Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Theory of 'intelligent design' isn't ready for natural selection
The Seattle Times ^ | 6/3/2002 | Mindy Cameron

Posted on 06/07/2002 11:35:28 AM PDT by jennyp

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 681-697 next last
To: f.Christian
Students taught stupidity -
 denying free speech rights
 to debate the Truth Cube.
Is your university so evil -
 as to suppress Time Cube?
Students are really stupid,
without Cubic life wisdom,
and yellow belly cowards.


TIMECUBE IS ABOVEGOD!
101 posted on 06/07/2002 2:04:19 PM PDT by Saturnalia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
...but for the characteristics that specifically define a human being (a bipod that walks upright, thinks rationally, shows emotion, etc.) there are no other species that share them?

Apparently, you've never lived with a cat or dog. I've seen them both very happy, extremely pissed, and even disappointed, among other emotions.

102 posted on 06/07/2002 2:04:23 PM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Junior
"Insect wings and bird wings are physically different, and have different origins within the organism, but they are functionally similar". Notice that's not what the theory of intelligent design would predict. No reason why a designer would need multiple structures with identical function. Any strutural differences that can't be accounted for on the basis of function can't be explained by the theory of ID.
103 posted on 06/07/2002 2:05:43 PM PDT by ConsistentLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Why is it that there are numerous species that share all of these characteristics (eyes, gills, legs, etc.) living today, but for the characteristics that specifically define a human being (a bipod that walks upright, thinks rationally, shows emotion, etc.) there are no other species that share them?

There are lots of bipedal critters -- kangaroos and birds, for instance. Most great apes are semi-bipedal. What do you mean by "thinks rationally?" If you mean "capable of planning and executing those plans" then wolves and killer whales could be considered rational, as could any number of apes and monkeys. As for showing emotions, just about any higher animal out there shows emotions at one time or another. Birds get excited (at least my cockatiels do), dogs get angry or happy, etc.

104 posted on 06/07/2002 2:06:31 PM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
one of my pity, sardonic quips.

What a pity, he wasn't pithy ...

[Now I've got Kansas City Kitty going through my head]

105 posted on 06/07/2002 2:08:18 PM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Its poetry not poison, but let me try to slip one verse by your radar screen.

18 For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief.

BTW, I think your safe to read it without much danger of getting converted.

106 posted on 06/07/2002 2:08:45 PM PDT by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
The modern international free market economy is a marvelous, interconnected system.

I'm not disputing that -- What you didn't mention is that the entire free market economy is a human construct and therefore can't be compared to a single organism. The fact that humans alone among all the species on the planet have the capacity to create a "free-market economy" tells me that human ingenuity is not the result of a random process.

If you can find any evidence of monkeys in Africa buying and selling bananas on a futures market, I'll gladly concede the argument. Since you probably can't even imagine something as nonsensical as that (due to the inherent, permanent place that monkeys have as a form of life lower than humans), you'd have to say I've got a point.

107 posted on 06/07/2002 2:10:36 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Saturnalia
Good News For The Day

‘But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.’ (Luke 6:27+28)

"There is a principle that is pervasive in human life. It is the principle of reciprocity; the principle of retaliation; the principle of 'an eye for an eye.' This principle undergirds the tragic cycle of violence that holds the world in its grip."

"On this principle relations between nations are conducted. Voters demand this of their governments, even though it has brought the world to the brink of "mutually assured destruction." "Christ's command for us to love our enemies runs against the whole trend of human order and affairs. It represents an... entirely different world order---the order of the kingdom of heaven. The sign of this kingdom is the cross. Far from reciprocal violence, its method is that of suffering servant hood. This is the suffering of aggressive love."

"In the Calvary event we witness God suffering for his enemies; refusing to give blow for blow; praying for those who mistreat him; forgiving those who wrong him. There is nothing else in all of history to match the Spirit, and the wonder of the cross of Jesus. Sacrificial love was at work. And there is redemption for us in NO OTHER WAY."

108 posted on 06/07/2002 2:10:50 PM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
The modern international free market economy is a marvelous, interconnected system.

I'm not disputing that -- What you didn't mention is that the entire free market economy is a human construct and therefore can't be compared to a single organism. The fact that humans alone among all the species on the planet have the capacity to create a "free-market economy" tells me that human ingenuity is not the result of a random process.

If you can find any evidence of monkeys in Africa buying and selling bananas on a futures market, I'll gladly concede the argument. Since you probably can't even imagine something as nonsensical as that (due to the inherent, permanent place that monkeys have as a form of life lower than humans), you'd have to say I've got a point.

109 posted on 06/07/2002 2:11:33 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
I should explain. The issues being discussed here have been discussed by men for a long time. It occured to me that the concept that there is nothing new on the earth is relevant to the never ending debate of creationism vs evolution.

But don't let your mind fret with ancient poetry, we have evolved so much since then haven't we ?

110 posted on 06/07/2002 2:12:59 PM PDT by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
You're missing the distinction between centrally planned economies and free markets. In a centrally planned economy you have "intelligent designers" who decide how to allocate resources. In a free market, you don't. Free markets are an example of a complex system where system state is not a product of design.
111 posted on 06/07/2002 2:13:20 PM PDT by ConsistentLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Junior; Gumlegs
All around me the creationists were desperately battling against reason. I decided it was time to leave a placemarker and get someting to eat.
112 posted on 06/07/2002 2:13:55 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
...due to the inherent, permanent place that monkeys have as a form of life lower than humans

Don't be so sure about that....


113 posted on 06/07/2002 2:15:38 PM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Junior
[Now I've got Kansas City Kitty going through my head]

I can see why.

114 posted on 06/07/2002 2:16:15 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
It's not necessarily evidence in favor of intelligent design, it's an illustration of an apparent anomaly in the evolutionary process.
115 posted on 06/07/2002 2:17:09 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
See the second paragraph in #107. Humans are the only species that is not constrained by its genetic limitations.
116 posted on 06/07/2002 2:20:03 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Junior
But Darwin's predictions have no relevance for looking forward into the future -- he could not say for certain that any species in the future would even exist, let alone become more complex.
117 posted on 06/07/2002 2:22:02 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Unless given evolutionary theory it's more probable than not that you'd have several or many species who can show emotion, etc. this "anomaly" isn't evidence against the theory. Not, however, that you think the more complex life is the better the evidence for an intelligent designer. So on your view, the less complex life is, the worse the evidence. And it sounds like your complaining that complexity isn't broadly distributed across species.
118 posted on 06/07/2002 2:22:15 PM PDT by ConsistentLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Ironically, I could use East Africa as a perfect supporting argument in favor of human evolution, but in reverse. If humans evolve over time, I contend that they are more likely to evolve in areas where adverse conditions require a substantial adaptation.

I would've said that human evolution is driven by social forces for at least the last few million years, as it is currently. Our ancestors were perfectly capable of living in their environments, but as their population grew, they were forced to compete more aggressively with each other for mates, food, living space, power, cool cars, etc. This would create significant selection pressure. Our current evolution is driven by our interaction with other people, not our environment.

119 posted on 06/07/2002 2:23:06 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
I have no quarrel with those who believe in intelligent design. It has appeal as a way to grasp the unknowable why of our existence. But it is only a belief. When advocates push intelligent design as a legitimate scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations of evolution, it is time to push back.

The creation-evolution debate helps illustrate our dependence on science, nurtured by a media controlled by others.

If we were to use other terms for the above quote from the article, we would have something like:I have no quarrel with those who believe in global warming. It has appeal as a way to control property. But it is only a belief.

Two hundred years ago, the founding fathers intended a separation of Church and State; James Madison wrote, “religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.” Today, if Madison was around, he would say, Science and Government will exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.

The founding fathers knew from history that religion was misused to control people, to stifle liberties. The threat of damnation was used to indulge the whims of those in power.

Today, the threat of extinction, the threat of harm, based on the misuse of science is used to accomplish what religion cannot because of the First Amendment.

Science has ceased to be enlightening; it is time to separate Science and State.

120 posted on 06/07/2002 2:24:27 PM PDT by WhiteyAppleseed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 681-697 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson