Posted on 08/22/2005 3:29:51 AM PDT by Pharmboy
At the heart of the debate over intelligent design is this question: Can a scientific explanation of the history of life include the actions of an unseen higher being?
The proponents of intelligent design, a school of thought that some have argued should be taught alongside evolution in the nation's schools, say that the complexity and diversity of life go beyond what evolution can explain.
Biological marvels like the optical precision of an eye, the little spinning motors that propel bacteria and the cascade of proteins that cause blood to clot, they say, point to the hand of a higher being at work in the world.
In one often-cited argument, Michael J. Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University and a leading design theorist, compares complex biological phenomena like blood clotting to a mousetrap: Take away any one piece - the spring, the baseboard, the metal piece that snags the mouse - and the mousetrap stops being able to catch mice.
Similarly, Dr. Behe argues, if any one of the more than 20 proteins involved in blood clotting is missing or deficient, as happens in hemophilia, for instance, clots will not form properly.
Such all-or-none systems, Dr. Behe and other design proponents say, could not have arisen through the incremental changes that evolution says allowed life to progress to the big brains and the sophisticated abilities of humans from primitive bacteria.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Again, this is an assertion. The concept of "rights" can be accepted without recourse to the Almighty. Indeed, Scripture doesn't address rights as we see them. There was no right to life in the Bible -- God had the Israelites wipe out whole towns. There was no right to liberty in Scripture -- slavery was readily accepted, and anyone not toeing the party line could be, and often were, killed. There was no right to property in the Bible -- the Israelites stole an entire region from the folks living there purely on God's command.
"Rights" are a human concept derived from enlightened self interest.
Without a God/Creator, the concept of rights only applies as follows: Might makes right.
Enlightened-self-interest placemarker.
The God of the OT was the poster boy for "might makes right." Enlightened self interest, or recognizing that my wants and desires can be completely compatible with yours, and that through cooperation or good faith competition we can achieve those wants and desires with the least pain to either of us, are the basis for natural rights.
And how would you feel about astrology being taught alongside astronomy?
***We've been covering that in another crevo thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1466371
And I second that ;)
An other important point is that not rights are inherent to the individual but the desire to have certain rights.
(Just posted this on that other thread but I see this topic got carried over to this one)
Interesting. I finished Isaiah again last week and am about 1/4 of the way through Jeremiah right now.
You have no idea what you are talking about, or at least you have no concept of the depth of the meaning behind events recorded in the old testament of the bible.
Don't feel bad, it didn't mean much to me the first time I read through it either. I always pray for wisdom and understanding before I read now and the comprehension is almost as easy as it would be with a novel. It is all there in black and white, and very clear. But if you attribute it all to a mythical god inventer by the jews, it will NEVER make sense to you. Next time you read it, just imagine that the God of the old testament is everything the bible says he is. It might change your perspective as you read.
Simply dismissing someone as "not knowing what he's talking about" is a cop out. Either you explain why "it will never make sense to me" or admit you've got nothing. I don't mind condescension from a position of knowledge, but condescension without explanation is the mark of a loser.
Or, are you just worried that I might take your arguments on the subject apart?
Get your thinker fixed, inalienable means something that is incapable of being repudiated or transferred, same as it always meant. It doesn't mean that rights can not be taken by force but the fact that rights are abridged by force doesn't make them any less a right, it simply means the taker is a tyrannist of one sort or the other.
It does not mean that rights cannot be abridged, and behavior limited by laws and government.
So says the liberal and the leftist and those who favor "social construct" over inalienable rights.
You sure thats what you're trying to say? Keep in mind that rights and liberty interests are not one in the same while you ponder whether or not to travel this road.
I mean this sincerely. Be very cautious when making such boasts. The Bible is not a novel, and it is not comic book. Breezily proclaiming that "it is all there in black and white and very clear" strongly suggests a lack of seriousness and a refusal to do anything other than skim the surface. Of such were the crusades, the inquisition, and Jim Jones made.
"From my experience, about 90% of the questions raised by IDers come from a lack of understanding regarding biology, biochemistry, and the Theory of Evolution."
***My experience has been in a similar vein as to what Mamzelle called you on: arrogance of scientism. The argumentation often moves to some fine point of genetics or biochemistry that only PhD's know about, and they resoundly ridicule any other scientist who dares question their assumptions. Case in point:
Editor Explains Reasons for 'Intelligent Design' Article
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1467986/posts
By characterizing the opposition as ignorant, one effectively creates a stratified intellectual priesthood environment and poisons the well for anyone who dares take you on. This has been going on too long, as witnessed by the fact that the president of the US thinks it makes sense to teach both philosophies side by side. If the scientific establishment had not been so arrogant and bothered to address these points of dispute with their theories, the average intellectual dude (GWB being an example) wouldn't find the need to have both sides presented.
I have also noticed a similar sort of head-in-the-sand attitude from the creationist side, so I'm frustrated as I try to come up to speed on these issues.
As far as I can tell, we would not be having these discussions if the numbers were not compelling. It's not like your bird flapping argument, it's more on the lines of the chances of a protein doing its thing are 1 in 10^260, whereas 10^50 is considered impossible.
If that argument is invalid, point us where to read up on it. Hopefully, one doesn't have to be a PhD in chemistry to understand it.
Yes, I caught that. And, you still have no clue as to what concept of the depths behind the events I understand. And, since the Scripture is supposedly understandable by any layman reader, my understanding of the spirit behind the writing is as valid as yours or anyone else's, for that matter. Unless you are making the case that it takes special training, indeed a priestly knowledge, to "understand the spirit behind the words."
Now, we've pretty much determined on these threads that interpretation of Scripture is purely subjective. Unless you have some way to objectify your "understanding of the spirit behind the words" methinks my interpretation thereof is the proper one.
God's children, all of us, man, woman, black white or other. The preamble is universal.
And what is the "Creator's" antecedent for the subsequent expansion of the covered "we"?
You'll have to clarify, I have no idead what you're talking about.
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.