Posted on 07/13/2006 3:18:03 PM PDT by curiosity
LOL You're doing precidely what the writer of the article said--going 'round in circles. When exactly did I say the heavens and the earth didn't exist? Never. That they exist doesn't prove that God created them.
So is the presence of organized matter that performs specific functions. Intelligence and design are also present, without which neither science nor the biblical texts would exist.
No--intelligent design is a CONCEPT that PEOPLE cooked up to explain WHY something that nature or in your case God created. You're mixing apples with paperclips.
So there is plenty of evidence upon which I may base my trust, or faith.
The thing itself that you're trying to establish the origin of can't be the evidence for its creation: "There is a universe, therefore God created it."
Faith always has an object. Typically that object is based in reality. Science operates in the realm of faith more than in the realm of experience and direct observation.
That's just silly; you're trying to prove that total faith is better than science because science, the methods used of which are contradictory to the very idea of religious FAITH, isn't always correct, while faith, which has zero evidence (or there wouldn't NEED to BE faith in the first place) is better because science is imperfect. Faith, being based on thin air--your protests to the contrary notwithstanding--is thus perfect because it follows no set rules, and can dance around any logical argument against it by its followers retreating to "it's faith".
faith--# Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. # Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Have a nice day.
I trust you understand science is not so much in the business of proof as it is in the business of making reasonable inferences. I know you did not suggest the heavens and earth do not exist. You dismiss their value as evidence of creation when in fact that is the first thing we should look for when there is a text that says a heavens and an earth were created.
No--intelligent design is a CONCEPT that PEOPLE cooked up to explain WHY something that nature or in your case God created.
Such is your belief. Actually intelligent design is self evident and makes a fine explanation in and of itself. It does not have to be fabricated or "cooked up," as you say. The counter intuitive approach to science is to suggest the presence of organized matter performing specific functions is due to something other than intelligent design. As least you admit intelligent design has explanatory power, which it does. Science always deals in concepts. Nothing unscientific or superstitious about that.
You are correct, and I have never denied, there are occasions when faith is blind, i.e. goes counter to all the evidence involves. In this case, however, there is plenty of factual evidence for intelligent design, beginning with the ubiquitous presence of organized matter that performs specific functions.
He needs to use a different stick to what the mole. Gilder's main point is that his "stick," the "hard sciences" that he idolizes, just don't have enough information, because they depend on the available math. THAT, as Derbyshire, ought to know is the rub. The biologists are still operating within the parameters that produced moderb atomic physics, but it is Gilder's contention that eventually they are going to bump up against similar, indeterminacies Kurt Goedel kind of cut the epistemological legs out from Russell, Whitehead et al. . Yes, the biologists need a new metaphysics, which as he further needs to remember is more an extension of Aristotle's logic than his physics. Not impossible that they will produce one. Aristotle, after all, was a naturalist, not a mathematician or a physicist.
Maybe you should read Darwin. His work was never meant to bear such a heavy theoretical load.
Sometimes grapes or (or it can be berries) do most of the work themselves so that bears, birds, etc. wind up getting smashed just eating them. The yeast is out there and the conditions happen when they happen.
Of course, I can't prove that pixies aren't making it all happen but that theory is isn't very useful.
It certainly does if you count longevity as part of a "track record".
Mankind has been given to believe magical explanations for far longer than we've enjoyed naturalistic views, and a fortiori scientific accounts of natural phenomena.
Thank God for Derbyshire!
Riggghht...if one's not inclined to let accuracy get in the way of a great synopsis.
nice appeal to authority.
It's-all-magic placemarker!
"Protein synthesis of course can be modeled on a computer - you don't need a computer, for heaven's sake, it's just a simple translation of a triplet code. We are very rapidly getting to the point where we can model protein folding. But the numerical difficulty of a computational process is no measure of its 'information content'. The weather is hard to model, but that doesn't mean raindrops carry information"
Egad guys - get with it. Except for the possibly offending phrase ""it's just a simple translation of a triplet code", this statement is reasonably correct. 15 years ago when I did protein models for a living it took a Cray all weekend to model a simple protein. Things have gotten much better since then. With short cuts proteins can be reasonably modeled now. Indirectly the DNA code is responsible for the folding, except where chaperones are concerned.
I know TH does not have a problem with this, he's just into his usual "everybody's an idiot mode". I'm sure he'll correct me, though :)
I was implying a track record of positive accomplishment.
No, it doesn't even begin to answer my question. I asked for specifics. You provided a vague statement that evolution is not a result of random mutation of genes.
Are you aware that there are organisms with very little non-coding DNA?
Name any major feature of evolution theory not anticipated by Darwin.
It is true that he didn't anticipate DNA or genetics, but he accurately described the attributes of inheritance. He knew that there were features that were affected by the environment during development, and he knew that there were features that were controlled by some hidden code in the sperm and egg. He mistakenly believed that the inherited code could be affected by the individual's experience.
He was correct on some things and incorrect on others, but he anticipated and discussed nearly every concept in evolution.
Mere negation is not a logical argument.
If you can fold a protein you will win the Nobel prize in Chemistry.
You can fold many proteins quite accurately by simply recognizing sequence homologies. Protein domains usually fold like other protein domains with similar sequence. Ab initio folding is not yet a solved problem, but it doesn't justify such extreme statements.
As I said, modeling the weather is also hard. That does not mean there is some deep information content in the weather.
Say hey, Ozzie.
Your whole line of questioning is irrelevant and your reading skills are weak.
Science has even less point when it claims that something is definitevely known when it's not.
Did I catch a whiff of elderberries?
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.