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, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 681-697 next last
To: J. Semper Paratus
The mere suggestion that there may be a God, even alluding to His existence and involvement with intelligent design theory, sets a transcendent foundational framework for civilized moral human behavior that declares a right and a wrong way of living and interacting with others. In the end, that's what it's all about. And you will know them by what they do.
To: Nebullis; Patrick Henry; jennyp
"Many informed persons today consider intelligent design more scientific than evolution. "
...And some don't see the two as mutually exclusive, but recognize that opinions either way fall outside the purview of science.
To: Aquinasfan
In the end, that's what it's all about. And you will know them by what they do Some of us don't need a scary man in the sky to tell us what's right & wrong
23
posted on
06/07/2002 12:40:13 PM PDT
by
gdani
To: Junior
Simply because you or anyone you know cannot conceive of how a feature came to be . . . The theory of "irreducible complexity" has nothing to do with an inability to explain how a feature came to be -- it is based on the fact, wholly supported by science, that if (for example) you change even 0.1% of the "ingredients" in a human eye, what you are left with no longer functions as an eye.
Ironically, Steven Jay Gould himself was driven to abandon his earlier notions of gradual evolution because even he couldn't quite explain how a human eye could have evolved if 99.9% of an eye couldn't see, how a mosquito wing could have evolved if 99.9% of a wing wouldn't lift it off the ground, etc. He came up with his theory of "punctuated equilibrium," which states that individual elements in an organism evolve in their entirety. Interestingly, it should be pointed out that there is no more evidence of "punctuated equilibrium" than there was of Darwin's "pure" evolution.
Comment #25 Removed by Moderator
To: gdani
Some of us also understand that the truth of whether or not there is an absolute universal authority for moral judgement is not based on whether or not it is desirable. Arguing that it is a "bad thing" if there is no objective basis for right and wrong isn't supporting the assertion.
26
posted on
06/07/2002 12:43:29 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
Comment #27 Removed by Moderator
To: lexcorp
Go to the stars?
Well, that's one way to burn.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
To: jennyp
Comparing a flawed economic system like Communism to a theory of the development of organisms is a bit of a stretch. In fact, there is more than just a coincidence that Karl Marx and Charles Darwin were products of the same age.
Comment #30 Removed by Moderator
Comment #31 Removed by Moderator
To: lexcorp
I'm not sure how logic or reason falsify ID, at least not the core elements. If the theory of ID is that some intelligent entity whose origins are irrelevant created the earth and the life forms on the planet, and nothing is stated about any limitations on this entity's resources or abilities, I'm not sure how you could falsify it. That's the problem -- a theory needs a standard for falsification or you can't test it.
Of course, I don't know what the exact theory of ID is, so I can't be certain that it's unfalsifiable.
32
posted on
06/07/2002 12:48:34 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
To: Alberta's Child
You're wrong, Alberta. Irreducible complexity is not a given. We don't yet know HOW the eye was made, but as Dawkins said to Michael Behe, a proponent of Irr. comp, "Try harder." We do know however that Behe suggests the clotting mechanism (in blood) is irreducibly complex and at a talk at the Museum of Natural History Ken Miller showed him a recent scientific paper that whales and dolphins lack some of the components of this supposed "molecular machne" (thats what Behe dubs irreducibly complex things) and still clots. As he said, "Nature just ran your experiment for you, and your theory failed." Eventually, if we live long enough as a species, we'll figure out how eyes evolved. It's just that we're not smart and informed enough yet. And the fact of evolution has little bearing on divinity or lack of it. It's stupid for people to think that God is some entity out there that lets nature do most of the work but occasionally jumps in to make a few irreducibly complex things like eyes. Does that reallymake any sense? Is he sitting there overseeing his creation and giving it a little nudge and wink now and then? Meanwhile he's up there drinking tea and eating crumpets. Uh uh.
33
posted on
06/07/2002 12:49:32 PM PDT
by
equus
To: Alberta's Child
Ironically, Steven Jay Gould himself was driven to abandon his earlier notions of gradual evolution because even he couldn't quite explain how a human eye could have evolved if 99.9% of an eye couldn't see, how a mosquito wing could have evolved if 99.9% of a wing wouldn't lift it off the ground, etc. He came up with his theory of "punctuated equilibrium," which states that individual elements in an organism evolve in their entirety. Interestingly, it should be pointed out that there is no more evidence of "punctuated equilibrium" than there was of Darwin's "pure" evolution. Exactly..and what Gould and others did was to rhetorically repackage the hoary and discredited "Hopeful Monster" theory. Evolutionists are on the run and their hissing and squealing is a bit reminiscent of their putative progenitors - reptiles and pterodactyls.
To: lexcorp
Well, if the Creationists are on the march... it'd be better to have a segment of humanity use science and reason to go to the distant stars than to stick around here until these superstitious yahoos burn the planet to the ground.
Oh, be serious. There have been good and bad Creationists, as well as good and bad Evolutionists.
If you assert that one group is on a higher moral plane than the other, you've left science yourself.
To: Alberta's Child
Ironically, Steven Jay Gould himself was driven to abandon his earlier notions of gradual evolution because even he couldn't quite explain how a human eye could have evolved if 99.9% of an eye couldn't see, how a mosquito wing could have evolved if 99.9% of a wing wouldn't lift it off the ground, etc. He came up with his theory of "punctuated equilibrium," which states that individual elements in an organism evolve in their entirety. Interestingly, it should be pointed out that there is no more evidence of "punctuated equilibrium" than there was of Darwin's "pure" evolution. This is a gross distortion of Gould's position. He didn't believe that individual elements in an organism evolve in their entirety. Did you ever read Gould?
To: PatrickHenry; all
Anybody start Gould's new tome?
37
posted on
06/07/2002 12:53:06 PM PDT
by
stanz
To: Alberta's Child
In your eye example, we have step-by-step versions of eyes, ranging from light-sensitive spots on the skin of an organism straight up to the ultra-accurate masterpieces of the eagle with just about every variation in between. Sure, if you change an extent eye's makeup it's not going to work, but that's hardly proof that the extent eye was designed -- it may simply mean it followed a certain path of evolution.
38
posted on
06/07/2002 12:55:24 PM PDT
by
Junior
To: Catholicguy
Only ones on the run, it seems to me, are the "Catholic guys."
39
posted on
06/07/2002 12:56:08 PM PDT
by
stanz
To: Lurking Libertarian
I have not read any of Gould's works -- I am basing this on an interview he did for National Public Radio (I think) back when I was in high school. It was a caller to that radio show who asked him the question about what a mosquito looked like before it "evolved" into a mosquito, and his inability to answer the question probably made him do some serious thinking.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson