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 ...
Was your point not that if God exists, then there exists eternal punishment for those who took them away? And that either that's the truth, or there is no God? Because surely you realize that there are many different religions and Gods in the world. It's not either yours or nothing.
And whether it's one or three makes no difference.
This ignores, indeed craps on, the memory of Martin Luther King and the Abolitionists before him.
Why do you need to resort to profanity in a reasonable discussion? Hell, as far as I know, has no direct influence on my thinking on the matter.
Many people rely on the Theory of Evolution to support the contention that there is no creative force in the World. These people may be abusing the theory, but they are so numerous that you can understand why folks might be confused on the matter.
Of course not. But you will note that I allowed for the possibility that people who use the theory of evolution to deny the existence of God may be abusing the theory.
But I think your parallel construction breaks down in that there is nothing in the theory of evolution that does not deny (pardon the double negative) the existence of God, while there are numerous things in Christianity that demonstrate that slavery is abhorrent. So the latter "abuse" is much more egregious than the former.
Yes. Assuming by "them" you mean rights.
And that either that's the truth, or there is no God? Because surely you realize that there are many different religions and Gods in the world. It's not either yours or nothing.
Ah, the old try to drive a wedge between the non-atheist factions trick. Let's take it point by point:
And that either that's the truth, or there is no God?
Correct, although I didn't specify a God of any particular religion.
Because surely you realize that there are many different religions and Gods in the world.
True but irrelevant. I do realize that -- otherwise it would have been difficult for me to name three of them. You are using the same false conclusion that most non-believers reach about the five blind men feeling the elephant -- because they feel different parts of the elephant they have different opinions of what an elephant is like. But you seem to be saying that the fact that they disagree on what the elephant is like proves there is no elephant. Either that or your are getting bogged down in the tangential issue of how what I say may offend those who have different religious beliefs, which is irrelevant to the point.
It's not either yours or nothing.
Again you focus purely on human perception and hide from my point: There either is a Supreme Being (maybe you like that word better) or Force that holds court at the end of life and renders justice and mercy in a Final Reckoning, or there isn't. And if there isn't, then please tell me, how does life have any inherent purpose of meaning? Don't tell me that other people believe differently because I know that and it is irrelevant to the point.
(Besides, can you name any major religions that don't preach eternal punishment, karma, or some kind of blowback for evil deeds?)
This is over and against the other poster's idea that we should rely on the concept of "enlightened self-interest" to pull civilization through, it was not in opposition to anyone's particular religion, which is how you seem to be interpreting it. I was not arguing against anyone's particular interpretation of God or the afterlife, I was only pointing out that there are grave consequences to the interpretation that there is no afterlife at all. Your divide and conquer strategy failed.
And whether it's one or three makes no difference.
Then why does it make a difference whether there is one or three or "many different religions"?
I think a much better case can be made that the preamble is non specific and universal in its scope and tone. It can easily be compared to other more specific sections of the DOI and I don't think one can come away with the impression that it was not intended to be universal. That they didn't practice what they preached doesn't make the preaching wrong.
Indeed, the progressive expansion of rights and the progressive inclusion of the deliberately dienfranchised in the US has, in a great many instances, been achieved despite agressive, scripturally based arguments to the contrary.
This is just wrong. The people at the forefront of practicing what the founders preached were religious in nature, Christians first and later in the 20th Century Christian and Jew alike.
Ultimately, I tend to agree with those who argue that the plural social construct we now take for granted was much more the product of evolving western "legalities" than any appreciation for, or adherence to, Christian precepts. Indeed, I would argue that it was a necessity in most instances to deliberately separate rationales for the protection of perceived rights from religious justifications because explicit Biblical antecedents are somewhat scarce, and because there is wide (and emotional) disagreement about the proper interpretation of the Biblical antecedents that do exist.
The direct antecedent to the DOI was the Virginia Declaration of Rights written mostly by George Mason. Lets examine that.
"THAT all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
No mention of "social constructs" in either document. Both documents make clear that man has rights, they are inalienable and among them are life, liberty and property.
As for whether or not they were informed by the Bible I won't argue because there is never an end to that argument and nobody ever changes their mind.
True in theory. However, if the facts are imagined to be good, you have to wonder why almost none are convinced given the time ID has been touted and the attention it has created for itself. And, as the lead article of this thread makes marvelously clear, the claims of ID indeed do not stand up to examination.
When Richard Feynman was pushing his subatomic theory, he was the only one for a while. It turned out he was right, and the accepted evidence against his position was wrong.
Feynman was simply the only one out there where he was at the time. He also had a testable theory and was superbly capable of making a case for it. ID has only vague mumbles about somebody having designed something sometime, a smokescreen for witch doctors who don't believe in a nature that can run without the constant intervention of supernatural beings. Witch Doctor science.
We know ID is dead when the NYTs presents a one-sided case favoring ID.
Thanks for posting that. There are a lotta links. I got the 400 scientists from an earlier post in this thread which went unchallenged, so I thought it was fair to allow it.
The article found revealing was
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3416_doubting_darwinism_through_cre_4_8_2002.asp
National Center for Science Education
Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools
Doubting Darwinism Through Creative License by Skip Evans
They seem pretty up front about their position. They suggest that it is disingenuous for creationists to doubt Darwinism, but not necessarily to doubt evolution, and they make their own word plays against a word play. What I would like to know is, if there aren't 400 scientists that question abiogenesis, how many are there?
"... if the facts are imagined to be good, you have to wonder why almost none are convinced given the time ID has been touted and the attention it has created for itself. "
***So, you seem to have access to the number of scientists who a are convinced -- where did you get that number and how do we verify it?
ID has only vague mumbles about somebody having designed something sometime, a smokescreen for witch doctors who don't believe in a nature that can run without the constant intervention of supernatural beings. Witch Doctor science.
***If ID only has vague mumblings, then how did it get this far? Why hasn't science dispensed with it? On another thread I dispensed with Astrology in 2 sentences proceeding from their supposed scientific evidence. My frustration is, where is the simple, straightforward refutation? If it's witch doctor science, it should be just as easily dealt with on a rational level.
On Patrick Henry's listolinks, there are some great discussions about shooting down various assumptions made by creationists as they come up with a 10^260 probability (or whatever), but I don't see a corresponding rebuild of the scientifically based assumptions that lead one to generate a more plausible number. This debate has all the earmarks of a religious squabble.
Hmmmm. I guess it was "unchallenged" because you eyes are closed.
Also, on another thread there was a long discussion of how at least one of the signers believes in evolution. I wonder how many others on the list also do.
>>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. <<
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
My eyes are not closed, and I went to the links suggested.
The only refutation was against the 70 biologists, not the 404 scientists...
Your attitude is a perfect example. Thank you.
To: Pharmboy
Although a vast majority of scientists accept evolution, the Discovery Institute, a research group in Seattle that has emerged as a clearinghouse for the intelligent design movement, says that 404 scientists, including 70 biologists, have signed a petition saying they are skeptical of Darwinism.
70 biologists. World-stinking-wide.
30 posted on 08/22/2005 6:57:34 AM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
Thanks, that guy obviously put a lot of work into it.
Here is his final suggestion of the probability:
Okay, you are looking at that number again, 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40, that's a big number, ...
***but it's below that 10^50 threshold of impossibility. Do I got that right? It looks as though we at least have some numbers to chew on. Thanks again for posting it.
No they aren't. What I tried to get across was that the absence of interbreeding, whether or not it is possible, is a defining property of the working definition of speciation. The working definition does not perfectly reflect true speciation, but as the label implies, is a way to bridge communication gaps and as short hand.
There are many cases where two species can produce progeny but do not, either because there is a geological impediment to them, (allopatric speciation), as in the case of the Lion and Tiger, or because the two species just do not interbreed in nature (sympatric speciation) even though they share a geographic range. Of course we can change that because we are masters at manipulating other organisms.
In the case of the Greenish Warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides), P. t. viridanus and P. t. plumbeitarsus do not interbreed, even though they are quite capable of doing so, because they do not recognize each other's songs and consequently do not identify each other as members of an interbreeding group.
How did astrology?
Why hasn't science dispensed with it? On another thread I dispensed with Astrology in 2 sentences proceeding from their supposed scientific evidence.
So astrology is finally gone now? Good. It just needed Kevin OMalley to dispense with it. No more of those silly horoscopes in newspapers from now on.
My frustration is, where is the simple, straightforward refutation?
Have you ever looked? Did you read the lead article to this thread? Where is the science in ID?
And what part of ID do you need dissected, anyway? Behe? Nothing to him. Or maybe Dembski, Spetner, and Gitt's info-theory mumbo-jumbo? Or how about Jonathan Wells? There is no theory of ID. There's an outcase group with a grab-bag of mumbles against some aspect or other of common descent, natural selection, random variation, or all three. Not even coherent enough to deal with in one piece.
If it's witch doctor science, it should be just as easily dealt with on a rational level.
As just shown, it's been done and done and done and done and done. The thing is, when you're dealing with Holy Warriors, they're going to keep coming back dumb as a stump because that's what they do.
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.