Posted on 01/03/2006 12:12:37 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Again I ask. What can the designer be other than God (Christian or otherwise)?
Two thoughts, one which satisfies the limits on science set by scientists and one which doesn't.
Life does not exist outside of our solar system which is scientific because it is eminently falsifiable but probably not true.
Life exists outside of our solar system which is not falsifaible because there are infinite places to look for it and we would need infinite time to find it, hence that proposition is not falsifiable and thus not science but probably true.
Weird, eh?
SETI is OK by me though. Pure science is a good thing and constitutional as well.
As I pointed out before, my parents (no wealthy folks, they) managed to put five of us through private schools without government vouchers. It's all a matter of priorities.
No more than Evolution begs the questions as to how life originated and developed the ability to pass information through reproduction (which is the starting point of evolution). The TOE simply says "we don't know" when it comes to how life original and developed to the level at which evolution took over - but you claim ID begs the question as to who caused the intelligence.
There cannot be ID without the I.
But "I" is merely non-evolution type processes, not a creator or God necessarily. The "I" can come in the form of already developed forms from another materialistic evolution-based systems.
To be ID there has to be an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER.
That is not true. Design is merely the alternative to evolved (designless). These are the logical implications - not necessarily how everybody else describes ID.
But SETI and ID are very similar concepts - just different applications.
Good post! SETI's fine with me, too, though I have my doubts that we'll ever find any life out there. But then, who knows?
One has to wonder if evolution is falsifiable. If someone tomorrow proves that the earth is 6,000 years old, the evolutionists will announce that this just means evolution happened faster than previously thought. If a mechanism is discovered limiting variation, they'll announce that the mechanism itself evolved after everything else evolved. If God Himself were to appear to us, they'd announce that He evolved.
Ok by me. I would vote against ID theory in my public schools as a practical matter. But I would scream bloody murder if the federal courts came to town trying to outlaw it based on bs interpretations of the US Constitution.
I see no harm is teaching about possibility but I am against the idea of teaching ID as an alternative to evolution. I agree with you on your statement about the courts and the Constitution.
Truth is I will introduce my children to the possibility of ID - I guess I don't really need the schools to do it - not to mention there is not much of ID to teach (it would be a short lesson - merely expose them to the forms that could represent IC....or not)
Evolution is a theory explaining the diversity of life on Earth. Creationists conflate that theory with some sort of philosophy, but simply because they claim it to be that way does not make it so.
Evolution teaches no such thing. It says simply that organisms adapt to their environments or they become extinct. The adaptation is through mutation and natural selection (not chance). Evolution does not teach anything about man being "the center of nature" -- humans are simply organisms adapted for a particular environment. That you think evolution is a "religion" only suggests the old aphorism: "to a child with a hammer, everything is a nail."
I'm trying to enlighten you on conservative constitutional interpretation. You may be enlightened or you can choose to stay on the bus with the liberals on the court. Nobody claimed it had the "force of law". You just made that up now, didn't ya?
Now, don't be testy. I did end my comment with "(It does show Rehnquist's opinion, which is what I suspect you posted it to show.)"
I am just trying to put things in perspective, mostly for the lurkers. And I didn't try to claim you were posting it in any negative way, but rather that you posted to illustrate Rehnquist's opinion.
I don't favor the attack kinds of posts. I think I can get more done with research and logic, and politeness, than attacks.
But occasionally I might slip in a little satire, or a pun, so you better read carefully!
I believe you proved my point. The designer, according to ID (and again, I am not expert on it), does not have to be the Christian God. Thus ID is not an explicitly Christian statement in and of itself.
If this is all it is then why do some evolutionists object so vehemently do ID, which is concerns the ultimate source of creation?
I studied evolution and closely related subjects all through grad school.
Based on my experience, at least, I must disagree with you on all three of your points.
They (and I) object to ID masquerading as science, which it patently is not. Even ID's proponents have admitted as much.
Don't the young earth creationists who postulate a global flood some 4,200 years ago already postulate that much of evolution happened since that time?
The theory of evolution must adapt to facts, wherever they lead. The current theory will change if the facts show that there are errors. That is the unique quality of science and the scientific method.
Praise the Lord!
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.