Can you prove that we are the only universe?
What does that have to do with anything?
He thens says that the machine can function with a missing part. If you were ever to really study Behe's argument you would know that he talks about that.
And the idea that irreducible complexity is false just because it was hypothesized a long time ago would by the same logic make evolution false.
The ID seems to me to be an attempt to reconcile faith with scientific knowledge. People who believe in this proposition are granting that such things as evolution do exist, only it is Divinely Guided. Many people I know of who are Christians would reject anything that implied the literal 7 day story of genesis is incorrect. The fact that this idea is being accepted by more and more people will also mean more people will begin to form their ideas about the nature of God by looking at natural law.
I form a great deal of my image about the nature of God from just that sort of thing. When I observe the life and death struggle of wild animals, the lion pouncing on a gazelle, I see a BENEVOLENT hand of God.
The whole thing brings up lots of philosophical questions. I can see where some would view the ID idea as supportive of faith, and others would view it as undermining it. To me, it simply seems the most rational, which is why I doubt it will ever be widely accepted.
Simply pointing out that there is nothing new in science that disproves ID either.
Some of the first attempts to reconcile science with religion were done in the 1700s. Even then there were warnings that people who tried to find evidence of miracles in nature were treading on quicksand.
lol.. ahhh but I do not look for miracles in nature. I view nature itself as the miracle.
Nothing can disprove ID. There is no kind of evidence that could possibly disprive ID.
Disagree? Name something that could hypothetically disprove ID. Some potential finding.
Then you do not twist the evidence of geology to prove a young earth.
absolutely not. In fact, I believe many of our scientists and historians are arrogant in their belief that we have our past all figured out. I believe it is quite possible civilizations existed and turned to dust of which we know nothing.
Think I will expand on my answer to that a bit. My conception of God is that He is a being who is above and seperate from Time (watch for String theory influence here). This is in my belief why God knows what will be in what we precieve as the future, just for instance. To Him, time has no real meaning, being an eternal being. He exists in all times, simultaneously, and the past present and future are all the same to him at all "times".
I do not believe a "Day" to a timeless being would be as we percieve it, probably the only word he can find that even comes close to it for our understanding.
Because there is still an ecological niche for them. If it disappears, so will they.
ID could be right, but it is currently mot a scientific theory. I'm not sure how it could become one, since the only real candidate for the Designer is God, and there is no possible form of evidence that could disprove God.
All science tries to do is demonstrate how things happen following regular processes.
Here are 2 things evolution can never account for.
1. The beginning of life.
2. Sexual Reproduction.
And plain old speciation ain't looking like a real good bet with only 500 million years (tops) to play with.
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.