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

Skip to comments.

If ID Theorists Are Right, How Should We Study Nature?
Evolution News and Views ^ | January 23, 2014 | Denyse O'Leary

Posted on 01/23/2014 9:19:28 AM PST by Heartlander

If ID Theorists Are Right, How Should We Study Nature?

One can at least point a direction by now. I began this series by asking, what has materialism (naturalism) done for science? It made a virtue of preferring theory to evidence, if the theory supports naturalism and the evidence doesn't. Well-supported evidence that undermines naturalism (the Big Bang and fine tuning of the universe, for example) attracted increasingly speculative attempts at disconfirmation. Discouraging results from the search for life on Mars cause us to put our faith in life on exoplanets -- lest Earth be seen as unusual (the Copernican Principle).

All this might be just the beginning of a great adventure. World-changing discoveries, after all, have originated in the oddest circumstances. Who would have expected the Americas to be discovered by people who mainly wanted peppercorns, cinnamon, sugar, and such? But disturbingly, unlike the early modern adventurers who encountered advanced civilizations, we merely imagine them. We tell ourselves they must exist; in the absence of evidence, we make faith in them a virtue. So while Bigfoot was never science, the space alien must always be so, even if he is forever a discipline without a subject.

Then, having acquired the habit, we began to conjure like sorcerer's apprentices, and with a like result: We conjured countless universes where everything and its opposite turned out to be true except, of course, philosophy and religion. Bizarre is the new normal and science no longer necessarily means reality-based thinking.

But the evidence is still there, all along the road to reality. It is still saying what the new cosmologies do not want to hear. And the cost of ignoring it is the decline of real-world programs like NASA in favor of endlessly creative speculation. It turns out that, far from being the anchor of science, materialism has become its millstone.

But now, what if the ID theorists are right, that information rather than matter is the basic stuff of the universe? It is then reasonable to think that meaning underlies the universe. Meaning cannot then be explained away. It is the irreducible core. That is why reductive efforts to explain away evidence that supports meaning (Big Bang, fine-tuning, physical laws) have led to contradictory, unresearchable, and unintelligible outcomes.

The irreducible core of meaning is controversial principally because it provides support for theism. But the alternative has provided support for unintelligibility. Finally, one must choose. If we choose what intelligent design theorist Bill Dembski calls "information realism," the way we think about cosmology changes.

First, we live with what the evidence suggests. Not simply because it suits our beliefs but because research in a meaningful universe should gradually reveal a comprehensible reality, as scientists have traditionally assumed. If information, not matter, is the substrate of the universe, key stumbling blocks of current materialist science such as origin of life, of human beings, and of human consciousness can be approached in a different way. An information approach does not attempt to reduce these phenomena to a level of complexity below which they don't actually exist.

Materialist origin of life research, for example, has been an unmitigated failure principally because it seeks a high and replicable level of order that just somehow randomly happened at one point. The search for the origin of the human race has been similarly vitiated by the search for a not-quite-human subject, the small, shuffling fellow behind the man carrying the spear. In this case, it would have been well if researchers had simply never found their subject. Unfortunately, they have attempted at times to cast various human groups in the shuffler's role. Then gotten mired in controversy, and largely got the story wrong and missed its point.

One would have thought that materialists would know better than to even try addressing human consciousness. But materialism is a totalistic creed or else it is nothing. Current theories range from physicist Max Tegmark's claim that human consciousness is a material substance through to philosopher Daniel Dennett's notion that it is best treated somewhat like "figments of imagination" (don't ask whose) through philosopher Alex Rosenberg's idea that consciousness is a problem that will have to be dissolved by neuroscience. All these theories share two characteristics: They reduce consciousness to something that it isn't. And they get nowhere with understanding what it is. The only achievement that materialist thought can claim in the area of consciousness studies is to make them sound as fundamentally unserious as many current cosmologies. And that is no mean feat.

Suppose we look at the origin of life from an information perspective. Life forms show a much higher level of information, however that state of affairs came about, than non-living matter does. From our perspective, we break no rule if we assume, for the sake of investigation, that the reason we cannot find evidence for an accidental origin of life is that life did not originate in that way. For us, nothing depends one way or the other on demonstrating that life was an accident. We do not earn the right to study life's origin by declaring that "science" means assuming that such a proposition is true and proceeding from there irrespective of consequences. So, with this in mind, what are we to make of the current state of origin-of-life research?

Editor's note: Here is the "Science Fictions" series to date at your fingertips .


TOPICS: Education; Science; Society
KEYWORDS: creation; evolution; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-417 next last
Intelligent design is not creationism, nor is it a religious position. 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. The latter is particularly persuasive as all our experience indicates that information of the quality in DNA only arises from prior intelligence.

DNA has the following:

1. Functional Information
2. Encoder
3. Error Correction
4. Decoder
How could such a system form randomly without any intelligence, and totally unguided?
1 posted on 01/23/2014 9:19:28 AM PST by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Problems Materialism / Naturalism has caused in the name of Science

1. EUGENICS

Eugenic racism in 1925 was consensus science in the field of human evolution. By 1928 there were 376 university-level courses on eugenics, and there was widespread support from scientists and other academics at leading universities -- Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, and Johns Hopkins, to name a few -- as well as enthusiastic support from media and government. Eugenic science was funded lavishly by the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Harriman Railroad foundation, and the wealthy businessman J.H. Kellogg. Many national and international conferences on eugenics and human evolution were hosted at leading research institutions, including the American Museum of Natural History, and eugenic science gained the imprimatur of leading scientific organizations, including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. Wealthy donors created the Eugenic Records Office on Long Island, later to become the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. By the 1930s, thirty-one states in the U.S. would pass compulsory sterilization laws based on mainstream eugenic science and human evolution, and eugenics would receive the explicit endorsement of the Supreme Court in 1926. By the end of the first half of the 20th century, sixty thousand Americans had been sterilized involuntarily on the basis of consensus eugenic science.

…Racism and eugenics were the hallmarks of the theory of human evolution in the early 20th century, representing a clear consensus of evolutionary biologists as well as other scientists and leaders in higher education and government. There were a few dissenters, but such skeptics were disdained in mainstream scientific circles.
- Michael Egnor


Yes, eugenics is an ugly part of our history and even taught to our children (See: Hunter’s Civic Biology ).
Improvement of Man. - If the stock of domesticated animals can be improved, it is not unfair to ask if the health and vigor of future generations of men and women on the earth might not be improved by applying to them the laws of selection.

Eugenics. - When people marry there are certain things that the individual as well as the race should demand. The most important of these is freedom from germ diseases which might be handed down to the offspring. Tuberculosis, that dread white plague which is still responsible for almost one seventh of all deaths, epilepsy, and feeble-mindedness are handicaps which it is not only unfair but criminal to hand down to posterity. The science is of being well born is called eugenics.

Parasitism and its Cost to Society. - Hundreds of families such as those described above exist to-day, spreading disease, immorality, and crime to all parts of this country. The cost to society of such families is very severe. Just as certain animals or plants become parasitic on other plants or animals, these families have become parasitic on society. They not only do harm to others by corrupting, stealing, or spreading disease, but they are actually protected and cared for by the state out of public money. Largely for them the poorhouse and the asylum exist. They take from society, but they give nothing in return. They are true parasites.

The Remedy. - If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe and are now meeting with success in this country. - Hunter’s Civic Biology (the textbook at the centre of the Scopes Trial)


The Nazis practiced eugenics as championed by the leading Darwinist in Germany, Ernst Haeckel. Even today we have not rid society of eugenics as we see in; high rates of abortion among the poor, the killing of female infants in China and India, and the selection of desired traits from sperm banks and frozen eggs.

In the Darwin view of humans as animals, what would cause us to stop practicing animal husbandry within our own species? Reduce the meaning of "human" to "just another animal", and eugenics is fair game. Scientific data is well supported in animal husbandry. Eugenics is only abhorrent to those who recognize that there is something transcendently special about humans.


2. VESTIGIAL ORGANS

Excerpt: “The appendix, like the once ‘vestigial’ tonsils and adenoids, is a lymphoid organ (part of the body’s immune system) which makes antibodies against infections in the digestive system. Believing it to be a useless evolutionary ‘left over,’ many surgeons once removed even the healthy appendix whenever they were in the abdominal cavity. Today, removal of a healthy appendix under most circumstances would be considered medical malpractice” (David Menton, Ph.D., “The Human Tail, and Other Tales of Evolution,” St. Louis MetroVoice , January 1994, Vol. 4, No. 1).

“Doctors once thought tonsils were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract after tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for surgery” (J.D. Ratcliff, Your Body and How it Works, 1975, p. 137).

The tailbone, properly known as the coccyx, is another supposed example of a vestigial structure that has been found to have a valuable function—especially regarding the ability to sit comfortably. Many people who have had this bone removed have great difficulty sitting.


3. JUNK DNA DISEASES

Uncounted millions of people died miserable deaths while scientists were looking for the “gene” causing their illnesses – and were not even supposed to look anywhere but under the lamp illuminating only 1.3% of the genome (the genes).”

Excerpt: By 2005 fundamental problems with underlying axioms of genomics became too obvious. Meanwhile, millions, if not hundreds of millions were dying of junk DNA diseases while 98.7% of the human DNA was officially still considered untouchable.
- International HoloGenomics Society – “Junk DNA Diseases”

2 posted on 01/23/2014 9:30:06 AM PST by Heartlander (We are all Rodeo Clowns now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
If ID Theorists Are Right, How Should We Study Nature?

In exactly the same way the founders of Science, Mendel, Pasteur, Newton, Faraday studied Science. They all believed hat God made things in an orderly fashion.

3 posted on 01/23/2014 9:30:14 AM PST by PATRIOT1876
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
Discouraging results from the search for life on Mars cause us to put our faith in life on exoplanets -- lest Earth be seen as unusual (the Copernican Principle).

Generally good article. But this part doesn't make much sense.

I don't know anyone who expected to find evidence of life on Mars and has therefore been forced to drop back to expecting life to be present on exoplanets.

It's been pretty thoroughly known for upwards of 50 years that we are unlikely to find evidence of life in this solar system away from Earth.

Recent evidence is that planets and solar systems are common if not ubiquitous. It is likely that the basic conditions for life are also fairly common, which of course does not necessarily mean that life itself is.

4 posted on 01/23/2014 9:31:51 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

“Denyse O’Leary” Ping


5 posted on 01/23/2014 9:32:36 AM PST by Heartlander (We are all Rodeo Clowns now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
If ID Theorists Are Right, How Should We Study Nature?

What you mean "we," Kimosabe?

Seriously: What need is there to prescribe how scientists should study Nature?

I assume that some scientists are proponents of "Intelligent Design," while others are not. So, why not let each individual scientist study Nature as he sees fit?

Astrophysicists who prefer to use Ouija boards - rather than established scientific theories - to predict astrophysical phenomena are free to do so.

Geologists who prefer to use "dowsing rods" - rather than logic based on established scientific theories - to find veins of valuable minerals are free to do so.

Chemists who subscribe to the "Phlogiston Theory" - rather than accepting the existence of oxygen - are free to proceed under those assumptions.

Etc., etc.

We'll see who derives the more useful findings.

Regards,

6 posted on 01/23/2014 9:38:50 AM PST by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
"It is likely that the basic conditions for life are also fairly common,"

This is not necessarily true. There have been physicists who claiml they have been able to identify at least 25 finely tuned variables (ie, temperature, gravitational force, radiation level, etc. etc.) which must all be present for life as we know it to exist. The probabiliity against all or even half of these finely tuned variables to be present on any given planet is off the charts. Something like 10 to the negative 250th power or, in other words, impossible.

7 posted on 01/23/2014 9:45:16 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

bookmark


8 posted on 01/23/2014 9:46:08 AM PST by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open (<o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek

The chance that science will advance mankind to the stars: 100%

The chance that religion will advance us to the stars: 0%


9 posted on 01/23/2014 9:47:03 AM PST by warchild9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

Would be interested in reviewing these claims.


10 posted on 01/23/2014 9:50:48 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

Science long ago embraced empiricism and adopted the scientific method. If you want to change that, you should have something equally rigourous and objective to replace it with.


11 posted on 01/23/2014 9:52:51 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

Sorry, accidentally clicked Post too soon.

One thing we do know is that our sun is a relatively common type.

Given the recently proven abundance of exoplanets in the universe, there is no particular reason to assume that our solar system and its planets are particularly unusual either.

The earth may be extremely unusual. In fact it may be unique. But recently discovered evidence tilts against that assumption, not in its favor.

As I said, I’m interested in reviewing the claims your mention.


12 posted on 01/23/2014 9:54:15 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: warchild9

ID as a guiding principle for research is a double edged proposition. Unlike the mechanistic approach, ID assumes some form of “master plan” or “central organizing principle” that defines life. It becomes not unlike a Philosopher’s Stone and runs the risk of being every bit as quixotic, or it may help. That would be “help” in the sense of being better able to control, understand and predict Nature’s way.

Alternatively, ID can cause intellectual laziness. Frustrated, a researcher throws his hands up and decides God won’t give up that secret.

Now, for the disturbing part. ID does not preclude Darwinism. How we think about the relationships between randomness and order in Nature is really piss poor superficial. Reverse thermodynamics there is a little dabbling, Chaos Theory, maybe a little better, but there is no developed system of thought on the subject. Unless someone else knows about something...


13 posted on 01/23/2014 9:57:54 AM PST by bioqubit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: warchild9

ID as a guiding principle for research is a double edged proposition. Unlike the mechanistic approach, ID assumes some form of “master plan” or “central organizing principle” that defines life. It becomes not unlike a Philosopher’s Stone and runs the risk of being every bit as quixotic, or it may help. That would be “help” in the sense of being better able to control, understand and predict Nature’s way.

Alternatively, ID can cause intellectual laziness. Frustrated, a researcher throws his hands up and decides God won’t give up that secret.

Now, for the disturbing part. ID does not preclude Darwinism. How we think about the relationships between randomness and order in Nature is really piss poor superficial. Reverse thermodynamics there is a little dabbling, Chaos Theory, maybe a little better, but there is no developed system of thought on the subject. Unless someone else knows about something...


14 posted on 01/23/2014 9:58:08 AM PST by bioqubit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
"One thing we do know is that our sun is a relatively common type."

Granted, but most of the attributes of our Sun are destructive of life rather than conductive to it. For example, unless the heat of the sun is within a very narrow temperature range life cannot exist. Same with radiation and gamma rays and other emissions. The studies I mentioned are discussed extensively in Norman Geisler's book, "I don't have enough Faith to be an Atheist".

15 posted on 01/23/2014 10:03:22 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Advancing naturalism (the belief that nature is all there is) produces both expected and unexpected effects. The Harris poll found that belief in Darwin’s theory of evolution increased to 47 percent, up from 42 percent in 2005

As a result, some will crow that “Science is winning over superstition!” But it isn’t. Between 2005 and 2013, belief increased in

– ghosts from 41% to 42%

– UFOs from 35% to 36%

– astrology stayed the same at 29%

– witches decreased significantly from 31% to 26%

– reincarnation increased from 21% to 24%

While the noted increases are small, we should expect declines nearly across the board instead, if the “science wins” thesis were correct. (The one exception is UFOs; as a “sciencey” belief, they correlate with naturalism despite lack of evidence.) Further, we would expect young people (18–36) to reject ghosts and reincarnation more strongly than older people (68+) do.

And they don’t. On the contrary, younger folk believe in ghosts at 44% to seniors’ 24%. In UFOs at 36% to 30%. In astrology at 33% to 23%. In witches at 27% to 18%. And in reincarnation at 27% to 13%.

In short, naturalism offers liberation, not from the bonds of superstition but from the burden of rationality. And we must address the fact that increasing numbers of young people are embracing that liberation. More.


16 posted on 01/23/2014 10:07:00 AM PST by Heartlander (We are all Rodeo Clowns now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander; betty boop; marron; Alamo-Girl; CottShop; metmom; xzins; GodGunsGuts; Fichori; ...

They’re at it . . . again.


17 posted on 01/23/2014 10:24:17 AM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Science long ago embraced empiricism and adopted the scientific method. If you want to change that, you should have something equally rigourous and objective to replace it with.

Well, we definitely should not replace it with irrational paranoia .

18 posted on 01/23/2014 10:25:11 AM PST by Heartlander (We are all Rodeo Clowns now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bioqubit

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”
Werner Heisenberg

/One of my favorite quotes
//consider the source


19 posted on 01/23/2014 10:29:20 AM PST by warchild9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

Nobody told you thread jumping was considered bad practice?


20 posted on 01/23/2014 10:37:29 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

So the ruins on Mars got there how?


21 posted on 01/23/2014 10:47:49 AM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander; YHAOS
what if the ID theorists are right, that information rather than matter is the basic stuff of the universe?

They are right. They should stop looking for validation from people who don't understand the concept and just proceed with their own research. Even evolution requires an underlying formula, and information feedback loops.

A program that is self-adjusting is evidence of a master programmer. But I wouldn't waste time trying to convince someone who doesn't see it. Let them gather their data points and we'll make sense of them. You don't need their approval to proceed on the basis of what is rather self-evident after all. They are the ones looking at a 3D system in 2D. (Or would it be a 5D system in 4D?)

22 posted on 01/23/2014 11:34:17 AM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PATRIOT1876

That assumption of orderliness, elegance and predictability is the foundation of Western scientific advancement.

In the Islamic world, assumptions of these things is considered blasphemy.


23 posted on 01/23/2014 11:36:04 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bioqubit
Any time a scientist/researcher initially throws away a possibility, s/he has failed.

Ignoring the possibility that God created it does not preclude from figuring out how it works or got there, or whatever else the physical world can answer.

Frustrated, a researcher throws his hands up and decides God won’t give up that secret.

I don't believe that has happened very frequently, and I don't believe the good ones do that.

For all the previous 2000 years of science, most were devout believers in God. Yet they made fantastic progress.

24 posted on 01/23/2014 11:48:40 AM PST by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Whachutalkinbout Willis?


25 posted on 01/23/2014 11:49:57 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

I am disappointed: when I read the title, I thought he was going to propose an actual ID-based research program. I’ve been waiting for someone to hypothesize what a moment of design would look like—where, when, and how the Designer inserted himself into the process—and how we might go about looking for it. Unfortunately, the proposal here is the same old approach of using “design” to fill whatever holes in our knowledge may still exist.


26 posted on 01/23/2014 1:57:43 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
From the new intelligent design research lab, there was discussion of two technical articles published in the Journal of Molecular Biology by protein scientist Doug Axe (for abstracts, see here and here). As the New Scientist acknowledged, funding for the research underlying these peer-reviewed articles was provided by Discovery Institute's research fellowship program--thus disproving the twin canards that Discovery Institute does not support scientific research, and that pro-ID scientists do not publish peer-reviewed research.

For more ID papers see HERE or HERE

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.

27 posted on 01/23/2014 2:47:16 PM PST by Heartlander (We are all Rodeo Clowns now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

What ruins?


28 posted on 01/23/2014 2:51:29 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: bioqubit

I have recently thought that evolution as a method of creation might bear some analogy to God’s giving of free will to his intelligent creations, humans and spirits both.

God apparently chose to make beings with free will who would choose to be his friends, instead of robots or dolls that would simply act out His will.

Couldn’t evolution be something similar? God sets up the parameters, initiates the process and then stands back to see what happens.

None of which takes away the possibility of his jumping back into the process to adjust it whenever He sees fit.


29 posted on 01/23/2014 2:55:13 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
For all the previous 2000 years of science

You can't really find anything resembling science all that much prior to 1500, and not much before 1600.

Science, if it means anything at all, refers to a method and a way of looking at the world. These were invented in Western Europe probably over the course of the 1600s.

While thinkers in the classical period and in India and China accomplished amazing things, they did it without the benefit of science, as such.

30 posted on 01/23/2014 3:01:52 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

So what’s this about design? We are just bags of molecules in motion, constrained in our thoughts and actions by the laws of chemistry and physics. Free will is an illusion.

300 genes in the simplest of lifeforms, all coded to give the correct sequence of amino acids, all remarkably left-handed, to form proteins that fold just the right way, to perform needed functions. Turned on and off at the right moments. Disassembled and ejected when functions are complete.

Design? This incredible quality of assembled matter that we call life coded itself into existence, randomly generating the needed information. It was inevitable since everything is deterministic from the moment of the big bang. Time - anything can happen given enough time.

If mathematically impossible in “A” universe, it’s entirely possible, even probable, in infinite universes. We happen to be in the one out of essentially infinity where it all came together.

It’s all very scientific. Design to explain all of this? Only for the simpletons and the unscientific.


31 posted on 01/23/2014 3:20:29 PM PST by Mudtiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mudtiger
If mathematically impossible in “A” universe, it’s entirely possible, even probable, in infinite universes.

It is funny to imagine that in one of those 'infinite universes' - Richard Dawkins is a rabid creationist ; )

32 posted on 01/23/2014 3:44:17 PM PST by Heartlander (We are all Rodeo Clowns now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

My Deist Grandfather thought much the same thing. From God’s perspective (from the bang event to our epoch) how many times has the Universe doubled in size? ... IIRC six going on seven times.


33 posted on 01/23/2014 3:55:00 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

It was aliens.


34 posted on 01/23/2014 4:31:01 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

Thanks for the ping!


35 posted on 01/23/2014 6:12:22 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

Who put the miles high monolith on the Martian potato shaped moon, Phobos? Since Mankind is likely to have done so, it would be aliens, right? And after you do a search on that anomaly, you can start doing searches on ‘faces on Mars’ ... there’s more than one, and some sort of gigantic ‘lettering’, also. And yes, the data are straight from NASA photographic images.


36 posted on 01/23/2014 6:24:04 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

That should have been a ‘is NOT likely to have done so’ ...


37 posted on 01/23/2014 6:27:40 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MrB

See #36 above


38 posted on 01/23/2014 6:33:28 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

http://interposemission.blogspot.com/2012/12/phobos-potato-shaped-moon-of-mars-not.html


39 posted on 01/23/2014 7:42:01 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

Would like to explain why you posted that link? Trying to ridicule and failing?


40 posted on 01/23/2014 7:55:59 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

>> equally rigourous and objective

A fallacy right there. Science is quite political and subjective — not to say all its practitioners are primarily motivated by politics and subjectivity.


41 posted on 01/23/2014 8:02:12 PM PST by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
A fallacy right there. Science is quite political and subjective — not to say all its practitioners are primarily motivated by politics and subjectivity.

It can get that way, but it's not supposed to. No one can be perfectly objective, but if you replace the process with something even more subjective it's going to make it worse, not better.

42 posted on 01/23/2014 8:08:14 PM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

>> it’s not supposed to

Agreed.


43 posted on 01/23/2014 8:19:16 PM PST by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

I did a search. That came up. It sounded hokey to start with. No need to get testy. Do you have any good sources for your belief?


44 posted on 01/23/2014 9:06:50 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

How about Buzz Aldrin? ... Oh, never mind. You’re one of the Mormonism apologist trap setters. I don’t respect you enough to give you information. And you come across as having zero research on the matter.


45 posted on 01/23/2014 10:09:13 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

I’m impressed and surprised. That all does sound like actual scientific research—good for the Discovery Institute. Of course, they face the flip side of the problem they accuse “secular” scientists of: will they be able to acknowledge that there is no evidence of a designer if none is found? Or if the work produces an explanation that doesn’t require a designer? We’ll see. In the meantime, like I said, good for them.


46 posted on 01/24/2014 12:51:35 AM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Well, I guess if Buzz said so, then it must be true. Him being a spaceman and all. You have a lot of irrational beliefs, no?


47 posted on 01/24/2014 5:11:43 AM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

You’re in a pissin’ match that nobody’s gonna win, and everyone end up wet.


48 posted on 01/24/2014 5:13:14 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Coincidence?

I thought the aliens wanted us to stay away from Titan, but it was Phobos all along.


49 posted on 01/24/2014 6:59:02 AM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

Just as long as the Klingons stay away from Uranus.
Sorry... couldn’t resist.


50 posted on 01/24/2014 7:00:41 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-417 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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