Posted on 02/21/2005 5:17:06 AM PST by billorites
Thanks for the ping!
Can't you see it coming? "We libs are oh-so smart and scientific; and those Republicans are nothing but a pack of unwashed, inbred, beer-drinking bozos at the sawmill."
"The Sahara of the Bozart" - H.L. Mencken
LOL!!!
Yeah, anything other than a GAN and we would have to conclude it was an unintelligent designer that designed the giraffe.
Slight question-begging here, apparently...
1) Designed by whom, for what purpose?
2) And do we know the details of what tradeoffs were made in the design process?
Remember the old adage "Good, fast, cheap. Pick any two."
3) Do we know the original conditions for which the designs were made, or how much present conditions differ from those for which the original designs were made?
4) Do we know there has been no tampering with the designs (blueprints), or tampering or kludges in (re)production?
There is apparently a difference between the YEC "God made everything exactly like it is now" and ID (God gave the mechanism of the universe a push and watched it go...) or (We are an experiment of space aliens (say lab mice, "42"), and Darwinism, and punctuated equilibrium.
While some of these ideas have far more predictive capability than others, some are more humorous (intentionally or not), and so on, oversimplifications and strawmen used in arguments are generally not good ideas, regardless of the target.
They tend to promote ill-will and to engender further unclear thinking, or habits of intellectual laziness.
Cheers!
Full Disclosure: Windoze was apparently designed to make reams of money, not to be easy to keep free of viruses or spyware. It's done that job very well. UNIX was --well, who knows? But it sure worked good on Cray and other high-end machines. That's why I started with the thoughts on "designed by whom, and for what purpose"...
Just stirring the pot...
I am also just stirring the pot. But let's be honest; if we can detect design, we can detect evidence of design history. We can see, for example, that a few mutations can result in vast changes on the emergant structure. We can alter the number of legs in an insect with a single gene change.
By using the ID proponent's best tool -- intuitive recognition of design -- we can see that all life is so closely knit that any one variety or species is seldom isolated from another species by anything more than a refusal to interbreed. This is clearly reflected in the genome. It is not much of a stretch to see that life shares not only a common design, but a significant ability to interbreed. It would be willful blindness not to see the implication of common descent.
As for the problem of first life, that is up in the air until someone demonstrates a plausible pathway. I'm not going to argue that one until there is something to argue about.
But according to the congregates currently pushing for an ID based public school curriculum, those questions are off limits.
ID proponents simply can't afford to have those loaded questions on the table because they lead directly to creationism and overt theological inquiries. So the ruse is that ID "doesn't care" or "isn't interested in" who the designer is or what the ultimate purpose of the design is.
As you note, this puts up a somewhat debilitating roadblock.
The Pope never said that.
-A8
Actually, he did, just not in those exact words.
ml/nj quoting "Speciation, Coyne and Orr:
"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,"...
..........................................
A common misperception of The Origin of Species, especially by those who have never read it, is that Darwin wrote little (or nothing I've heard) about just that: the origin of species.
On the contrary, Darwin writes exhaustively on the CAUSES of speciation throughout the book. What he does not cover with much effect are the mechanisms. This is to what Coyne and Orr are referring. Darwin's hypotheses on this subject were indeed muddled and almost certainly wrong. The search for the mechanisms for speciation dogged him constantly since he originally formulated his theory in the 1830's and 40's.
It wasn't until 1866 that Mendel formulated the Laws of Inheritance and these were pretty much ignored for 40 years.
Heck, even now with all we know about genetics, inheritance, etc. we've still got a long way to go. Undoubtedly though, Darwin would be amazed at how far we've come.
Recapping my point though, it is something of a myth that the Origin of Species never disc usses the origin of species.
So I guess what you're saying is that these biologists from the U of Chicago and U of Rochester who wrote a book, "Aimed at professional biologists, graduate students, and advanced undergraduates," know from nothing.
Darwin writes exhaustively on the CAUSES of speciation throughout the book.
Pray! Tell us what one of two of the causes of speciation that Darwin identified are.
ML/NJ
-A8
Oh, I don't know...That you prefer splitting hairs
to presenting arguments?
Wrong answer, and ad hominem to boot. Quotation marks means that these are the exact words that he said. - A8
Not every impatient response rises to the level of being an insult, and not every insult is automatically an attempt at argument, such that they could be considered fallacious or otherwise.
"Quotation marks means that these are the exact words that he said. - A8"
So what? In that case, I re-iterate my previous conclusion--I might suggest you put down the dictionary and put up an argument.
Perhaps it would help to look at the quote in question:
Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.
Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences* October 22, 1996
The Pope isn't a philosopher of science, and neither is your previous interlocutor, and they aren't up on the notion that you can't "prove" things in science. The Pope, whose word on official occasions, is the law of the church, has clearly conceded that evolutionary theory is as sound a science as any, and that it is very likely an accurate picture of the behavior of the universe, and that is what your previous interlocutor probably meant by "prove". Sheesh.
So what?
So, the author made up a quotation. That is unethical and deceptive. Those journalists who make up quotations should not be journalists.
-A8
Come on now. Quotes are also used, amongst other things, to provide a summary phrase or word in place of a long-winded statement. The sin does not measure up to the reaction. Do you have an argument to make about the meat of this thread, or not?
So..in other words....unless a person agrees with you...they can't be a 'conservative'???
Seems to me that I've heard that before.....
...and you saying it over and over again does NOT make it true.
redrock
Now you have contradicted yourself. If quotation marks are [rightly] used the way you suggest, then there can be no "sin". If there is a "sin", then quotation marks are not [rightly] used in the way you suggest. Logically, it can't be both ways.
Do you have an argument to make about the meat of this thread, or not?
My point was what I initially said in #48. (The point you have been haggling about with me.) The Pope did not say those words; Holt made up a quotation. That is the sort of thing that journalists such as Jack Kelley, Steven Glass, Jayson Blair, etc. did, and it is unethical. If you think that it is not unethical for journalists to make up quotations, then you need to pick up a textbook on journalistic ethics.
-A8
Since you give the appearance of someone who wants to take simple-minded literalism to new heights of absurdity, in place of discussing anything to do with the subject of this thread, I believe I have probably had enough of you. Thank you for trying to play, and have a nice day.
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.