Posted on 12/01/2005 10:55:04 AM PST by curiosity
Edited on 12/01/2005 11:11:54 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Excellent comments, bear repeating:
ID simply states that some outside Intellegence created life and may have had a hand in shaping it over time. It is therefore compatible with Christianity--and Islam, Deism, Hinduism, Buddhism, agnosticism, New Age, and every other belief system that posits a creative intellegence behind life.
The only ones who are throwing a fit are those who a) don't understand ID and have fallen for the press bit that it's "young-earth Creationism in disguise," and b) those who are so wed to their atheistic creation myth (usually something involving Campbell's primordial soup) that they are personally threatened by the increasing evidence that life could not have arisen on its own
LOL. So in your world, no one is allowed to have a viewpoint unless they are trained in that field. I'm not an astrologer (and, I wager, neither are you) so I'm not allowed to have an opinion about it. But you are.
If you want to live in a pretend world, you are given the free will to do so.
Have fun!
He knows it's not science because he doesn't believe in it.
*sigh*
It is not "caused" so much as it is an intrinsic and unavoidable side effect of the chemistry and inseparable from it. It is an abstract computational system in the same way that all chemical processes are with the additional (common) property that it does not have an equilibrium state that would impart stability to its form.
The biochemistry cannot keep DNA stable in a single organism (where stability would be useful), never mind successive generations where the biochemistry automatically does complex transforms on the DNA. This imparts measurable drift in the genome with each generation that accumulates over time. It happens at the speed of biochemistry, but really only has a material impact during reproduction at which time the incremental fork in the genome becomes permanent.
Substantial and noticeable genetic drift is measurable on timeframes of thousands of years, particularly if different isolated populations face different environments.
Ah, the Liberals favorite Republican speaks. I assume Tucker and Scarborough not too far behind?
Excessive spending- Bad.
Agreed.
The other is nothing more than the same elitist disdain and distaste for the "simpletons" that actually believe in God and so forth that permeated the party for so many years and kept it in the minority. he joins danforth and Whitman and all the rest put out that are in dismay that these "Christians" are sharing the same water fountains.
Get over it George. Or get out.
Thomas Jefferson
Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right.
He's right about spending. Creationism isn't that big an issue. I doubt anyone who's with the Republicans on other issues would be turned off by it. There is a feeling in some parts of the country that the GOP is out of touch with what people are thinking locally, and creationism may be seen as another indication of this.
Insofar as you understand "proto" to be fully feline, sure.
Are humans an example of micro-evolution from some original proto-primate-kind? Why not?
No, I don't think so, though I'll be the first to say that that's a religious belief rather than a scientific one. However, given that the evolutionary camp has never produced evidence of the linkage between humans and a proto-primate-kind that wasn't subsequently found to be a hoax or wishful-thinking, I see no reason to change that belief.
By what criteria do you decide what evolved and what didn't?
Everything changes over time. My objection is to the unsupported claim that small changes eventually add up to entirely new classes of lifeform. If and when you can prove that experimentally, we'll talk. Until then, you are making vast claims from half-vast evidence.
Because the experiments are all around us, asking to be observed?
Observations are not the same as experimental evidence, as any real scientist will tell you--and both are separate from their conclusions. A sizable minority of the US believes that aliens are visiting this world on the basis of their personal observation of UFOs and abduction experiences. Quite a few of us believe in miracles because we have witnessed them first hand. Are you prepared to accept both alien visitation and the intervention of the supernatural as true scientific theories on the basis of those observations?
Intellegent Design folks, like myself, don't deny the evidence--but those of us who for independent reasons believe in God (or whatever Intellegence) can also see alternative explanations for evolution's "observations." When you have replicable results instead of just observations whose interpretation is subject to debate, then you can claim the scientific high ground.
I have to "Bugg" out for the evening, but I want to let you know, you really are a pleasure to converse with.
You too. Have a great evening.
Then the debate we should be having is over school choice, an idea around which conservatives can unite, not the evo/crevo debate that would only serve to split the party and alienate swing voters.
*chuckle* But she still needs a first floor, right?
Look, Jenny, normally I'd be perfectly fine with the admission of ignorance--which is the start of all knowledge, after all. But given that one of the primary objections to the scientific nature of ID theory is that it does not say just who the Designer is, I'm not of a mind to cut you guys any slack here.
If ID isn't scientific because it does not contain all the answers, then neither is evolution; you can't have it both ways.
But how would you know the object is a "tablet", and that whatever squiggles you see on its surface is "writing"?
Now you get into the true scientific question of ID theory: What differentiates an object that has been created or acted upon from one which has been shaped by natural forces? Is there a definite, mathematical way to define design, or is it just a matter of instinctively knowing the difference? And which does life fall under?
So far, ID deals mostly with the mathematical odds of an object being in its current form due to natural shaping or intellegent design. But given that the theory itself is in its infancy, I wouldn't be surprised to find some new insights and techniques and models develop over time.
In the meantime, can you tell the difference between a sheer granite cliff and a worked stone wall? Can you tell the difference between a simple weathered rock and one which has been carved with symbols or shapes by a tool? Can you do so even without a scientific criteria?
Surely you've been around these parts to know that that's one of the oldest entries in the Kreationist Kornocopia of Kanards.
And yet, the math stlll holds, valiant attempts to disprove it notwithstanding. Sorry, but Carrier's article is full of holes itself. For example, just to pick the first section, he presumes, without proof, that there are "many" ways to encode life. Given that we have a sample of exactly one, how exactly does he arrive at that opinion? He also assumes the existence of living cells far, far simpler than what we have today--another unevidenced assumption.
Further, he misses the point. There are many ways to encode an operating system for a computer. That doesn't change the fact that, jokes about Windows aside, no operating system has ever conceived itself by accident. Let's go one simpler: There are many ways to encode a self-replicating computer virus, but they don't happen by accident either. In all cases, one or more intellegences carefully crafted them--and a simple replicating cell is far more complex than a computer virus.
That's ignoring the fact that 10^415 is such a high number that you could have a google (10^100) ways to encode a lifeform and still have only a 1 in 10^315 chance, which would still put it over the 10^18 seconds estimated to have passed since the big band times the 10^96 atoms estimated to make up the universe by a factor of 10^219!
And I'll wager that there aren't a google different ways to encode complex, self-replicating, evolving life.
It's telling that you put every Creationist or ID claim under the microscope to find some flaw, but latch onto any article supporting evolution completely uncritically.
That did seem to be your point in post #69.
Frankly, I think the issue of how science is taught to be a bit more important than having a school dance.
Actually, polls show most Americans oppose evolution.
The votes that result in the removal of the IDers are done out of embarrassment, not from disagreeing, but from all the attention and mocking done from New York City.
Case in point: KS. We removed the pro-IDers the first round after the national embarrassment. Then, when they campaigned again on the issue, we voted them back in. But, now that we are getting the attention again, probably they will be thrown out next year.
However, I will agree that spending is a big problem.
Polls are not relevant to the science, of course.
It is relevant to this discussion, however. Will says that creationism is harming the Republican party.
I say that is nonsense since most Americans reject evolution, even a God-directed evolution.
Where the heck did you get the idea that the school choice issue is over school dances???
Actually, polls show most Americans oppose evolution.
...and believe in UFOs and ghosts and assorted other nonsense (it's even possible that over half may actually believe Madonna in an 'artist'). And over half of college students didn't know which century the Civil War was fought in. My conclusion is that polls are not a reliable test of truth.
I did not say polls were a reliable test of truth.
But, they matter in this story because George Will is saying creationism will hurt the Republicans. Well, since most Americans support the Republican position, that really makes no sense.
That is my point.
I personally used to believe in creationism, but now I believe evolution has too much support to ignore.
But, I support an open debate on the issue.
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.