Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intelligent design theories gaining steam in scientific circles
Human Events ^ | 12/15/2013 | Granville Sewell

Posted on 12/17/2013 9:37:27 AM PST by Heartlander

Intelligent design theories gaining steam in scientific circles

Intelligent design theories gaining steam in scientific circles

By: Dr. Granville Sewell
12/16/2013 04:34 PM

The debut at #7 on the New York Times best seller list last July of Stephen Meyer’s new book Darwin’s Doubt is evidence that the scientific theory of intelligent design (ID) continues to gain momentum. Since critics often misrepresent ID, and paint ID advocates as a fanatical fringe group, it is important to understand what intelligent design is, and what it is not.

Until Charles Darwin, almost everyone everywhere believed in some form of intelligent design (the majority still do): not just Christians, Jews, and Muslims, but almost every tribesman in every remote corner of the world drew the obvious conclusion from observing animals and plants that there must have been a mind behind the creation of living things. Darwin thought he could explain all of this apparent design through natural selection of random variations. In spite of the fact that there is no direct evidence that natural selection can explain anything other than very minor adaptations, his theory has gained widespread popularity in the scientific world, simply because no one can come up with a more plausible theory to explain evolution, other than intelligent design, which is dismissed by most scientists as “unscientific.”

But, in recent years, as scientific research has continually revealed the astonishing dimensions of the complexity of life, especially at the microscopic level, support for Darwin’s implausible theory has continued to weaken, and since the publication in 1996 of Darwin’s Black Box by Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, a growing minority of scientists have concluded, with Behe, that there is no possible explanation for the complexity of life other than intelligent design.

But what exactly, do these “ID scientists” believe? There is no general agreement among advocates of intelligent design as to exactly where, when, or how design was manifested in the history of life. Most, but not quite all, accept the standard timeline for the beginning of the universe, of life, and of the major animal groups. Many, including Behe, accept common descent. Probably all reject natural selection as an adequate explanation for the complexity of life, but so do many other scientists who are not ID proponents. So what exactly do ID proponents believe?

Perhaps the best way to answer this question is to state clearly what you have to believe in order not to believe in intelligent design. Peter Urone, in his 2001 physics text College Physics writes, “One of the most remarkable simplifications in physics is that only four distinct forces account for all known phenomena.” The prevailing view in science today is that physics explains all of chemistry, chemistry explains all of biology, and biology completely explains the human mind; thus physics alone explains the human mind and all it does. This is what you have to believe to not believe in intelligent design, that the origin and evolution of life, and the evolution of human consciousness and intelligence, are due entirely to a few unintelligent forces of physics. Thus you must believe that a few unintelligent forces of physics alone could have rearranged the fundamental particles of physics into computers and science texts and jet airplanes.

Contrary to popular belief, to be an ID proponent you do not have to believe that all species were created simultaneously a few thousand years ago, or that humans are unrelated to earlier primates, or that natural selection cannot cause bacteria to develop a resistance to antibiotics. If you believe that a few fundamental, unintelligent forces of physics alone could have rearranged the basic particles of physics into Apple iPhones, you are probably not an ID proponent, even if you believe in God. But if you believe there must have been more than unintelligent forces at work somewhere, somehow, in the whole process: congratulations, you are one of us after all!

This article also appeared in the El Paso Times. For more of Dr. Sewell’s writings on evolution and intelligent design, see his 2000 Mathematical Intelligencer article “A Mathematician’s View of Evolution.”


TOPICS: Education; Science; Society
KEYWORDS: creation; creationism; evolution; grandcanyon; intelligentdesign
Excerpt from Pulitzer Prize-winning author Daniel Walker Howe’s What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1844, p. 464:
As this chapter is written in the early twenty-first century, the hypothesis that the universe reflect intelligent design has provoked a bitter debate in the United States. How very different was the intellectual world of the early nineteenth century! Then, virtually everyone believed in intelligent design. Faith in the rational design of the universe underlay the world-view of the Enlightenment, shared by Isaac Newton, John Locke, and the American Founding Fathers. Even the outspoke critics of Christianity embraced not atheism but deism, that is, belief in an impersonal, remote deity who had created the universe and designed it so perfectly that it ran along of its own accord, following natural laws without need for further divine intervention. The common used expression “the book of nature” referred to the universal practice of viewing nature as a revelation of God’s power and wisdom. Christians were fond of saying that they accepted two divine revelations: the Bible and the book of nature. For desists like Thomas Paine, the book of nature alone sufficed, rendering what he called the “fables” of the Bible superfluous. The desire to demonstrate the glory of God, whether deist or – more commonly – Christian, constituted one of the principal motivations for scientific activity in the early republic, along with national pride, the hope for useful applications, and, of course, the joy of science itself.

1 posted on 12/17/2013 9:37:27 AM PST by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

stupid

/ˈstu•pɪd/ adj
lacking thought or intelligence:

Consider this, to remove any ‘creator’ from our very existence including the beginning of our universe is to remove any ‘thought or intelligence’ from the equation. By definition, you are ultimately left with an existence from stupidity.

…that if we would maintain the value of our highest beliefs and emotions, we must find for them a congruous origin. Beauty must be more than accident. The source of morality must be moral. The source of knowledge must be rational.
- Sir Arthur Balfour

2 posted on 12/17/2013 9:39:26 AM PST by Heartlander (We are all Rodeo Clowns now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

Stephen C. Meyer is a genius who has the great gift of explaining complexity simply. I love the guy. Bob


3 posted on 12/17/2013 9:42:43 AM PST by alstewartfan (Lines of coffee cups on parade, Soldiers for keeping the night away, Al Stewart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

Very good topic! One of my hobbies is reading scientific books on physics, biology, and life in general. Almost to a fault most University-trained authors go out of their way to prove that this marvelously complex universe came about solely by chance. I wonder how these erstwhile brilliant high IQ scientists can totally dismiss the possibility of an intelligence behind everything that exists.


4 posted on 12/17/2013 9:43:03 AM PST by 2nd Amendment (Proud member of the 48% . . giver not a taker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

Wow, you mean common sense is actually invading the realm of the “intellectuals”? That may be even a bigger wonder than creation itself.


5 posted on 12/17/2013 9:52:18 AM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

The other fun argument is to discuss that in order to believe that the universe evolved from nothing you have to suspend your belief... Supported by the natural science of physics... That now effect can be greater than its cause.

Particularly fun as it appears that the other side of the argument is that psysics is responsible for everything... Except the one thing Darwinists need it to explain.


6 posted on 12/17/2013 9:54:56 AM PST by rwilson99 (Please tell me how the words "shall not perish and have everlasting life" would NOT apply to Mary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

The problem is just scientific. It is theological. If there is an “intelligent designer” then it stands to reason that this designer might expect something from his creation, such as a certain moral code.

Somebody showed up one day and did miraculous acts and claimed to be that designer’s “Son” and made many statements on behalf of the designer that was both amazing in their wisdom and difficult to fathom. He claimed he would be killed and then come back to life. He was indeed murdered by the state and by the religious leaders of his day.

Then he was seen alive the following Sunday and many days thereafter. Yet, to believe this also means that his statements should be believed and followed also. So, rather than confront this, a segment of the scientist community tries to use whatever evidence is at their disposal to claim such a designer doesn’t exist at all.

Their hollow theories now dominate the education realm because to admit there might be a designer might cause some to also believe in this son.

Such a conundrum!


7 posted on 12/17/2013 9:55:18 AM PST by OrangeHoof (Howdy to all you government agents spying on me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

I was reading about the “goldilocks” parameters. There are almost 100 parameters that must be met within a fraction of a percentage before life can exist. ala the earth has to be a certain size, a certain distance from a certain-sized sun. The moon must be exactly right in size and orbit. The gas giants like Jupiter have to suck up the asteroids. The solar system has to be an exact distance from the black hole center of milky way. , etc. etc. It is even possible that all of these parameters cannot be met in our universe. Thus the anti god people have to say that they are infinite universes and we just happen to live in a habitable spot in this universe. My faith is too weak to accept this. I instead believe in an infinite Creator who calls Himself “I Am”.


8 posted on 12/17/2013 9:58:35 AM PST by 2nd Amendment (Proud member of the 48% . . giver not a taker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

See below. The Intelligent Design, i.e., God’s Plan, is in the G4 dimensions

Notes on Heim’s Quantum Theory
Gary V Stephenson
Seculine Consulting
Sept 2, 2004
Rev A, Jan 8, 2006

ABSTRACT
A brief on Heim’s Quantum Theory is presented.

INTRODUCTION
A recent translation of Heim’s unified field theory, known as Heim’s Quantum Theory (HQT), in a 2004 AIAA paper by Droscher and Hauser has renewed interest in the work of Dr Heim. Dr Burkhard Heim is now deceased but in the 1950’s developed an exhaustive unified field theory based on the metric quantization of space-time that includes 12 dimensions and 6 fundamental forces, 3 of which taken together form what is collectively known as gravity. It is this latter feature of HQT that has raised immediate interest, but Heim’s theory has many other features that, should it ever be tested as valid, offer potential insights that could be even more surprising. A summary of the highlights of HQT are presented in the following notes.

THE 12 DIMENSIONS OF HQT
It is obvious to anyone that has experimented with basic static electricity or magnetic fields that a description of physical reality as a 4-Dimensional (4D) universe is incomplete. A 4D metric can at best be used to represent mechanical motion in a universe occupied by only one force - gravity. The discovery of the existence of other forces, including EM, Weak, and Strong forces require additional dimensions.

In Heim’s work, which predates string theory, Einstein’s general relativity has been extended in a way that expands the space-time metric by 4 dimensions, and also adds 4 non-metric dimensions. A brief summary of Heim’s dimensions follow.

ST4
The ST4 dimensions represent those that are classically known as the spacetime metric. These can be decomposed as follows:
R3 = {x, y ,z} = {x1, x2, x3} = Spatial Dimensions
T1 = {t} = {x4} = Time Dimension

SI4
The SI4 dimensions consist of what Heim has termed “structure” dimensions and “information” dimensions. While the meaning of these dimensions is not literally identical to their names, there are a number of parallels. Among other functions, these dimensions function to describe attraction and repulsion in the universe. They are also metric dimensions in that they affect motion. These dimensions are unique to Heim’s formulation. The SI4 dimensions may be decomposed as follows:

S2 = {x5, x6} = Structure Dimensions
I2 = {x7, x8} = Information Dimensions

G4
The last 4 dimensions in Heim’s UFT are the “event steering” dimensions. These dimensions may be understood as defining probability amplitudes across the other dimensions. They may be denoted as follows:

G4 = {x9, x10, x11, x12} = Event Steering Dimensions

Listed among the properties of these dimensions are the following Hermetry and Symmetry forms:

Hermetry Form: H5(T1, S2, I2) represents the flow of events.

Symmetry Form: S2 x I2 = 0 represents a kind of Ying/ Yang balance.

The symmetry form, for example, requires that the energy extracted from the vacuum during virtual particle pair production must equal zero.

HEIM’S 6 FUNDAMENTAL FORCES
Heim’s UFT also includes 6 fundamental forces, 3 of which are known and 3 of which are components of gravity. The three known forces are:

1) EM (Electromagnetic) - propagated by the Photon
2) Weak Force - propagated by the Higgs boson
3) Strong Force - propagated by the Gluon

The 3 gravitational forces are as follows:

4) Gg (Scalar Gravity, or “Gravitonic”) - propagated by the Graviton
5) Ggp (Dark Energy/Matter) - propagated by the Gravito-photon
6) Gq (Vacuum Field) - propagated by the Quintessence particle

Standard gravity G is the tensor summation of all three gravitational components, i.e. G = Gg + Ggp + Gq

In terms of relative strength, Gg is much larger than the other components. The following ratios apply to their relative strength:
Gravito-Photonic Gravity Ggp = 1/(67)^2 Gg = [2.23(10)^-4]*Gg
Quint-Essenic Gravity Gq = [4(10)^-18]*Gg

PHILOSOPHICAL IMPLICATIONS
There are implications to both science and the humanities if Heim’s theory is to be considered in its entirety.

Physical / Metric Dimensions - include “structure” and “information” dimensions
- may resolve issues with entropy / thermodynamics

Symmetry breaking dimensions may make explicit the operation of free will in the universe
- may resolve issues with the “measurement problem”

Dimensions in which we can travel, dimensions in which we can communicate information, and dimensions in which we can exercise our free choice, are all described by Heim’s theory.

CONCLUSIONS (Rev A)
• Unparalleled in breath and scope – unifies science and philosophy
• Unknown how it relates to other leading UFTs –ties to the current physical theories (such as the standard model and quantum loop gravity) requires development
• Testability – Rev A: testability is described in a later 2005 AIAA paper, and may be testable at Sandia with their “Z-machine.”


9 posted on 12/17/2013 10:00:50 AM PST by SubMareener (Save us from Quarterly Freepathons! Become a MONTHLY DONOR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2nd Amendment
Yes, the book The Privileged Planet does an excellent job discussing that topic.
10 posted on 12/17/2013 10:07:12 AM PST by Heartlander (We are all Rodeo Clowns now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

reason (science) itself being a gift of God to man, it was inevitable that the “theory” of macro evolution as the cause for “the origin of species” would be falsified.


11 posted on 12/17/2013 10:11:09 AM PST by dadfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

bkmk


12 posted on 12/17/2013 10:13:41 AM PST by Sergio (An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

Ping!


13 posted on 12/17/2013 10:13:55 AM PST by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

When I look at the universe macroscopically, the thought of a god creating it seems asinine. When I look at the universe microscopically, especially the billions of tiny things that must go right all the time to even keep a living being alive, not to even start contemplation on how carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen can be conscious and think, I find it impossible to believe there is not a god. However, I am far from happy with the explanation that since life is so incomprehensibly complicated that it could not exist on its own, that therefore something infinitely more complicated must have created it. As I get a little older, and I ponder some of the “mind altering” quests of my youth, I am beginning to believe that the universe may not quite be what we perceive it to be. Time, and distance, and perception can be too easily altered by micro-grams. For that matter life and all of those billions of unrelated processes that must work in concert to keep an organism alive can be too easily distinguished by micro-grams. I don’t think scales of atomic versus galactic are as far apart as we perceive.


14 posted on 12/17/2013 10:24:19 AM PST by dsrtsage (One half of all people have below average IQ. In the US the number is 54%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

I always laugh....Darwin only dreamed up an explanation of what he gathered. in other words...he started with his end game. but seems he forgot about everything else in the universe.


15 posted on 12/17/2013 10:37:56 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan

Could you recommend a link to an article by him i could read?


16 posted on 12/17/2013 10:40:24 AM PST by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan

I know you did not ask me, but I will offer this because I share his admiration for Meyer. If you are unable to secure his two absolutely killer books, Signature in the Cell or Darwin’s Doubt, the check Youtube for Stephen Meyer Intelligent Design. Especially the 2011 London lecture. The fellow is so very careful to explain the evidence without the emotional excess of most theists that your jaw will drop. The atheistic religion is beginning to crumble...


17 posted on 12/17/2013 10:54:50 AM PST by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

Thanks. I just want an article I can read now.


18 posted on 12/17/2013 10:57:06 AM PST by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Darwin was a geologist and naturalist and didn’t even attempt to explain ‘the universe’, it wasn’t his field of expertise. He didn’t forget it.

That he dreamed it up first, and then tried to find scientific explanations for that dream, that charge fits better for those in the ID community by any objective standard.


19 posted on 12/17/2013 11:01:37 AM PST by Fuzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan
"Thanks. I just want an article I can read now.

Sorry, I don't know of just a printed article. You should be aware that the topics Meyer undertakes are so involved, that they take perhaps a hundred pages in his books to develop. He is not about sound bites or bullet points. He is about the detailed demands of specified information transfer within cells and fossil evidence.

20 posted on 12/17/2013 11:03:11 AM PST by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

I downloaded the free sample of the Cell book for Kiindle.


21 posted on 12/17/2013 11:12:14 AM PST by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan

Great story about Watson and Crick and the double helix upending the “We are about to make life in a test tube any day now!” crowd.


22 posted on 12/17/2013 11:19:27 AM PST by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan
FYI - Stephen Meyer
23 posted on 12/17/2013 11:21:31 AM PST by Heartlander (We are all Rodeo Clowns now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

“Intellectual”

An idea so utterly stupid that only an intellectual could believe it


24 posted on 12/17/2013 11:36:01 AM PST by dirtymac (Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dirtymac

Believing in intelligent design is like believing you see and hear.


25 posted on 12/17/2013 11:39:39 AM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

ID Theories??

Noah’s Ark theory of the great Flood ??


26 posted on 12/17/2013 11:44:54 AM PST by sickoflibs (Obama : 'If you like your Doctor you can keep him, PERIOD! Don't believe the GOPs warnings')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

Thanks.


27 posted on 12/17/2013 12:03:31 PM PST by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
Intelligent design is not creationism, nor is it a religious position (for example David Berlinski is a secular Jew). It is the application of design theory to the natural and living world. Intelligent design theorists point to the existence of precise physical laws and the fine tuning of universal constants, the staggering complexity and nanotechnology of the living cell, and the digitally-coded information content of DNA as evidence for a designing intelligence. ID is merely an evidential approach that basically tries to answer the question of what is designed, - not who, and why. Which is why the movement is not Christian. And so while there are Christians within the intelligent-design movement, the movement itself is not Christian.
"For two millennia, the design argument provided an intellectual foundation for much of Western thought. From classical antiquity through the rise of modern science, leading philosophers, theologians, and scientists. From Plato to Aquinas to Newton, maintained that nature manifests the design of a preexistent mind or intelligence. Moreover, for many Western thinkers, the idea that the physical universe reflected the purpose or design of a preexistent mind, a Creator, served to guarantee humanity's own sense of purpose and meaning. Yet today in nearly every academic discipline from law to literary theory, from behavioral science to biology, a thoroughly materialistic understanding of humanity and its place in the universe has come to dominate. Free will, meaning, purpose, and God have become pejorative terms in the academy. Matter has subsumed mind; cosmos replaced Creator."
- Steven Meyer

28 posted on 12/17/2013 12:09:42 PM PST by Heartlander (We are all Rodeo Clowns now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Sergio

Indeed...


29 posted on 12/17/2013 12:24:53 PM PST by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

Does it sounds like animism?

The intelligence or spirit is inherent in the form itself.


30 posted on 12/17/2013 1:20:33 PM PST by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

Darwin had the excuse of utter ignorance of the stupendous complexity of the most “simple” cells. He thought they were just simple blobs of protoplasm. Modern scientists can’t cling to such ignorance, not if they have a shred of honesty. And such stupendous complexity of the most “simple” of cells makes abiogenesis, that lifeless chemicals created life, moronically ridiculous. It’s sort of like believing that a tornado tearing through a junkyard could create a fully functional 747. But such is the faith of secular leftists, whose twin “gods” are time and chance.

Pasteur coined the law of biogenesis, that life begets life, and it has NEVER been proven wrong. It’s still a law of science. But evolutionist “true believers” still cling to spontaneous generation.


31 posted on 12/17/2013 1:30:01 PM PST by afsnco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan
Does it sounds like animism?

ID is the application of design theory to the natural and living world.

32 posted on 12/17/2013 1:44:15 PM PST by Heartlander (We are all Rodeo Clowns now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: afsnco
You are correct – Origin Of Life (OOL) theories have many difficulties to overcome:

Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code.
To appreciate this problem, consider the origin of the first DVD and DVD player. DVDs are rich in information, but without the machinery of a DVD player to read the disk, process its information, and convert it into a picture and sound, the disk would be useless. But what if the instructions for building the first DVD player were only found encoded on a DVD? You could never play the DVD to learn how to build a DVD player. So how did the first disk and DVD player system arise? The answer is obvious: a goal-directed process -- intelligent design -- is required to produce both the player and the disk.

In living cells, information-carrying molecules (such as DNA or RNA) are like the DVD, and the cellular machinery that reads that information and converts it into proteins is like the DVD player. As in the DVD analogy, genetic information can never be converted into proteins without the proper machinery. Yet in cells, the machines required for processing the genetic information in RNA or DNA are encoded by those same genetic molecules -- they perform and direct the very task that builds them.

This system cannot exist unless both the genetic information and transcription/translation machinery are present at the same time, and unless both speak the same language. Not long after the workings of the genetic code were first uncovered, biologist Frank Salisbury explained the problem in a paper in American Biology Teacher:

It's nice to talk about replicating DNA molecules arising in a soupy sea, but in modern cells this replication requires the presence of suitable enzymes. ... [T]he link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. ... How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It's as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don't see them at the moment.
The same problem confronts modern RNA world researchers, and it remains unsolved. As two theorists observed in a 2004 article in Cell Biology International:
The nucleotide sequence is also meaningless without a conceptual translative scheme and physical "hardware" capabilities. Ribosomes, tRNAs, aminoacyl tRNA synthetases, and amino acids are all hardware components of the Shannon message "receiver." But the instructions for this machinery is itself coded in DNA and executed by protein "workers" produced by that machinery. Without the machinery and protein workers, the message cannot be received and understood. And without genetic instruction, the machinery cannot be assembled.
From: Top Five Problems with Current Origin-of-Life Theories
33 posted on 12/17/2013 1:50:19 PM PST by Heartlander (We are all Rodeo Clowns now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

What is design theory?


34 posted on 12/17/2013 2:38:04 PM PST by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Darwins Black Box
Darwin's Black Box:
The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution

by Michael J. Behe
hardcover
Molecular Machines webpage
(thanks Val)

35 posted on 12/17/2013 5:40:55 PM PST by SunkenCiv (http://www.freerepublic.com/~mestamachine/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan
Hope this helps
36 posted on 12/18/2013 5:59:23 AM PST by Heartlander (We are all Rodeo Clowns now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

Bookmark. Very informative post. Thanks!


37 posted on 12/18/2013 8:39:24 AM PST by FBD (My carbon footprint is bigger than yours)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: rwilson99
Particularly fun as it appears that the other side of the argument is that psysics is responsible for everything... Except the one thing Darwinists need it to explain.

What in the world does evolution (which I assume you mean) have to do with physics or the origin of the universe?
38 posted on 12/18/2013 7:08:47 PM PST by whattajoke (Let's keep Conservatism real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: afsnco
And such stupendous complexity of the most “simple” of cells makes abiogenesis, that lifeless chemicals created life, moronically ridiculous.

? It does? Your personal incredulity has no bearing on current scientific thought and study.

Pasteur coined the law of biogenesis, that life begets life, and it has NEVER been proven wrong.

Or right. (And that's important.) Please note that his "law" was merely a convention, and not really a "law" like you're thinking of.

It’s still a law of science.

Oh wait, you really think that? This is not a "law of science." It's certainly generally true, and demonstrably and vastly true, but it's not a "law of science."

But evolutionist “true believers” still cling to spontaneous generation.

Oh dear. If you can find me an "evolutionist" in the last 130 years or so who is clinging to spontaneous generation, please let me know. I'd like to have that person outed as a complete idiot.
39 posted on 12/18/2013 7:22:18 PM PST by whattajoke (Let's keep Conservatism real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

What you are saying then is that the bedrock of evolutionary theory is based upon unsupported suppositions. Therefore, TOE should NOT be taught as fact to impressionable school children. It’s nothing but foolhardy speculation and propaganda, IMO. Bob


40 posted on 12/18/2013 7:45:22 PM PST by alstewartfan (Lines of coffee cups on parade, Soldiers for keeping the night away, Al Stewart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

In order to believe that a universe was created unconsciously from nothing... You have to suspend belief in a fundamental maxim of physics... Namely that an effect can not be greater than its cause.


41 posted on 12/19/2013 2:04:23 AM PST by rwilson99 (Please tell me how the words "shall not perish and have everlasting life" would NOT apply to Mary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
Image and video hosting by TinyPic
42 posted on 12/19/2013 3:06:24 PM PST by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

Wow - a neo-Darwin ‘Jack Chick’ style cartoon. How sad...


43 posted on 12/19/2013 5:40:53 PM PST by Heartlander (We are all Rodeo Clowns now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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