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

Skip to comments.

Intelligent designís long march to nowhere
Science & Theology News ^ | 05 December 2005 | Karl Giberson

Posted on 12/05/2005 4:06:56 AM PST by PatrickHenry

The leaders of the intelligent design movement are once again holding court in America, defending themselves against charges that ID is not science. One of the expert witnesses is Michael Behe, author of the ID movement’s seminal volume Darwin’s Black Box. Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, testified about the scientific character of ID in Kitzmiller v. Dover School District, the court case of eight families suing the school district and the school board in Dover, Pa., for mandating the teaching of intelligent design.

Under cross-examination, Behe made many interesting comparisons between ID and the big-bang theory — both concepts carry lots of ideological freight. When the big-bang theory was first proposed in the 1920s, many people made hostile objections to its apparent “supernatural” character. The moment of the big bang looked a lot like the Judeo-Christian creation story, and scientists from Quaker Sir Arthur Eddington to gung-ho atheist Fred Hoyle resisted accepting it.

In his testimony, Behe stated — correctly — that at the current moment, “we have no explanation for the big bang.” And, ultimately it may prove to be “beyond scientific explanation,” he said. The analogy is obvious: “I put intelligent design in the same category,” he argued.

This comparison is quite interesting. Both ID and the big-bang theory point beyond themselves to something that may very well lie outside of the natural sciences, as they are understood today. Certainly nobody has produced a simple model for the big–bang theory that fits comfortably within the natural sciences, and there are reasons to suppose we never will.

In the same way, ID points to something that lies beyond the natural sciences — an intelligent designer capable of orchestrating the appearance of complex structures that cannot have evolved from simpler ones. “Does this claim not resemble those made by the proponents of the big bang?” Behe asked.

However, this analogy breaks down when you look at the historical period between George Lemaitre’s first proposal of the big-bang theory in 1927 and the scientific community’s widespread acceptance of the theory in 1965, when scientists empirically confirmed one of the big bang’s predictions.

If we continue with Behe’s analogy, we might expect that the decades before 1965 would have seen big-bang proponents scolding their critics for ideological blindness, of having narrow, limited and inadequate concepts of science. Popular books would have appeared announcing the big-bang theory as a new paradigm, and efforts would have been made to get it into high school astronomy textbooks.

However, none of these things happened. In the decades before the big-bang theory achieved its widespread acceptance in the scientific community its proponents were not campaigning for public acceptance of the theory. They were developing the scientific foundations of theory, and many of them were quite tentative about their endorsements of the theory, awaiting confirmation.

Physicist George Gamow worked out a remarkable empirical prediction for the theory: If the big bang is true, he calculated, the universe should be bathed in a certain type of radiation, which might possibly be detectable. Another physicist, Robert Dicke, started working on a detector at Princeton University to measure this radiation. Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson ended up discovering the radiation by accident at Bell Labs in Murray Hill, N.J., in 1965, after which just about everyone accepted the big bang as the correct theory.

Unfortunately, the proponents of ID aren’t operating this way. Instead of doing science, they are writing popular books and op-eds. As a result, ID remains theoretically in the same scientific place it was when Phillip Johnson wrote Darwin on Triallittle more than a roster of evolutionary theory’s weakest links.

When Behe was asked to explicate the science of ID, he simply listed a number of things that were complex and not adequately explained by evolution. These structures, he said, were intelligently designed. Then, under cross-examination, he said that the explanation for these structures was “intelligent activity.” He added that ID “explains” things that appear to be intelligently designed as having resulted from intelligent activity.

Behe denied that this reasoning was tautological and compared the discernment of intelligently designed structures to observing the Sphinx in Egypt and concluding that it could not have been produced by non-intelligent causes. This is a winsome analogy with a lot of intuitive resonance, but it is hardly comparable to Gamow’s carefully derived prediction that the big bang would have bathed the universe in microwave radiation with a temperature signature of 3 degrees Kelvin.

After more than a decade of listening to ID proponents claim that ID is good science, don’t we deserve better than this?


Karl Giberson [the author of this piece] is editor in chief at Science & Theology News.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; evochat; goddoodit; idjunkscience; idmillionidiotmarch; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 851-875 next last
To: Doctor Stochastic
Doing science takes knowledge and practice.

I would agree that generally doing "good" science requires knowledge and practice. But would you not agree that at least some important scientific work has been accomplished by persons who had little formal "scientific" training?

151 posted on 12/05/2005 8:45:53 AM PST by catpuppy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

Comment #152 Removed by Moderator

To: Antonello
Yeah, thanks.

That discussion was over a long time ago

153 posted on 12/05/2005 8:47:54 AM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: oblomov
What's wrong with being elitist?

I'd rather be elite.

154 posted on 12/05/2005 8:49:44 AM PST by catpuppy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Antonello
I guess that makes you the elitist.

Well done! It's nice to hear from a critic.

155 posted on 12/05/2005 8:51:22 AM PST by catpuppy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Javelina
Sorry, you lost.

I accept the defeat and promise to try harder next time.

156 posted on 12/05/2005 8:52:35 AM PST by catpuppy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith
The vast majority of nucleotide combinations are no-results.

I wonder about that. I've read of an observed mutation that enables metabolism of nylon. It is a frame shift mutation which means that the resulting protein is essentially random. Also, I am continually amazed by the amount of difference between the codes for functionally similar proteins between species. It seems to me that the genome is vastly more plastic wrt functionality than is usually portrayed.

157 posted on 12/05/2005 8:56:37 AM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

Comment #158 Removed by Moderator

To: Doctor Stochastic
nor to advise George Bush how to set the flaps on an F-16.)

In that case, you're on closer to equal terms, since he's probably never been in one either. Now ask him about an F-102...

159 posted on 12/05/2005 9:00:08 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

16/64=1/4 by cancellation of the 6's.


160 posted on 12/05/2005 9:04:36 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: catpuppy
But would you not agree that at least some important scientific work has been accomplished by persons who had little formal "scientific" training?

It happens but it's rare.

161 posted on 12/05/2005 9:06:51 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9
Inteligent Design might be true, but it can never be Science. It is by definition Theology.

I hasten to quibble. Although I'm highly confident that ID, or anything similar, will never be a useful and successful part of science, I disagree with ruling it out, especially "by definition".

It was once widely agreed, for instance, that "occult forces" involving "action at a distance" were inherently unscientific (or "unphilosophical," this being before the term "science" had been invented). And yet Newton appealed to just such a force -- gravity -- which was rapidly accepted because it demonstrably worked in explaining nature and stimulating new research.

Now I can't imagine how "non-natural" forces or causes could possibly work in natural science. How can you possible deduce empirical consequences from a theory which includes a mechanism that is basically unconstrained, or at least very weakly constrained, in the effects it can produce?

But maybe, just maybe, someone might be able to DEMONSTRATE (anti-evos please note this is what is required!) how such a theory might work and produce genuinely useful results. However unlikely I won't define the possibility, or any similar possibility away.

My philosophical position is that there is no fixed or predefined "nature of science," nor certain set of characteristics to which scientific theories must adhere. (Or rather the characteristics are operational rather than definitional, regarding how theories function as opposed to their inherent characteristics.)

The "nature of science" is determined by the content of science. Before Newton is was part of the nature of science that theories involving the transfer of force appealed exclusively to physical impact between bodies. Newton actually changed the nature of science by producing ideas that were so useful that they had to be accommodated despite their novel character.

162 posted on 12/05/2005 9:07:47 AM PST by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

I'm probably not qualified to set the flaps on his driving cap.


163 posted on 12/05/2005 9:07:56 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith
For example getting all the cards in strict order of suit and number would be an extraordinary hand

According to your perception, because you value that particular combination. But it's not statistically any less likely than any other combination.

164 posted on 12/05/2005 9:10:08 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
Speaking as a believer, I think science would be aided in it's advancement by not ignoring the 100% accuracy of the Bible regarding physics.

Does this 100% accuracy extend to the global flood, at around 4200-4300 years ago?

165 posted on 12/05/2005 9:10:53 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
I'm probably not qualified to set the flaps on his driving cap.

Don't forget, he's just a man. Besides, nothing in his bio suggests being a skilled driver, especially since he's been limo'd around for over a decade.

166 posted on 12/05/2005 9:13:15 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Junior
So far, there hasn't been one piece of research done with the aim of finding evidence for design.

Wrong. Here's a partial list:

Stephen Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117(2004):213-239.

Meyer argues that competing materialistic models (Neo-Darwinism, Self –Organization Models, Punctuated Equilibrium and Structuralism) are not sufficient to account for origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms present in the Cambrian Explosion. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.
Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119. PDF(2.95MB)HTML

Biology exhibits numerous invariants -- aspects of the biological world that do not change over time. These include basic genetic processes that have persisted unchanged for more than three-and-a-half billion years and molecular mechanisms of animal ontogenesis that have been constant for more than one billion years. Such invariants, however, are difficult to square with dynamic genomes in light of conventional evolutionary theory. Indeed, Ernst Mayr regarded this as one of the great unsolved problems of biology. In this paper Dr.Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig Lönnig Senior Scientist in the Department of Molecular Plant Genetics at the Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding Research employs the design-theoretic concepts of irreducible complexity (as developed by Michael Behe) and specified complexity (as developed by William Dembski) to elucidate these invariants, accounting for them in terms of an intelligent design (ID) hypothesis.
Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force? Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

Most animal cells contain a pair of centrioles, tiny turbine-like organelles oriented at right angles to each other that replicate at every cell division. Yet the function and behavior of centrioles remain mysterious. Since all centrioles appear to be equally complex, there are no plausible evolutionary intermediates with which to construct phylogenies; and since centrioles contain no DNA, they have attracted relatively little attention from neo Darwinian biologists who think that DNA is the secret of life. From an intelligent design (ID) perspective, centrioles may have no evolutionary intermediates because they are irreducibly complex. And they may need no DNA because they carry another form of biological information that is independent of the genetic mutations relied upon by neo-Darwinists. In this paper, Wells assumes that centrioles are designed to function as the tiny turbines they appear to be, rather than being accidental by-products of Darwinian evolution. He then formulates a testable hypothesis about centriole function and behavior that—if corroborated by experiment could have important implications for our understanding of cell division and cancer. Wells thus makes a case for ID by showing its strong heuristic value in biology. That is, he uses the theory of intelligent design to make new discoveries in biology.
Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).

This article underwent conference peer review in order to be included in this peer-edited proceedings. Minnich and Meyer do three important things in this paper. First, they refute a popular objection to Michael Behe’s argument for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Second, they suggest that the Type III Secretory System present in some bacteria, rather than being an evolutionary intermediate to the bacterial flagellum, is probably represents a degenerate form of the bacterial flagellum. Finally, they argue explicitly that intelligent design is a better than the Neo-Darwinian mechanism for explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum.
Peer-Reviewed Books Supportive of Intelligent Design Published by Trade Presses or University Presses

W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

This book was published by Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. The editorial board of that series includes members of the National Academy of Sciences as well as one Nobel laureate, John Harsanyi, who shared the prize in 1994 with John Nash, the protagonist in the film A Beautiful Mind. Commenting on the ideas in The Design Inference, well-known physicist and science writer Paul Davies remarks: “Dembski’s attempt to quantify design, or provide mathematical criteria for design, is extremely useful. I’m concerned that the suspicion of a hidden agenda is going to prevent that sort of work from receiving the recognition it deserves.” Quoted in L. Witham, By Design (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2003), p. 149.

Cordially,

167 posted on 12/05/2005 9:15:11 AM PST by Diamond (Qui liberatio scelestus trucido inculpatus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Diamond

Rsearch? You didn't cite any experiments done by ID.


168 posted on 12/05/2005 9:20:50 AM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
I still call it "cancelling".

20 points to any old-timers who get that one.

Fortran implicits: a through h real, i through o integer, p through z real, IIRC.

169 posted on 12/05/2005 9:20:58 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
The odds of getting a bridge hand with all 13 cards the same suit is very small, small to the point where it is unlikely that this has ever happened by chance in tournament bridge. Such hands have been claimed to have happened by chance, but each time, it turned out to be a prank or fraud.

This is the problem with the origin of life: You can shuffle those amino acids all day long, but whether you get a structure that fulfills the functions of a living organism is another matter entirely.

170 posted on 12/05/2005 9:22:41 AM PST by megatherium (Hecho in China)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael

Looks like he is eminently qualified to express his opinions in eloquent form. Is he your source of ultimate truth?


171 posted on 12/05/2005 9:24:26 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Diamond

Your first example was rejected for failing to meet the publication's criteria. Your second I haven't been able track down. The next two do not have anything to do with IC, from what I can tell (just because a guy advocates ID does not mean all his research is geared toward it). And, what the hell is a peer-reviewed book?


172 posted on 12/05/2005 9:25:53 AM PST by Junior (From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
BTW, there is no reason at all to think that abiogenesis would work that way. The rules of chemistry are not random.

We live in a universe that supports life, where the laws of physics and chemistry are not random and appear to have lead to the origin of life. There is where I personally see the Creator, a Creator who has chosen the most elegant way possible to create life.

173 posted on 12/05/2005 9:27:33 AM PST by megatherium (Hecho in China)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: megatherium

"We live in a universe that supports life, where the laws of physics and chemistry are not random and appear to have lead to the origin of life. There is where I personally see the Creator, a Creator who has chosen the most elegant way possible to create life."

That is a very nice position, but it is not open to scientific investigation.


174 posted on 12/05/2005 9:33:01 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Junior
And, what the hell is a peer-reviewed book?

It's when an editor decides to run a manuscript past someone else to get their take on it. Obviously, it's a highly informal process, done (or not done) totally at the editor's discretion, unlike peer-reviewed journals. Likewise, there's no real reason to expect the reviewer to have any particular expertise in the subject material - they may be "peers" purely in the sense that they also have two arms and a head, like the author. In fact IIRC the "peers" that "reviewed" Design Inference were philosophers, not mathematicians, or biologists. Curious, since the book is all about math and biology...

175 posted on 12/05/2005 9:38:31 AM PST by Senator Bedfellow (Sneering condescension.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: catpuppy; Javelina

Actually, it's the second rule (the first is Godwin's Law). There is a way around this, though. One need only include "[sic]" within the excerpted text to which you are replying; this indicates you recognize the lack of knowledge of spelling or grammar on the part of your opponent without actually bringing it to the world's attention.


176 posted on 12/05/2005 9:41:10 AM PST by Junior (From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Antonello; PatrickHenry

Terry Goodkind's 'Wizard's First Rule' seems appropriate here, too...

People are stupid. They will believe anything they want to be true or fear to be true.

Don't forget Paul Simon:

...still the man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.

177 posted on 12/05/2005 9:42:10 AM PST by forsnax5 (The greatest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Doc Savage

Yes, it really ought to be removed to "chat"--


178 posted on 12/05/2005 9:45:52 AM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jec41
It is a good way to make Charlie, who cannot count to ten feel good.

Are you suggesting that counting could be part of an unbiased IQ test?

179 posted on 12/05/2005 9:47:53 AM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
Fortran implicits: a through h real, i through o integer, p through z real, IIRC.

We have a winner!

180 posted on 12/05/2005 9:48:29 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Snowbelt Man
if evolution is true and homosexuality is genetic - why are there still homosexuals? wouldn't this non reproductive gene have been eliminated from the gene pool at some point? when it comes to science, i'm one of those ignoramuses who believes that God created man in His own image and homosexuality is a choice that people make.

Assorted answers that would occur to anyone who thought open-mindedly about the problem posed for a few minutes:

Just because a particular trait makes offspring less likely it doesn't follow that it cannot persist in the population. Homosexuals still have the physical equipment to be the biological parents of children.

Homosexuality may be expressed by several genes, and may form a continuum rather than being a straight on/off switch.

Perhaps the assumptions of the question are wrong and homosexuality is not genetic at all.

Perhaps the principal genes for homosexuality are recessive. Plenty of traits survive in the population for that reason.

Latent genetic homosexuality might be triggered into actual homosexual behaviour by certain environmental events during one's lifetime, and people who didn't experience such events would grow up straight despite having one or more of the homosexuality genes.

What I find more curious, is why are so many creationists obsessed with homosexuality, to the point that again and again it is dragged into crevo debates for no discernable reason?

181 posted on 12/05/2005 9:48:44 AM PST by Thatcherite (F--ked in the afterlife, bullying feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat; Physicist
We have a winner!

Hey! Wait a minute, wasn't it 'i' through 'n' for I N teger? That's how I used to remember it.

182 posted on 12/05/2005 9:50:39 AM PST by Thatcherite (F--ked in the afterlife, bullying feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
Hey! Wait a minute, wasn't it 'i' through 'n' for I N teger? That's how I used to remember it.

Do you know how long it's been since I used FORTRAN? But, IIRC, you're right.

What do you do when you forget a memory-aiding device?

183 posted on 12/05/2005 9:56:37 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
An additional portion from your link to The John Templeton Foundation as it relates to ID:

"...it is not clear to what extent the process of evolution or the study of the history of life on Earth may reveal hints of broader cosmic, perhaps even Divine, purpose and intention...It is therefore possible that from time to time, the Foundation will support well-designed projects or research that some others may label as "intelligent design"...Some advocates of the ID position have received grants from the Foundation on the basis of successful participation in intellectually-rigorous, openly judged and peer-reviewed grant competitions.

Still think that they're legit?

184 posted on 12/05/2005 9:58:27 AM PST by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

I'm just waiting to collect my prize now. I believe it is a night out with a selected cohort of the Darwin Central Grand Master's Bathing Beauty Team. Just picture the Dallas Cowgirls, but somewhat less reticent in coming forward.


185 posted on 12/05/2005 9:58:49 AM PST by Thatcherite (F--ked in the afterlife, bullying feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow
More curious facts about peer-reviewed books, if the Dover testimony of the IDers is to be believed, is that:

a. The author is sometimes the reviewer of his own work.

b. Failing (a) if a reviewer reviews a portion of the book negatively, you just go and ask another reviewer.

c. The review process apparently consists not of the question, "Is this work valid science?", but "Will this book find a ready market?"

186 posted on 12/05/2005 10:02:38 AM PST by Thatcherite (F--ked in the afterlife, bullying feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

Yet another possiblity re homosexuality is that it's a linked trait. It may not be adapative, may even be maladaptive in itself, but closely associated with some trait that IS adaptive. Let's say (just as a merely illustrative "for instance") that the genetic factors associated with homosexuality only actually cause homosexuality 25 percent of the time; the other 75 percent of the time they cause individuals to have greater empathy with the opposite sex, and a much improved "fashion sense," both of which qualities make bearers of the "homo factor" more successful in securing mates and reproducing. Clearly such a set of factors might be transmitted and even favored by reproduction and natural selection.


187 posted on 12/05/2005 10:03:06 AM PST by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
"If you're willing to grant the status of "science" to reasonable inferences based upon unobserved, unrecorded processes, then don't be surprised when certain folks who cannot produce an intelligent designer infer that one exists where organized matter presents itself, and call such inferences "science," too."

Actually, science can recreate conditions from millions of years ago and duplicate the results. That's science. ID cannot reproduce results. That's not science, or if anything that's a theory not able to be proven through science.

188 posted on 12/05/2005 10:03:30 AM PST by DaGman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Junior; Diamond

Ping to above post.


189 posted on 12/05/2005 10:04:10 AM PST by Thatcherite (F--ked in the afterlife, bullying feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Diamond

Your "research" is just a list of articles reviewing the liteature on certain problems. Reviews of literature are sometimes valuable, and may reveal problems in accepted explanations, they are not research.

ID accomodates everthing from young earth creationism to Denton's fine tuning. It says nothing about what to expect, projects no data and makes no falsifiable claims.

Before ID begins a research project it will need to have a hypothesis that is something other than a list of unexplained phenomena. It will need to offer an explanation that expects something different from Darwinian evolution.

I'm not sure how that can come about when Behe and Denton accept most of evolution as a given.


190 posted on 12/05/2005 10:05:54 AM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite; antiRepublicrat
You're probably right. I was above such theological minutiae, having always followed the righteous path of IMPLICIT NONE. But my "IIRC" disclaimer has me covered.
191 posted on 12/05/2005 10:06:49 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

You left out the fact that RC gave us one of the truly great leaders of the Twentieth Century, Carol Wojtyla, Pope John Paul II. I was raised prot in New England and I am a lifelong atheist, but if there is one person whose life could test my non-belief, it would be him. The greatness of Carol Wojtyla's intellect, his vast knowledge, and amazing charisma will forever intrigue me. How could such a man be wrong in believing? As long as he lives in my consciousness there will be an asterisk beside my atheist label. The RC Church has traditionally been a vehicle for higher learning and philosophical and theological inquiry. (the conduit for classical learning through the Dark Ages to modern times) I was raised to admire the Jesuit Order before they veered so far to the left. RC is the original "Big Tent," including all the best and worst of religion. The RC will always be welcoming to knowledge, even during the Inquisition the resistance often came from within the Church.


192 posted on 12/05/2005 10:10:59 AM PST by rootkidslim (... got the Sony rootkit on your Wintel box? You can thank Orrin Hatch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DaGman
Actually, science can recreate conditions from millions of years ago . . .

Not without indulging a set of untestable assumptions.

193 posted on 12/05/2005 10:12:32 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
There is an old saying that I cannot attribute to anyone...

"Nobody ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

The scary thing is that after Great Britain, America has the one of the highest, if not the highest, average national IQs. 98.
194 posted on 12/05/2005 10:17:51 AM PST by rootkidslim (... got the Sony rootkit on your Wintel box? You can thank Orrin Hatch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
having always followed the righteous path of IMPLICIT NONE.

Same here. I had to suffer through a couple years of Visual Basic work, so "Option Explicit" (same meaning) was always the first line.

195 posted on 12/05/2005 10:18:45 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Not without indulging a set of untestable assumptions.

Not true. The environment leaves traces in the fossil record in much the same manner as organisms do. The biggest example is the band of rust found in the geological column corresponding to the introduction of atmospheric oxygen.

Certain types of minerals will only form under certain conditions, meaning those conditions had to be present when those minerals formed.

This whole "untestable assumptions" crap you (and other anti-E types) toss out willy-nilly to dismiss research you don't like just does not hold water when looked at objectively.

196 posted on 12/05/2005 10:21:13 AM PST by Junior (From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

Yes, thanks. I should have said "repeated independent trials."


197 posted on 12/05/2005 10:25:15 AM PST by TheGhostOfTomPaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: NonZeroSum

Yes, I understood that to be your main point and agreed that you were correct.


198 posted on 12/05/2005 10:27:21 AM PST by TheGhostOfTomPaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
It happens but it's rare.

Yes, and da Vinci would fall into the "It happens but it's rare" category.

199 posted on 12/05/2005 10:29:26 AM PST by catpuppy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: longshadow

200


200 posted on 12/05/2005 10:29:40 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 851-875 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