Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Freeper Research on Framing the Intelligent Design Argument
Various | June 13, 2005 | Alamo-Girl

Posted on 06/13/2005 7:50:19 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 361-367 next last
To: hawkaw

Thank you for sharing your view!


21 posted on 06/13/2005 8:13:05 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

How about you AG, wanna take a crack at 15? :-}


22 posted on 06/13/2005 8:13:24 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Thank you for your reply!

Every culture has a creation story. Creationism seeks to have only one such story taught in schools--the one found in Genesis. Creationism and its recent offspring Intelligent Design want nothing to do with the other thousands or tens of thousands of creation stories.

You also have the same mindset as a liberal correspondent on this issue and thus are also a great sounding board. Have you read the entire article?
23 posted on 06/13/2005 8:14:55 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Could you tell me why "survival of the species" is the prime directive and from where that directive came?

So very true, jwalsh! Great catch.

That point is addressed in the "Information or What is life v non-life/death in nature?" section of the article. How do we explain the "will to live" - "want to live" - "struggle to survive" - or what amounts to the primary inception of "successful communication" in life v non-life/death.

24 posted on 06/13/2005 8:19:05 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Creationism is theological, Intelligent Design is not.

Except that nobody actually believes this, ID theorists least of all - start asking who the designer might be, and the theological import of ID becomes crystal-clear.

25 posted on 06/13/2005 8:19:17 AM PDT by general_re ("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Thank you so much for your kind words and for the big ping! Hopefully, we will end up with some real ammunition to use against the liberal media which I know causes you much concern as well. I didn't believe it was there until you proved it to me.


26 posted on 06/13/2005 8:21:08 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: delapaz

Thank you so very much for your encouragement! I'm glad you found something interesting!!!


27 posted on 06/13/2005 8:21:52 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

You are an FR research treasure, AG....this is an amazing piece of compilation - thanks.


28 posted on 06/13/2005 8:22:51 AM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: general_re
me: Creationism is theological, Intelligent Design is not.

you: Except that nobody actually believes this, ID theorists least of all - start asking who the designer might be, and the theological import of ID becomes crystal-clear.

Indeed, that many believers - who would never deny Christ - tend to mix terms contributes to the problem.

Hopefully this project will help conservatives to avoid doing that. The intelligent design hypothesis is clearly not theological - it has no doctrine, no articles of faith, no Holy writ - and it is not an origin-of-life hypothesis.

29 posted on 06/13/2005 8:26:13 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

Thank you so much for the kudos and encouragements!


30 posted on 06/13/2005 8:26:44 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

If Pax-6 is a gate enabling gates downstream to develop the eye how did the eye evolve, and evolve so quickly, absent the gate keeper?


31 posted on 06/13/2005 8:29:10 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Don't assume everyone here supports you on this. I think ID is a joke, and serves only to embarrass its supporters.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to mine.
32 posted on 06/13/2005 8:30:22 AM PDT by Vladiator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

"The intelligent design hypothesis is clearly not theological - it has no doctrine, no articles of faith, no Holy writ"

Except the part where an *intelligent designer* makes everything. But that's not God, nope. Sure.


33 posted on 06/13/2005 8:31:56 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

bump -great job-thanks for your work - many "scientist" here are blind to the bias they carry..true breakthroughs in science require the ability to allow for facts that may be contrary to the accepted dogma is what separates great science from the technocrat drones.


34 posted on 06/13/2005 8:32:07 AM PDT by ConsentofGoverned (mark rich, s burger,flight 800, waco,cbs's national guard-just forget thats the game)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

Very interesting AG. I sent home to read this evening.
Just curious--are you familiar with Tom Wolfe's "conscious thrown rock" metaphor, from his book 'I Am Charlotte Simmons'? I believe this was from his experience with neuroscience findings. John Derbyshire at the NR has expressed some thoughts on this subject as well.


35 posted on 06/13/2005 8:32:54 AM PDT by tumblindice (Join the NRA today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
That point is addressed in the "Information or What is life v non-life/death in nature?" section of the article. How do we explain the "will to live" - "want to live" - "struggle to survive" - or what amounts to the primary inception of "successful communication" in life v non-life/death.

Yes, I read your work. I see that you've described and defined it but did not see you address it's origin.

But you've obviously put a great deal of thought and work into this and deserve kudos for that, not to mention you're extra worldly penchant for civility and patience, two virtues not granted to me in vast quantities. :-}

36 posted on 06/13/2005 8:38:18 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
If Pax-6 is a gate enabling gates downstream to develop the eye how did the eye evolve, and evolve so quickly, absent the gate keeper?

Indeed. Another would be whether/how it was engineered into the original "genetic program" so that it could not be otherwise? (Weiss: How the eye got its brain) Further still, how would such semiosis arise by purely natural, undirected, processes?
37 posted on 06/13/2005 8:38:20 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Except the part where an *intelligent designer* makes everything. But that's not God, nope. Sure.

They only resort to the ID position because the Creationist position is completely untenable. ID is only slightly less so.

38 posted on 06/13/2005 8:41:57 AM PDT by pickemuphere (Leviticus 13:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
This will converge on being a theory of the State.

It will probably not be more than a theory, and probably won't come up with anything significantly philosophically fresh or different from what is found in Plato's Republic, but it will be of some use as analogy in educating the young.

39 posted on 06/13/2005 8:42:12 AM PDT by RightWhale (I know nothing, and less every day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vladiator
Thank you for sharing your views!

The only assumption I am making is that most posters are conservative and therefore have a dog in this fight. One can deplore the Intelligent Design hypothesis and still refute any attempts to paint conservatives and intelligent design supporters as young earth creationists.

Dean played part of this political hand by declaring that Republicans are white Christians. IMHO, they are trying in overt and subtle ways to create an image in the mind of the public, just as they did by repeating over and again in the Clinton impeachment that it was all about sex when, of a truth, the charges were perjury and obstruction of justice.

IOW, I believe it is politically beneficial to even a conservative, atheist scientist to be able to respond that "intelligent design = creationism = conservative" is a false deduction.

40 posted on 06/13/2005 8:45:23 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 361-367 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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