Free Republic

But, Darwin has become a "lightning-rod" for attack from the creationists. They needed someone to demonize, and he makes a suitable target. (Does this mean they have caught up to 1859?)

No, not just someone but the one who "started it all".
VadeRetro nailed it pretty good in this post on why this strategy is so popular among creationists (and some ID'ers as well):

We can number you among those who think science is argued the way religion is argued. That is, the works of the founder are canonical and trump all subsequent scholarship. Furthermore, if any personal dirt on the founder exists then all the works of the founder are discredited.

Science is not a matter of revealed word. Darwin was only the first Darwinist. He died in 1881 and is quite out of date. It doesn't matter now if you can find evidence that he barbequeued and ate human babies, or even that he married his first cousin. It's not about that.

Evolution isn't true because Darwin is a famous scientist. Darwin is a famous scientist because evolution proved true.

You don't even know how people reason these kind of questions. That's not encouraging.

Or in other words: “To a child with a hammer...”

As they say at DU, freudenschade.

Exactement
Pardon my French but this is a Québec thread ;)

You have said that about every link I have ever posted so I am not surprised at your remarks about this one.

I just went back over every post you have made here.

Since this is the very first crevo thread you have been on with this name, are you a retread?

Généralement, je ne me réjouis pas du malheur des autres, mais, en ce cas-là... ;^D

i want to see one resulting useful application come from this.

Do you own a hard drive?

That's true -- no one claims it isn't possible. Until, that is, it's put forth as a hypothesis.

No, not even then.

And then it becomes, somehow, a "non-scientific" position. And therein lies the complaint: that the unarguable validity of the hypothesis is dismissed out of hand.

Wrong, it already is an unscientific position but for completely different reasons which have been presented to you on numerous occasions.

Verification of the hypothesis is, of course, another matter. However, the "anti- ID claim" is that, essentially, it would be impossible to detect design. Perhaps -- or perhaps not -- but the claim itself is completely unscientific: is it really impossible to detect it, or merely rhetorically convenient to make the claim?

You cannot determine if a pattern was designed only from the information that is intrinsic to that pattern itself. What you need is additional information i.e. a model of the designer.
The ID "model" of the alleged designer is one with infinite degrees of freedom which makes it compatible with just about any observation. In other words, from a scientific point of view it is worthless because it doesn't provide any additional information.

The fact, however, is that design is a perfectly valid hypothesis, precisely because it has been demonstrated.

Not if the alleged designer is some unknown entity with unknown abilities and limitations, who uses unknown methods and for inscrutable reasons.

Demonstrating that design is possible by humans demonstrates that design is possible.

Huh?? What the...?
No one claims that design isn't possible. Where you got that from is simply beyond me.

That something (well, just about anything) could have been designed by an unknown designer with unknown abilities resp. limitations and the right motivation, is trivially true and no one denies that but it's equally worthless as a scientific explanation.

If one wanted to pick the hotbed of anti-jewish sentiment in Europe at the start of the 20th century, Germany is a pretty prime candidate.

After WW1 that's quite true but before the war there were countries where antisemitism was far worse.

I agree--- such algorithms demonstrate that applying the model of natural selection outside of biology and inside biology has usefulness. But IDers, as opposed to some Creationists, don't dispute that. But as anti-IDers, I think you should admit that design inferences of the sort used in ID have TONS of applications outside of biology, reverse engineering being just one example.

No, they don't. The design inferences you presented in your post are based on a model of the designer (i.e. in most cases humans or in the case of SETI, aliens who are assumed to be similar to us).

ID on the other hand explicitly denies the need for a model of the alleged designer. They want to 'detect' design without knowing anything about the designer such as his limitations, his methods or motivations.
And that's the difference between ordinary design inferences and the "Intelligent Design Inference."

It seems the ID'ers are really fond of the biotech industry. Only the biotech'ers don't do what the ID'ers think they do.

Yepp, it seems Salem's hypothesis is being confirmed in the Huntsville area.

Actually, I don't find much to respect about religions -- they basically consist of people motivated to avoid an eternal spanking.

And there are some religions - well, actually only one, which is about getting an eternal spanking... uh, of your monkey that is, by uhm... 72 virgins.

Conservative Texan Mom: Likewise, some evos equate the religious to fanatics, and believe that it will lead to ignorance and another dark age.[Post #99]

RightWingProfessor: Speaking only for myself, my agenda is protecting science, and biological science in particular, a pursuit on which I've spent most of my working life, from political attacks by religious fundamentalists, who seem to think we're still in the Middle Ages and that the Enlightenment never happened. [from post#45].

In the US you can be sued into bankruptcy by the ACLU for engaging in free and open discussions about darwinism.

Aw, gimme a break. I mean just what are you doing right now?

Adam only lived 930 years and Adam and Eve had children when Adam was 130 years old. Adam's creation took long ages of time but Eve's took significantly less than 130 years?

Hmmm, 930 years? It seems they mixed up 'years' and 'months'.
Now 77 years makes a lot more sense.

That would not make me a follower of a religion by any reasonable definition.

Yeah, but by their unreasonable definition you'd be a germ worshipper ;^)

No wonder, the excerpts on that page were copied from Matt Slick's C.A.R.M. website. His articles on evolution have been debunked time and again on his own message board (this being only the most recent one) as well as elsewhere but as far as I can tell he hasn't seen fit to correct any of them.
And I should also mention that many evos that post on his message board are no lightweights either (much to his dismay ;^).

Where in the world to you guys get photos like that to post so quickly?

From here or here ;)

I guess those legless lizards just got in the way when God cursed the snake. First incidence of collateral damage ;^)

Blather noted, but it is my commitment to independent thought and free will that allows me to consider that a person can decide how to treat their own bodies when faced with death. And again, obvious to billions.

Now that's really nice Mr. C but I read RWP's post again and I can't see where he said that a person can not treat her own body as she pleases.
Yes, he did say that the choice that lady made was insane from his point of view (as well as mine) but he didn't say that she shouldn't have been allowed (maybe by force?) to make it.
And as far as I know he's still free to voice his opinion.

So free choice is insanity to you.

Huh? How did you get that from his post?
Some choices can indeed be seen as stupid or insane but that doesn't mean that he thinks free choice in general is stupid or insane.

Ireland must be a wonderful place in which to grow up.

Never been there so I can't comment on that.

Summary #3 is pointing out that, in fact, the theory of evolution does not address the origin of life of which it purports to explain the mechanism of change. This lack of comprehensive explanation in the theory of evolution leaves open the possibility that the originating phenomenon of life may be continuing to operate.

Yes, and why is this a problem?
New life may indeed originate abiogenetically even today, however the conditions have changed drastically.
Today, our planet is replete with life and any organic compound is a convenient food source, so the chances that it's swallowed up by already existing life forms before you get some primitive cell are pretty high.

Maybe if the organs came from aborted babies, the libs would be all for it.

Now if the organs came from executed commies I'd take them.
On the other hand those old farts are past their seventies, so their organs aren't worth crap. But I can still feed them to my dog ;)

Mmmmhhh... chopped commie liver </drool>