Posted on 02/21/2005 5:17:06 AM PST by billorites
What does Catholicism have to do with ID? And if you don't like God, couldn't you go the panspermia route?
An intelligent designer would have made the giraffe with a wireless network.
It is Constitutional to teach that in school. Btw, creation has nothing to do with evolution.
Yeah, the article is repleat with errors, like this one:
"From a scientific perspective, one of the most frustrating things about intelligent design is that (unlike Darwinism) it is virtually impossible to test."
That ongoing Michigan simulation that was recently discussed here on FR establishes the point quite nicely: Without the organizing selection pressure entirely random variation fails to produce evolutionary development of any significance.
The driving principle of evolution is not random, even if it is undesigned.
Make that *replete* - sorry
bump
Elijah Muhammed, founder of the Black Muslim Nation, taught that the white race was created in a testube 10,000 years ago by black scientists. Does that qualify as an intelligent design theory?
All you have to do is compare the genomes of known species. You see the evidence for random variation, and of selection. It's all there.
Absolutely! A GAN (Giraffe Area Network) would be a slam-dunk, especially considering the existing dual access-point antennas on the top of the head.
With 802.11Giraffe providing veldt-wide-area communication, they'd have an effective predator-avoidance system. Until the lions hacked into it, of course, with their LioNet "Carnivore" software...
Was this a comedy/satire article?
But we see evidence for the non-testability right here in this thread. When confronted with evidence that much of the construction of living organisms doens't look particularly intelligently designed, we get "'who are you to substitute your judgement for the designer's?" (Of course, better not write the Designer's, because we're not discussing God here, oh no). That's what Popper called an immunizing strategy, one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience.
If the evidence of design is tangible; if we can recognize design in nature by comparing natural objects to known designed objects, then we can similarly evaluate the quality of design in nature by comparison with the quality of design of known objects.
Quite the opposite, you are in lockstep with the libs and this is your "out". You and your ilk are the cancer, but you aren't conservatives anyway. The NYT gives your game away quite plainly.
I'll second that, and add pro-smoking and neo-Confederacy.
The position of St. Augustine of Hippo ca. 5th Century.
This past week I picked up a copy of Speciation (Published 2004), by Coyne and Orr, while visiting Cornell. Chapter One of this book starts out with a quote from Origin and then says:
So begins The Origin of Species, whose title and first paragraph imply that Darwin will have much to say about speciation. Yet his magnum opus remains largely silent on the "mystery of mysteries," and the little it does say about this mystery is seen by most modern evolutionists as muddled or wrong.You can read part of the introduction to Speciation at Amazon. It seems obvious to me from the introduction that Coyne and Orr will attempt to deal with just about every question I have and guys like you seem to ignore. They emphasize "an insistence on hypotheses that are testable," implying that a lot of what passes for "evolution" in not testable. In fact a page earlier, they have this sentence: "But given our almost complete ignorance of how these forms of selection [natural and sexual] give rise to new species, this conclusion was based more on intuition than data."
It will probably be several months before I work my way through the book. I'll have an open mind as I go through it. It will be open because I don't know the answers. But I can recognize arguments that are "muddled and wrong" or "based upon intuition," and I see many of those posted here at FR on this topic.
ML/NJ
Wow! That's quite the statement.
Here are some interesting statements made recently about selection by a scientist in Nature mag:
...typical studies of selection do not have the statistical power necessary to detect selection that appears unrealistically strong. Unfortunately, this paradox will not be resolved simply by accumulating more data of the same ilk, as all reviews identify problems with our current methods. How, then, are we to obtain a good handle on the true power of selection in nature?
and...
Meanwhile, we are only deluding ourselves that we have a good handle on the typical power of selection in nature. Once we do, we can begin to investigate how humans are changing selection pressures, and whether populations and species will be able to adapt accordingly.
~Andrew P. Hendry, “Evolutionary biology: The power of natural selection,” Nature 433, 694 - 695 (17 February 2005); doi:10.1038/433694a
How is this not correct reasoning? After all, the one and only evidence of design put forth by ID proponents is "It's obvious when you see it." Since the evidence of design is that you know it when you see it, it is also obvious that you know shoddy design when you see it. It's also obvious that you know a kludge when you see it, as in a computer program that has had its features extended and bloated by adding functions one by one, rather than by designing from scratch.
Life looks more like Windows than Linux, so to speak.
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.