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 ...
No, I am not kidding. One of the reasons I am now divorced was the fact that my ex and her church friends said I needed to give up my career as a scientist because science, as a whole, is Satanic. The logic was that science tries to disprove the Bible and is therefore Satanic. Any human idea that contradicts the literal interpretation of Holy Scripture is Satanic. Evolution is one example. Astronomy is another. A corollorary point is that the Bible teaches obedience to God. I even remember a pastor saying one should believe and not to think. Thinking questions God and that is a path to sin. It is better to be uneducated and be saved than to go to college and fall from Grace. The denominations in question were "Church of God" and the "Assemblies of God" - both are Pentacostal sects.
WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
---
I firmly agree that rights are not a matter of contract. Contracts are legal promises among men. A binding agreement that action 'A' will result in action 'B'.
Since our rights are not given by man, what agent is responsible and by what authority?
By saying that the rights we enjoy are not endowed by a Creator is an attempt to erase the first two paragraphs of the D of I.
America was not built on moral relativism.
It is almost as if man needs a big, controlling influence that is beyond mortal control or understanding. If the Creator is rejected, they will find a substitute in overarching government.
Are you really citing as proof of God the fact that you really, really want Him to exist so you can feel better about your rights?
Or are you simply satisfied with the perception that there is a God, and don't really care if it is true as long as the masses continue to believe enough not challenge your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Thanks for the ping!
Roughly, it just supports my understanding of Objectivism that places man’s happiness (happiness defined as productive achievement) as a rational being as his highest moral value.
The question by theists is often then, “Why man?” or “Why life”. Rand (the fonder of Objectivist philosophy) handles the first question in "The Virtues of Selfishness”, describing his evolution from earlier life forms as a progression toward greatness through a variety of measures and dependent upon his unique abilities and needs. But AFAIK, the “why life” question isn’t addressed directly, leaving theists to claim that it’s arbitrary or borrowed from God and religion.
But I believe the pattern of universal development exemplifies (perhaps even dictates) the movement toward greater life, with man at its pinnacle, and supports any rational belief that promotion of life is at the foundation of any moral hierarchy defining what is “good”.
If the Declaration of Independence had simply said: "Hey, England, go stuff it! We're through with you guys!" we'd still have the same rights.
Wrong! This is the way it really was.
When light first came to the earth, O-ma-ma-ma the earth mother of the Cree people gave birth to the spirits of the world. The first born was Binay-sih, the thunderbird who protects the animals from the sea serpent, Genay-big. Thunderbirds shout out their unhappiness or anger with black clouds, rain and fire flashes in the sky. The second born was Ina-kaki, the lowly frog who heightens the sorcerer's powers and helps to control the insects in the world. The third born was the trickster Wee-sa-hay-jac, who can change himself into many forms or shapes to protect himself. The fourth child was Ma-heegun, Wee-sa-hay-jac's little wolf brother. They travel together with Wee-sa-hay-jac on his back. The fifth born was Amik the beaver, who is greatly respected because he is an unfortunate human from a different world. Fish, rocks, grasses, and trees all came from the womb of the great earth mother O-ma-ma-ma. The earth was inhabited a long time by only animals and spirits because Wee-sa-hay-jac had not yet made any people.
I disagree that man is in any way the "pinnacle" of life, and would argue that the evidence more closely supports a throwaway line from "The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy," to the effect that "human thought is so primitive, it's looked upon as an infectious disease in some of the better galaxies."
Oops. The quote is from "Men In Black," not "The Hitchhiker's Guide." Apologies.
Quite logical, even if not reasonable.
The major reason I post is not to persuade "creationists" but to prevent lurkers from falling into the trap.
As you (and I and every scientist posting here) know, logic is based on premises and if they are wrong the entire structure collapses.
When light first came to the earth, O-ma-ma-ma the earth mother of the Cree people gave birth to the spirits of the world.
Praise the Intelligent Designer. Now it's all clear to me. O-ma-ma-ma is the creator of all Yo-ma-ma's. I'm enlightened and a comforting peace of mind has descended upon me.
There’s just enough truth there to make it funny. If there were more, I’d be in a ditch now at Crawford Texas.
Who are these people who often cite Behe? He's a known charlatan who's been constantly been debunked by every scientist who's ever been confronted by his nonsense. Just do a google on "behe" and see for yourself that everything that comes up either debunks him or is self serving plugs for his charlatan books.
Even with a creator, we humans did not value "human rights" until instructed to do so. Humans were TAUGHT to value life -our most basic right- by God.
What's the Biblical, or Judeo-Christian, antecedent to the 13th amendment?
Numerology alongside Number Theory.
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.