Posted on 10/18/2005 9:31:08 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Would you please clarify this a bit further?
I think that is a fair appraisal in general terms. One cannot divorce science from practicability and common sense. There has been great effort to attempt this. And this is why I festidiously argue against these notions of science not being concerned with proof. Not being concerned with proof in practical terms is like selling a car on the theory that it will convey rather than on the fact that it will. People don't buy "theoretical" cadillacs at a car dealership. They buy actual Cadillacs that they can get in and take for a spin. And they generally expect to test drive it now days to be sure they aren't being "taken for a ride.."
When all you have to offer is a pretty concept drawing, eventually you have to produce the car that was paid for. Tucker at least tried to deliver. Evos are too busy making more drawings of further prototypes (because the first design up through the nth have utterly failed to meet expectations) to be bothered with the impertenance of people who imagine themselves in the right for demanding at some point that the conveyance they were promised for payment would eventually show up. They expect to drive it, not pass it as an inheritance to some unknown generation 1200 years down the road.
The disservice here is to science. Most of us, I would posit, have no real problem with science. But the Evo crowd is hiding behind science while it is anything but, and when the failing of evolution is pointed out, Evolutionists by and large end up diverting attention from themselves toward science. They've coopted science as a sort of proxy fighter that will take all the bodyblows and knockout punches while the Evos credit themselves for their crafty thinking. Or perhaps one could liken it to a group of terrorists intent on abusing their ideological opponents while surrounding themselves in a crowd of innocents they use for fodder.
I happen to like science. And I'm particularly fond of archeology. But I'm also sickened by much of what passes for legitimate amongst idealogues who seem to have little use for truth and practicality and rather prefer attempts at propping up conclusions they went into the field with. I could reference any number of examples. A prominant one that leaps to mind is the conclusion in the field of Egyptology that Slaves weren't employed in building the pyramids because some Egyptians attached to leadership roles in their building are buried near the pyramids themselves..
It doesn't take much actual thought to realize the absurdity of the premise and support. Fallacy leaps out screaming it's presence so audibly that it cannot be mistaken. Yet to the people proceeding from their conclusions, this makes perfect sense - not because it makes any sense; but, because it's an excuse that seems to excuse the conclusion rather than an apt understanding which explains the given facts.
Religion doesn't enter into it. On it's face it is obtuse and wanting.
Science isn't necessarily the culprit. But, to the extent Science has allowed the charade to continue, it has made itself a willing accomplice and thusly deserving of the punches, to some extent, it takes for that charade. Alas, the axiom is not true that no one likes criticism. Many just don't like it when the criticism is opposite of their own rhetoric... and true. I'm an artist. And for all the esteem heaped upon guys who dip themselves in paint, roll on a canvas and then call it art, it's a disservice to the art community and a fraud. The art community is complicit in it and thusly takes the guff for allowing the charade to continue. We can all think of similar examples. At some point, common sense grabs us and says, wait a sec, let's think this one through. Then the fight begins. Hence the screaming from Democrats being voted out of office now that people are awake and using their better judgement - at least to some extent.
Consider this: People have their religious beliefs. They choose them for various reasons. They don't choose common sense. Common sense is something that chooses us. The minute their religion fails them, they will be looking for the truth somewhere else. Religion, afterall, for those serious about it, is a willful search for the truth. They don't use religion to find religion, they use practical understanding and sort through what a given religion tells them until they find themselves in error for their choice and move on. That can be a whole book of a conversation in and of itself; but, lets not get sidetracked. The important point is that religion doesn't lead people to religion. A search for truth does. And practical understanding is what judges for people whether an initial sniff test is passed. Passing the initial sniff test, though, is not a writ of license to the religion - people expect delivery there as well. When delivery isn't forthcoming, religion gets no more of a pass on proof than does science. And often the result is the same when religious charlatans are exposed. Behe is a scientific excommunicant for all intents and purposes. He's been defrocked and anathematized for not holding to the ideology of the priest class of the religion.
He's been vomited out and reviled to the extent that were the devil his only replacement, the priest class would french kiss satan before they'd give Behe the time of day.
Were there no legal impediments, I'm sure they'd be demanding he recant or burn in some circles pretending at science. Too many, though, Behe is the William Wallace of the day. Science would like him drawn so that they can hang his limbs here and there as an example of what is done to people who leave the fold. But, people see the underlying truth of what Behe has proffered. And Scottland must be free..
Indeed, why do you need clotting. It's only good if you start bleeding and how often does that really happen.. See, the usefulness is apparent when we consider the common sense of it. On the other hand, injecting common sense into clotting coming about randomly doesn't work.
Any biological process: 1. Process must exist. 2. Process must be a callable function. a. brain must in some sense be aware of the function. b. brain must understand the function. c. brain must have a convention for manipulating the function. i. on off switch ii. routing to specific site in the body iii. insuring function stays on task till job is complete. 3. Process must be functional I've plopped this outline down with clotting in mind. Given that we assume clotting to have arisen through chance, there are a lot of questions to be answered about how it could ever be invoked. If approached from a design standpoint, it is merely a matter of a designer 'writing the code' as it were to plug the function into main{}... where random chance is concerned, not only the function must leap out of nowhere, all the coding and structure required for it to be useful must leap into existance from nowhere as well. It's common sense to know that none of us are aware of clotting until we see our own first scab. And even then we don't know much more than there's this dark thing, evidently part of me, attached to me that is covering an ouch and which both itches and burns at times. We think that way because we are usually children when making the discovery. And we usually don't give it much thought after the bloody scab disappears. Somehow, our brain has done all the thinking for us in getting the job done and hasn't had to consult us. To me, that is as much the unseen complexity as the function itself. And this is what I'd reference as IC functioning on multiple layers. At any point of failure, the system becomes useless. Evolution, as stated and defined, is random and thoughtless. We can find a use for the car that doesn't convey because we are thinking and applying practical sense. Evolution doesn't have that capacity. So to argue that of necessity, evolution thinks to make things useful which would not otherwise be so is a tad disigenuous and misses the larger point. It isn't just that clotting exists. Clotting has to be integrated and understood before it is even relevant or useful. Something is directing the process. Take that how you will; but, it stands to reason that given random chance or a designer/coder/tinkerer, the latter becomes vastly more feasable to answer the problems presented. Occum's razor would seem to apply on the one hand. On the other, I think Occum's razor is a cheat for people too intellectually dishonest with themselves to think. It's taken some time to come to that conclusion; but, I have nonetheless so concluded.
- I really don't understand why the choice to explain the origin of the living cell have to be:
- evolution
- intelligent design by who or what we don't know
- direct miracles from God that cannot be explained
Why can't an option just be.... - we don't know yet?
Because your new option fails to address the evidence. It's ultimately a cop-out.
Science shouldn't be about avoiding questions because we don't like the answers, which seems to be what you're suggesting.
I could see such an approach were there competing scientific theories, but there aren't. The evidence all points in one direction. The theory is tested and supported, makes predictions that are verified and is falsifiable but continually not falsified. That's overwhelming evidence, but you're suggesting that we pretend it's not.
Any new theory must address the volumes of evidence that support evolution. Incidentally, that's why ID falls on its face - it goes right for the Invisible Pink Unicorn cop-out.
Once again, the link to Behe's own website:
I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God."
I find it surprising that seemingly 99% of IDers/Creationists fail to understand that Behe's main contention is NOT with Darwinian evolution but with abiogenesis.
This has been pointed out repeatedly in these threads.
Well all you Evols can twist yourselves into a pretzel trying to explain how everything evolved over millions/billions of years if you want...but I'll stick with what God told me.
2 Corinthians 5:1 For we know that when this earthly tent we live in is taken down—when we die and leave these bodies—we will have a home in heaven, an eternal body made for us by God himself and not by human hands.
2 We grow weary in our present bodies, and we long for the day when we will put on our heavenly bodies like new clothing.
3 For we will not be spirits without bodies, but we will put on new heavenly bodies.
4 Our dying bodies make us groan and sigh, but it’s not that we want to die and have no bodies at all. We want to slip into our new bodies so that these dying bodies will be swallowed up by everlasting life.
5 God himself has prepared us for this, and as a guarantee he has given us his Holy Spirit.
6 So we are always confident, even though we know that as long as we live in these bodies we are not at home with the Lord.
7 That is why we live by believing and not by seeing.
8 Yes, we are fully confident, and we would rather be away from these bodies, for then we will be at home with the Lord.
9 So our aim is to please him always, whether we are here in this body or away from this body.
10 For we must all stand before Christ to be judged. We will each receive whatever we deserve for the good or evil we have done in our bodies.
Now I don't need proof of what God told me to believe Him, but for those of you who doubt Him...He has given you proof in the form of NDE (Near Death Experience).
It's up to each one of you to choose if you want to believe Him or not, but I'd like to suggest that you research for yourselves since it's YOUR eternity that you're betting on.
Besides the millions of NDE we've all heard about we have at least one that can't be denied by any nay sayers... although I'm sure they'll try.
People Have NDEs While Brain Dead
Dr. Michael Sabom is a cardiologist whose latest book, Light and Death, includes a detailed medical and scientific analysis of an amazing near-death experience of a woman named Pam Reynolds. She underwent a rare operation to remove a giant basilar artery aneurysm in her brain that threatened her life. The size and location of the aneurysm, however, precluded its safe removal using the standard neuro-surgical techniques.
She was referred to a doctor who had pioneered a daring surgical procedure known as hypothermic cardiac arrest. It allowed Pam's aneurysm to be excised with a reasonable chance of success. This operation, nicknamed "standstill" by the doctors who perform it, required that Pam's body temperature be lowered to 60 degrees, her heartbeat and breathing stopped, her brain waves flattened, and the blood drained from her head. In everyday terms, she was put to death.
After removing the aneurysm, she was restored to life. During the time that Pam was in standstill, she experienced a NDE. Her remarkably detailed veridical out-of-body observations during her surgery were later verified to be very accurate. This case is considered to be one of the strongest cases of veridical evidence in NDE research because of her ability to describe the unique surgical instruments and procedures used and her ability to describe in detail these events while she was clinically and brain dead.
When all of Pam's vital signs were stopped, the doctor turned on a surgical saw and began to cut through Pam's skull. While this was going on, Pam reported that she felt herself "pop" outside her body and hover above the operating table. Then she watched the doctors working on her lifeless body for awhile.
From her out-of-body position, she observed the doctor sawing into her skull with what looked to her like an electric toothbrush. Pam heard and reported later what the nurses in the operating room had said and exactly what was happening during the operation. At this time, every monitor attached to Pam's body registered "no life" whatsoever.
At some point, Pam's consciousness floated out of the operating room and traveled down a tunnel which had a light at the end of it where her deceased relatives and friends were waiting including her long-dead grandmother. Pam's NDE ended when her deceased uncle led her back to her body for her to reentered it. Pam compared the feeling of reentering her dead body to "plunging into a pool of ice." The following is Pam Reynolds' account of her NDE in her own words.
a. brain must in some sense be aware of the function.3. Process must be functional I've plopped this outline down with clotting in mind."
b. brain must understand the function.
c. brain must have a convention for manipulating the function.
i. on off switch
ii. routing to specific site in the body
iii. insuring function stays on task till job is complete.
The plus sign with the moving dots is very hypnotic. I've been sitting here since yesterday afternoon and I can't tear my eyes away from it... .... .. ..... ...
Thank you! ;)
As I stated earlier, I would be interested in haring what Behe said in his testimony about 'common descent'.
It also seems to me that if God is capable of guiding evolution the way Darwin claims it happened, God could just as easily created life in substantially the same forms as they exist today. I have no problem with micro evolution/natural selection.
To go further and claim that all living organisms have descended from single cell organisms (universak common descent) is too far of a stretch, even given billions of years.
This has been pointed out repeatedly in these threads.
I thought the evolutionists on these threads have claimed that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Does it; or doesn't it?
There is a fundamental difference between evolution and ID. Evolution explains biodiversity by natural processes which can be studied and tested. ID explains biodiversity by stating that a designer is responsible for biodiversity. It's no more permissable for ID to ignore questions about the designer than it would be for evolution to ignore questions about mutations and natural selection. Evolution CAN ignore questions about the origin of life because evolution doesn't even attempt to explain the origin of life. ID cannot ignore questions about the nature of the designer because the designer is the fundamental postulated mechanism of ID. Saying "we don't know anything about the designer" is analogous to an evolutionary biologist saying "we don't know and we don't need to know how mutations occur or how natural selection works." You cannot just hand wave away questions about the origin and nature of the designer because that's the basic mechanism of the whole idea of ID. At least you can't if you want ID to be taken seriously as science.
Well, Stan Ulam told me it wasn't from the obvious (although the connection is reasonable.) He said that he had an uncle that would say, "I've got to go to Monte Carlo," sort of like, "I've got to see a man about a horse." It's was a rough and ready procedure that handled many situations.
I would bet that had it been Niagra Falls, the name wouldn't have stuck, though. Hour by hour, inch by inch, step by step, it would have faded.
And every time I drop something it falls to the ground; it never goes up!!! It cannot be random chance that this occurs, so that's further proof that there must be a designer. </sarcasm off>
And every time I bang my head on the table it bangs.
"It cannot be random chance that this occurs, so that's further proof that there must be a designer."
As there always is between two 'competing' theories.
Evolution explains biodiversity by natural processes which can be studied and tested.
The basis of the theory of evolution is RANDOM mutation resulting in more diverse AND complex life forms.
It's no more permissable for ID to ignore questions about the designer than it would be for evolution to ignore questions about mutations and natural selection.
You are comparing apples and oranges. You claim that evolution can just skip over the origins part of the equation, while ID cannot.
If the 'validity' of ID requires that the theory address the designer (e.g. origin of life) then the requirement to address origins must be fulfilled by evolution in order for it to be 'valid'.
As there always is between two 'competing' theories.
Evolution explains biodiversity by natural processes which can be studied and tested.
The basis of the theory of evolution is RANDOM mutation resulting in more diverse AND complex life forms.
It's no more permissable for ID to ignore questions about the designer than it would be for evolution to ignore questions about mutations and natural selection.
You are comparing apples and oranges. You claim that evolution can just skip over the origins part of the equation, while ID cannot.
If the 'validity' of ID requires that the theory address the designer (e.g. origin of life) then the requirement to address origins must be fulfilled by evolution in order for it to be 'valid'.
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.