I'm shocked! (sarcasim)
Posted on 08/19/2008 3:54:27 PM PDT by Soliton
On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: “There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.” Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe’s argument that certain complex molecular structures are “irreducibly complex.". In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing.
(Excerpt) Read more at am770chqr.com ...
Do you have a Ph.D.?
It doesn’t really take a PhD to notice that there is no theory of ID, nor any researchn or any proposals for research.
Now if there were some research it might take a bit of education to interpret it.
I have a question, though. What kid of research woud ID supporters do? What hypothesis would they attempt to confirm, and what methods would they use?
No, just an engineering degree. Do I need PhD to understand that the primary proponent of the “science” of ID admitted under oath that there isn’t any science behind ID?
And what is the science behind evolution? Can you show a sequence of transitional life forms of any length to give any credence to your theory?
BTW - a careful examination of the transcript from the Dover trial will reveal a considerable amount of judicial misconduct, not the least of which is that the majority of the judge's opinion was written by the ACLU, and lifted whole cloth into his decision.
Are you kidding? I post at least one or two science articles a day about advances in the theory of evolution. There are MOUNTAINS of evidence supporting evolution. Do a google and get a clue
I read Michael Behe’s book, “Darwin’s Black Box”, cover to cover. It shook my previously unquestioned acceptance of natural evolution to the point where I am now “on the fence” looking at both sides with skepticism. After anyone reads it, I can’t imagine calling him a buffoon. He’s a scientist, not a religious nut, and it shows in his writing.
Didn’t you read the post? There is NO science behind ID. ID was adopted by creationists as a trojan horse to illegally teach Genesis in public schools. It has been proven in court.
Watch this little video and tell me I am wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-tk7MkHKtI
You are wrong about "the majority." But even so, I'd like to see you cite some legal scholars who support the notion that judges shouldn't incorporate the winning argument in their decisions. It's frequent if not typical.
If the judgement had been questionable the defence would have appealed. I suspect they didn't want to go to appeal with a couple of their witnesses on the edge of perjury.
Science, i.e., a natural science, CANNOT, logically, explain, prove or disprove the super-natural. IT is not even a paradox.
Read the work of Dr. Francis Collins — The Language of God, then rejoin this argument. Trust me, he’s smarter than both of us.
Then why do creationists/IDers insist on trying to do it?Faith is faith and science is science. And no, I will not be reading anymore angels on the head of a pin style arguments.
wrong about which point?
Given a voice debate, and not a text debate, I’d counter your statement that ‘there is no science behind ID.’
Why fight it so hard? Science is not proven invalid by the existence of a Supreme Being. Science can simply reveal, asymptotically, everything which can be known or discerned in the NATURAL world. Science cannot discern the supernatural. That’s not a problem.
BTW, it is not illegal to teach Genesis in a public school, per se. It is only illegal in virtually every US public jurisdiction to teach it as fact, not faith.
Why don’t you give me a clue? Point me to one sequence in the fossil record that show transitional life forms.
You are ignoring the original post. Behe, one of the creaters of the ID hoax ADMITTED UNDER OATH that there was no scientific literature or experiments or research for ID. The video I posted PROVES that the Discovery Institute literally just substituted ID for Creationism in their text book. ID doesn't exist as a scientific subject. It is just another name for the Biblical Genesis story.
The theory of evolution is just the opposite. It is a theory designed to disprove a creator. It is the cornerstone to promote secular humanism.
We don’t need the fossil record anymore. We have genetics:
“Here we present a draft genome sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements.
We use this catalogue to explore the magnitude and regional variation of mutational forces shaping these two genomes, and the strength of positive and negative selection acting on their genes. In particular, we find that the patterns of evolution in human and chimpanzee protein-coding genes are highly correlated and dominated by the fixation of neutral and slightly deleterious alleles. We also use the chimpanzee genome as an outgroup to investigate human population genetics and identify signatures of selective sweeps in recent human evolution.”
There is not a single real scientist on earth who would claim that evolution PROVES that there was no creator.
Not sure why some do. I think the victory they seek is to have the possibility formally permitted in the public and educational debate.
It is wrong for the scientific community to declare there is no God, there is NO intelligent design when SCIENCE cannot prove or refute its own unreceptive, unilateral point of view.
Science deals with the empirical. Faith deals explicitly with that which is not empirical. Science and faith can occupy the same space.
I think the rub is that a-theist ‘pure’ scientists believe that science proves there is no God. To me the scientific method cannot prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural. The argument is neither valid nor sound.
Go with an “IF” for a moment. What IF there *is* a God who did design the logical, natural universe. NOTHING about science really changes except the perceptions of the scientists, or those that purport to be ones.
Truly I encourage every harrumphing ‘scientist’ on this thread to read Dr. Francis Collins’ book, The Language of God - A Scientist Makes the Case For Faith. (Dr. Collins holds I think 4 PHDs in the natural sciences and mathematics AND led the human genome project. He grew up an atheist by the way. His book is pretty darn close to a peer-reviewed paper around the topic of scientists-vs.-God.
Can you call yourself a scientist if you ignore the polemic?
Are you saying the folks at the Discovery Institute are lying when there founder says there is no scientific theory of Intelligent Design? And what about the folks at DI who say there is no research program and no proposals for research?
I'm curious: in your own words, how does ID account for the nested hierarchies of similarities and differences in both the fossil record and in DNA? Where would a theory of ID suggest digging for fossils like Tiktaalik roseae, and why. What part of the theory of ID suggests looking for intermediate fossils?
Like all evolutionists you understand that the fossil record should clearly show a sequencing and it doesn’t so you take another path which you can’t prove. Your statement: “the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor,” is unprovable through your “genome sequence”. Need some hard facts and solid science here not more theorizing.
That's so stupid it stands out, even on FR.
I’m really curious about your remark. Critics of Darwinian evolution like Michael Behe have said the fossil record demonstrates common descent beyond doubt.
I think I found why we are disagreeing here. No one is saying that they can PROVE that there is no intelligent design behind life or that there is no God. They can say however that ID is not a valid scientific theory until someone has done scientific research, published peer reviewed articles and conducted scientific experiments. Until then it is theology and not science.
That there was no evidence entered into the court that met the standard of peer-reviewed scientific literature or experiments to support ID is a red herring.
As a scientist, one shall not work on proving ID. How would you fund it? How would you ever get funded again. For empirical (but non-scientific) evidence, watch Ben Stein’s EXPELLED movie.
But logically, science cannot prove the intervention of a supernatural creator/designer. It’s so illogical to expect that.
What’s my point? (1) Don’t jump on the “no scientific literature” bandwagon because the scientific method will NEVER prove or refute the ‘existence’ of a supernatural God. (2) Science/scientists and God can coexist without practical or logical conflict. (3) it is silly for [some] scientists to declare there is no such thing as the supernatural, when they cannot support their statement via the SM.
Thanks for listening and responding calmly, BTW. :-)
Perfect, and spot on. We agree ;-) ID *IS* theology, not science.
This ‘argument’ is a bit of sound and fury, eh?
ID, cannot [yet] survive in the scientific method. It can survive in philosophy and theology ... and logic.
I look forward to seeing a peer-reviewed paper (and the original data) that prove God intervened in His Creation ... however He did it. I don’t think I’ll live long enough to see that paper though.
Good luck on the rest of this thread.
No need to look so far into the past. Google “ring species”.
You are missing the point. I think :)
I am agreeing with you. Science can not prove or disprove the supernatural.
IDers claim that ID doesn’t involve the supernatural, however. They claim that it is a competing scientific theory to evolution and should therefore be taught in public school.
SO their bluff was called. If ID is scientific where is the science? They had none.
No one would be happier than me if there was empirical evidence for the existence of God.
ID is not science, period.
But there is nothing scientific about ID, and so it has no place in science classes.
If a science teacher wants to mention that most people believe God created the Universe with a Plan in Mind, that's all well and good. Evolution explains scientifically how God's Plan was carried out.
ID explains nothing scientifically.
On some other calmer day, we can go down the chimps-became-humans path.
Permit me to provoke you a bit.
Let’s say that one day eons ago a chimp was conceived with a different number of chromosomes than its parents. The offspring was born. (multiple births are rare in chimps) The offspring with a different chromosomal make-up than the population around it thrived and grew to a fertile age.
What did it mate with to produce more offspring like itself? How did the species propagate?
Please don’t tell me that in the same decade of ancient history another identically chromosomally aberrant (by chance?) individual was conceived, born, found its 26 chromosome mate in the population ... and the pair was sufficiently fecund to spawn the beginnings of homo sapiens sapiens.
HOW do genetics and population dynamics make the chimps- became- humans theory even plausible?
Is there a peer-reviewed paper that explains how this happened? ;-)
Like I said, I wanted to poke you a bit.
I lose the mates to socks within my own home. What makes you think that over, oh, say 65,000,000 years, there would be some unbroken chain of evidence? Paleontological research is expensive, labor intensive, and requires a certain element of luck. Different climates, physiology, and timing all play a role in the availability and quality of useful samples. You can't just start digging own in your back yard and expect to expect have a continuous record of, say, avian evolution. Quit pretending to be dense.
You wrote “Evolution explains scientifically ...”
Not exactly.
Evolution has some real holes in it. Quantum physics also has some real holes in it. But both are STILL under development.
My point? That evolution occurs, that speciation occurs is fact. HOW it happens is not yet explained in ‘fact’ or good science. Be careful being so bold as to say evolution is good science. It is very weak science when compared to many other fields.
...down in your own back yard and expect to have...
See? I don’t need to pretend to be dense...
Fused chromosomes do not block fertility. Chimps and humans have essentially the same genes: there’s no “extra chrosome in one and no deficiency in the other.
js —
True. But.
Chimps and humans cannot today mate and produce viable or fertile offspring.
So how did ‘we’ survive the meta-states from a genetic and population dynamics standpoint? Where did the break occur that separated us as species. You cannot graduate this. There HAD to be a genetic break point or several.
Even if we cannot find the much sought after “missing link”, explain how, genetically and population dynamics-wise, how one aberrant offspring found its chromosomal match in the population and the new sub-species thrived. AND!!! this occurred repeatedly until the current relatively stable genome of homo sapiens spread. Oh, and none of the meta-species was strong enough to survive, even though they have previously thrived enough over eons to produce a survivable human population. It just doesn’t make sense from a population studies standpoint.
My point is that when you peel back the covers on the seemingly self-evident genetic correspondence, HOW did it happen? It ain’t logical as explained in current theory.
I am open to compelling logic.
I said, "evolution explains scientifically..."
Has any scientist ever claimed that all of science is perfect and complete?
No, of course not. Science is simply:
"knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world." according to Webster.
Evolution theory fits that definition, while ID does not, period.
But it wouldn't it be fairer to also incorporate the losing argument in the decision? Allow both sides to be heard. Encourage pluralism, diversity, tolerance. Who has the right to "judge"?
Not known and not likely to become known.
So how did ‘we’ survive the meta-states from a genetic and population dynamics standpoint? Where did the break occur that separated us as species.
There are several kind of breaks. They have technical names, but basically a new species can form when populations become physically isolated and go their separate ways genetically. There are cases when varieties form by sexual preference rather than by genetic infertility.
What link is missing? There are several million classified fossils, and many, many sequences more finely graded than the differences between wolves and say, huskies. The ape to human is such a sequence. Even creationists cannot agree on wher to draw the line. Please not that "ape" is a generic term. Humand did not descend for any living species of chimp or ape.
I think it would be sufficient to include copious apologies to the losing side, and bountiful assurances that they still have dignity and worth.
Yes, an apology always makes it better.
“You can’t just start digging own in your back yard and expect to expect have a continuous record of, say, avian evolution. Quit pretending to be dense.”
The dense one in this conversation is the one who claims in the entirety of the fossil record there is absolutely no provable sequence of any length. There has to be one - at least one. Since I am too dense to know where to research the peer reviewed evidence of this sequence can you point me to it?
I honestly can’t see how people can go through life believing in BS artists like Behe.
You are on the edge of slander when you say that.
You are on the edge of slander when you say that.
I;m sure John Edwards would be willing to thake the case
Former Dover Board Members May Face Perjury Charges
Prosecutor seeks perjury evidence
Thursday, December 22, 2005
BY JOHN BEAUGE AND BILL SULON
Of The Patriot-News
WILLIAMSPORT - A federal prosecutor said testimony in the Dover Area School District's intelligent design case is under review to determine if perjury charges should be pursued.U.S. Middle District Attorney Thomas A. Marino said yesterday that decision will take time because there is "a lot of reading to do" to determine if the statements rise to the level of a crime.
"I want to question a couple of people who were present," he said. They will not include Judge John E. Jones III, who presided over the case, he said.
.....
During the trial, after questioning by Jones and lawyers, Bonsell and Buckingham acknowledged that Buckingham raised money for the books in his church, then wrote a check for $850 to Bonsell's father, who bought the texts and donated them to the school district. Neither man disclosed the transaction in their deposition.
"The inescapable truth is that both Bonsell and Buckingham lied at their Jan. 3, 2005, depositions about their knowledge of the source of the donation for Pandas. ... ," Jones said in his ruling. "This mendacity was a clear and deliberate attempt to hide the source of the donations by [Bonsell and Buckingham] to further ensure that Dover students received a creationist alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution."
...........
In an interview, Buckingham called Jones a liar and denied making false statements. Bonsell has said he "tried to be as truthful" as he could.
Creationists try to be "as truthful as they can"
"I want to question a couple of people who were present," he said. They will not include Judge John E. Jones III, who presided over the case, he said.
If he charges any of them with perjury, you can be assured that Judge Jones will be spending a great deal of time on the witness stand. Don't think he will want to answer a lot of question that could be put to him in any trial.
And the very same thing can be said about macro-evolution
You can’t peer review God.
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.