Posted on 02/03/2008 12:58:53 PM PST by KayEyeDoubleDee
spring 2008
The challenge from back in post #20 was "one species coming from another." I have provided evidence that this occurs in ring species.
More from the article I referenced (emphasis added):
Demonstrations of evolutionGreenish warblers and Ensatina salamanders illustrate three fundamental ways that ring species can teach us about evolution:
- Ring species provide strong evidence for evolution causing the appearance of new species, demonstrating that many small changes can eventually accumulate into large differences between distinct species. Some critics of evolutionary theory think that evolution can only cause limited change within a species and cannot lead to the evolution of new species. Ring species show that they are wrong; variation between species is qualitatively similar, though different in degree, to variation within a species.
- Ring species allow a reconstruction of the history and causes of divergence during speciation, since spatial variation may illustrate change through time. Without the rings of populations connecting the terminal forms, we would have little understanding of the history of divergence of greenish warbler songs or Ensatina color patterns.
- Ring species provide evidence that speciation can occur without complete geographic isolation. As discussed at the beginning of this article, the prevailing view of speciation has been that two populations must become geographically isolated, such that they do not exchange genes, before speciation can occur (this process is called 'allopatric speciation'). Ring species, however, show that the ends of a long chain of interbreeding populations can diverge to the point that they do not directly interbreed, even though genes can travel between them through the intermediate populations (in other words, they are connected by 'gene flow'). This aspect of ring species has been rather controversial, and critics have argued that some apparent examples of ring species, such as Ensatina, have breaks in gene flow.
; - )
Darwin or evolution is irrelevant to whether or not ID is a legitimate scientific theory. If Darwin had never existed, the same problem would exist with calling ID a scientific theory. In other words, if you were to prove that Darwin was totally wrong about some part of his theory or all of it, that wouldn't improve ID's scientific value.
You’re the ones saying it’s all accidental and by random chance.
God could have a hand in everything, every ripple in the ocean and every quiver of a leaf, but that is of no scientific value and is not a scientific theory. Intelligent Rippling and Intelligent Quivering is exactly the same as Intelligent Design as far as scientfic value goes.
But common sense tells an INTELLIGENT THINKER that a HIGHER POWER created us and everything else. Or else, go make a rock for yourself.
Ping!
So, I’m going to assume you’ve observed it already, hmmmm?
How empirical of you.
“But then he imagines this conspiracy and wants to force science to teach his religion and philosophy. “
Much as some would imagine a conspiracy from Anne Coulter and Ben Stein, hmmmmmm?
He doesn’t say “scientists teach this” (from what I can tell) he says “many scientists are being squelched in an environment that isn’t supposed to stop asking questions”.
If everyone agrees, noone is thinking. And darwinists want consensus, not heretics.
>>He doesn’t say “scientists teach this” (from what I can tell) he says “many scientists are being squelched in an environment that isn’t supposed to stop asking questions”.
If everyone agrees, noone is thinking. And darwinists want consensus, not heretics.<<
No one has been a Darwinist for almost 100 years.
The problem with this argument is that there has been 150 years+ of progress since the Origin of the Species.
Darwin and his finches are a lot like Ben Franklin and the Kite. Was the first to show that lighting and the electrochemical effects of the Leydan jar were the same. Since then thousands of other advancments havce been made and all kinds of successful experiments and predictions have been made.
For someone to call developmental biology “Darwinism” and ignore all the genetics and paleontology, and geology and chemistry and atomic knowledge since then. To a scientist, suggesting that alternatives without evidence are co-equal to evolution is about the same as suggesting that lightning isn’t electrical and that all the results are wrong.
Its not suppressing discussion - they can discuss whatever they want. But the line needs to be drawn at teaching non-science in science class.
I don’t believe the scientists that were silenced were in a class when it happend.
When they go to publish and research their hypothesi, they get told to “shut up”.
That isn’t a classroom session, that’s telling people to not ask certain questions (when the resources to answer them are so limited).
And why not ask what other theories could ALSO provide successful predictions?
Are the scientists just content with what they have so far?
For a time, the idea that the sun was carried across the sky on a chariot was sufficient to explain a predictable outcome- the sun rises, appears to travel across the sky, the sun sets.
Keep asking questions!
I am not against the presupposition of design as philosophy, indeed the idea that the universe is laid out logically and obeys mathematical rules had paid massive dividends. What I am against is the presupposition that unless Scientists can measure God, or include the “God factor” into their equations that they are somehow denying God. It is ludicrous.
I guess someone forgot to tell Newton that, or Copernicus, or Kepler, or Pasteur, or any number of the great men of science who laid the foundations of modern science who believed in a God who created the Universe.
Could you please provide evidence to demonstrate that belief that an intelligent designer, or a creator God, stifles ones desire to learn and understand more about the world we live in?
You could try googling it.
You're supposition of not a designer is also a philosophical belief that has no evidence to back IT up.
It's simply a preference because some scientists think it makes things easier to explain.
Okay, but I don't think that is the sum of what we're saying. Thanks for the discussion! :)
The Gardener didn’t create the principle of nuclear fusion providing energy to the plants. The Gardener didn’t create the principles of electromagnetism that make photosynthesis possible. The Gardener didn’t determine the seasons conducive to the plants growth. The Gardener didn’t create the heavy elements the plant needs to grow by making stars that create heavy elements from hydrogen.
So how does embracing both Science and religion turn God into a gardener again?
By denying Science I say you turn God into some Wizard of Oz with smoke and mirrors and ‘pay no attention to the man behind the curtain’; who ‘poof’s’ things into existence rather than all things stately following HIS divine plan from the beginning.
“And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life.” It was the waters that brought forth life upon this world. At God’s word. In the beginning was the word and the word was God.
“People who are confident in their beliefs aren’t afraid to have them challenged.”
Exactly. Deep down inside, every Darwinist knows that their philosophical construct is nothing more than cheap, tawdry nonsense.
“Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”
But Science is perfectly consonant with Christian and theistic convictions as it is. And for being ‘stifling’ we seem to have made some pretty significant advancements. Moving Science away from “materialism” is to try to include a “God factor” into the equations; much as ‘Design theory’ attempts to do by saying that the mechanism that God put in place to change living things in response to their environment is insufficient to explain large scale change so one must factor in God to explain the supposed shortcomings of natural selection and mutation.
A God may have created the universe but those scientists that you referenced never advanced ID as a scientific theory. Do you know why the great scientists who were also religious never advanced ID as a scientific theory?
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.