Tension Over Intelligent Design

International Herald Tribune ^ | 10/31/2005 | Joseph Rosenbloom

[Diamond]

BOSTON Michael Behe is a respected professor of biochemistry noted for his research into the structure of nucleic acid. He is also the author of "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," a book, published in 1996, that put him squarely on the map in favor of an anti-evolution concept known as intelligent design, causing deep tensions between Behe and his fellow faculty members at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Two months ago Lehigh's Department of Biological Sciences, where the 53-year-old Behe has taught for 20 years, publicly repudiated his views in a notice on its Web site, saying that they had "no basis in science."

Read more at International Herald Tribune

[betty boop]

"If someone asks you to stop posting to him, stop posting. This is not complicated."

But you never explained to me the reason(s) why you wished to cease all communications between us.

Just give me a reason -- any reason -- to stop posting to you. I have never been abusive of you, nor shown any disrespect or lack of civility regarding the expression of your argument, or even of the way you see things. Whether I have understood you correctly or not, I respect your place in the "marketplace of ideas."

So please tell me: What -- precisely -- is the beef between thee and me??? (And no, I am not a Quaker, nor do I play one on TV).

[curiosity]

Now, if you have evidence that the vast majority of founders who were Christians did not believe exactly this, then please adduce it

Wow, shifting the burden of proof, I see. You asserted that the vast majority of the founding fathers were creationists, so it's your burden to provide evidence for it.

[curiosity]

Evolution = God didnt create anything especially mans spirit

Wrong. Evolution doesn't say anything about a spirit, neither affirming nor denying. The supernatural element of man is simply outside the scope of evolution.

[hosepipe]

[ Wrong. Evolution doesn't say anything about a spirit, neither affirming nor denying. The supernatural element of man is simply outside the scope of evolution. ]

WRONG.. What does DNA have to do with "A" human SPIRIT..
Can a spirit "evolve".. What is a "spirit".. Get my drift..

Is a human a DNA'osaur or something else again..?..

The whole "attack" on creationism by evolution is THAT.. mankind is wholly DNA and NOT a spiritual being at all..

Evolution is an attack on the spirit.. mans spirit and ultimately Gods spirit.. by inference.. Which God.?. The God of the bible of course.. Whom else.?.. Mankinds other Gods could care less.. being merely mental constructs..

[Sun]

Yet Meyer disputes the demarcationist argument that intelligent design is inherently unscientific. "Scientists make design inferences all the time," he said.

"No geologist, for example, would attribute the origin of the faces on Mount Rushmore to wind and erosion, nor would an archaeologist insist that the inscriptions on the Rosetta Stone are the result of purely natural causes. In the case of the Rosetta Stone, we infer design because we know that only intelligent agents have the capacity to produce the encoded information that the inscriptions contain. There is an important and clear difference between a "picture" in a cloud and an encoded message. And modern probability theory entirely supports this conclusion."

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC&id=1771

[hosepipe]

[ You asserted that the vast majority of the founding fathers were creationists, so it's your burden to provide evidence for it. ]

And providing you with information that you could easily Google yourself would accomplish exactly what.?..

[Ichneumon]

But you never explained to me the reason(s) why you wished to cease all communications between us.

This is wholly false.

Just give me a reason -- any reason -- to stop posting to you.

Because I ask it. As Jim Robinson has previously stated, that is sufficient reason.

I have never been abusive of you, nor shown any disrespect or lack of civility regarding the expression of your argument, or even of the way you see things.

This is false as well -- as you are well aware. Your feigning amnesia/innocence only confirms that I made the right choice when I severed ties with you. I have no interest in such games.

So please tell me: What -- precisely -- is the beef between thee and me???

The "beef" is the fact that you continue to post to me after I have repeatedly stated that I have no desire to be pinged by you.

Do NOT ping me again.

[Dataman]

I for one, don't subscribe to the us-good, them-bad drill. It's based on a false premise that certain groups have a monopoly on virtue while others have the monopoly on vice.

That's nice, cornelis, but that is not what I said. It would be nearly impossible for you to disagree that the evos are desperately trying to frame the debate as religion vs science, and as religion, the belief system should be suppressed. Don't you think it's a bit bizarre that the so-called scientific view isn't defended with facts? But no, the facts are deep secrets never to be revealed to the common people. Instead of facts, opinions, multiple fallacies, leftist political groups and character assassination are the primary devices used to support science.

And don't forget, ID'ers aren't calling for the elimination of the teaching of evolution, but for both sides to be presented. IOW the evos want to decide for the thinker, and the ID'ers want the thinker to decide.

[Dataman]

I have never been abusive of you, nor shown any disrespect or lack of civility regarding the expression of your argument, or even of the way you see things. Whether I have understood you correctly or not, I respect your place in the "marketplace of ideas."

You shouldn't be surprised. This is predictably how the opposition deals with what they perceive to be intellectual threats. But then if I. were to be treated as he does unto others, then he could only communicate to a handful of like "minded."

[curiosity]

WRONG.. What does DNA have to do with "A" human SPIRIT..

Absolutely nothing.

Can a spirit "evolve"..

Nope.

What is a "spirit"..

An immortal, non-physical entity that is part of the essence of human existence.

Get my drift.

No, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Is a human a DNA'osaur or something else again..?..

Something else.

The whole "attack" on creationism by evolution is THAT.. mankind is wholly DNA and NOT a spiritual being at all..

Where are you getting this from? Please cite a reference. I've never seen any scientist claim that evolution implies either that man is wholly DNA or that man is not spiritual.

Evolution is an attack on the spirit..

Nope. Evolution has nothing to do with the spirit.

[USConstitutionBuff]

It would prove that the Founding Fathers were not Creationists, some of them didn't believe in the Bible at all (Deists such as Franklin) and others were hardly Biblical literalists (such as Thomas Jefferson who eschewed all accounts of the miraculous whether from Greek, Roman or Biblical sources).

You have nothing that can contradict the simple fact that neither Deists, nor freethinking Christians (as Jefferson called himself) were Biblical literalists and therefore neither was a Creationist.

Laziness is no excuse for assertion without substantiation.

[betty boop]

I swear Ichnoumenon's request has been mistaken as coming from me!

LOL, cornelis! I just haven't been around much lately (have had to somewhat limit my on-line time). Yes, I too really do miss "the old days when the adults where online." Thanks for the links to some of the "golden oldies."

I agree with you that there's more to Being than concept. It seems there is a fundamental asymmmetry between what the mind can conceive and the full reality of Being. What are your thoughts?

Thanks for your kind words, cornelis.

[betty boop]

...when Deists don't believe in the Bible, and even self described Christians such as Thomas Jefferson were hardly Biblical literalists.

It seems you have a certain antipathy for the Holy Book, USCB. You should know that not all people who love the Bible are "biblical literalists."

Plus it's interesting to me that the Holy Scriptures is the #1 best-selling book of all time. I don't see how that could be the case if it were just "junk."

Notwithstanding, on my understanding of the definitions given, I conclude that both TJ and Ben believed that God created the world -- matter, natural law, lifeforms, etc. -- out of nothing. (And then He "split," or left the scene....) To that extent, they fit the description of "creationists."

[Diamond]

so it's your burden to provide evidence for it.

I did.

Cordially,

[betty boop]

This is predictably how the opposition deals with what they perceive to be intellectual threats.

Dataman, it is amazing to me how much polemics -- and how little actual science -- is going on in most of these Crevo threads....

[betty boop]

Theres so many variations of the first two you dont know exactly what the person you're talking to means exactly (usually).. unless you're in the same choir.. Do Evos have choirs.?. Absolutely..

Fascinating insight, hosepipe! Thank you so much for writing.

[USConstitutionBuff]

That is not the definition of Creationist, that would include EVERYONE who was not an Atheist. A Creationist is someone who believes in a LITERAL account of Genesis.

I have no antipathy for the Bible. My antipathy is those who engage in lies, distortions, and historical revisionism. And I never said the Bible was "junk", that is your straw-man that you insist on beating up because it is they are the only blows you can possibly land, as you don't' have a leg to stand on other than a definition of Creationist so broad that it includes everyone who isn't' an Atheist, including me.

What God does a Deist believe created the universe? NOT the God of the Bible. They are therefore NOT Creationists.

[USConstitutionBuff]

No you did not.