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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 351-400401-450451-500 ... 851-875 next last
To: VadeRetro
What is a "grant" and what is "support", if not funding?

Integrity...That BS detector is going off again (for some strange reason it goes off every time that you mention that word).

You could demonstrate some of that if you took back your claim that I was telling a lie.

401 posted on 12/05/2005 5:12:09 PM PST by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
"Sure. And within those processes any combination of matter is possible. "

No. Not even close. If that were true, the universe wouldn't be working by regular, law-like processes.

"It can combine in such a manner as to produce evolution in any sense."

Not in any sense. There are many constraints.

"It is a small stretch to consider that molecules can combine under the same rules to form life apart from sexual intercourse, or wine apart from any process of fermentation as we know it."

Maybe if you're dropping acid. Otherwise, the above are way outside the laws of nature and outside the province of scientific examination.

"If you are so sure that regular, law-like processes are involved with the universe, then it should also be no big stretch to infer intelligent design, because of all things, intelligent desing results in processes that are orderly and law-like."

Perfect circular argument. Unfortunately, it's equally likely that the regularity of nature just *is*.

"How do you explain the law-like nature of the universe apart from either intelligence or design?"

I'm intellectually honest enough to say that there IS NO answer to this question. As such, it no longer interests me. I am not a child anymore who needs to have every question answered for me to feel secure. Part of growing up is knowing there are things you will never know.
402 posted on 12/05/2005 5:12:56 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]

To: longshadow

401


403 posted on 12/05/2005 5:14:33 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]

To: Junior
You're welcome.

I think that VadeRetro's posts on the topic are a good indicator of what is to come...attack and name-call.

404 posted on 12/05/2005 5:14:48 PM PST by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: pby
You said they fund ID. They don't. It's that simple. Admit it or be exposed as the lying sham you are.
405 posted on 12/05/2005 5:16:28 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
You're talking about two concepts: Evolution and Abiogenesis.

Just because they are two different concepts does not mean they are unrelated. I am frankly alarmed at the suggestion one can have abiogenesis without evolution. How can this be? Granted, abiogenesis may be one particular focus of certain scientists, but I cannot understand how they could possibly divorce one from the other en toto. I can certainly understand why one would want to turn a blind eye to abiogenesis while arguing for a universal history of simple to complex biological forms.

406 posted on 12/05/2005 5:16:39 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Fester passed that point long ago.

Does he he qualify for nomination for permanent membership in the distinguished ranks of the Ignorati? (i.e., those who refuse to see)

407 posted on 12/05/2005 5:19:31 PM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
My posts speak for themselves and so does PatrickHenry's link to Templeton's website...There are no lies just like there are no feathers on sinosauroptyrex (just your imagination getting carried away).
408 posted on 12/05/2005 5:19:51 PM PST by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

seriously...alarmed??


409 posted on 12/05/2005 5:19:56 PM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: pby
Interesting, too, that the answer to this

They also don't fund it. You said they did. They were interested once and called for papers. None came. Now they aren't much interested, as their guidelines for submissions make crystal clear.
is this.

What is a "grant" and what is "support", if not funding?
I mean, are we all supposed to be idiots not to see the tap dance?

And what about this?

“They never came in,” said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.

“From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don’t come out very well in our world of scientific review,” he said.

Does that look like "funding" or "not funding?"
410 posted on 12/05/2005 5:22:57 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: pby
If your project takes an anti-evolutionist position scientifically, or seeks to engage in political advocacy concerning evolution or anti-evolution, it is unlikely to pass through the initial filters and external expert review process of the John Templeton Foundation.
Does this say, "We fund ID?" Pby says John Templeton Foundation funds ID.
411 posted on 12/05/2005 5:24:54 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Stick to the link that PatrickHenry provided and my posts.

I have no debate with you on anything outside of that.

412 posted on 12/05/2005 5:27:08 PM PST by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: pby
sinosauroptyrex

Stop confusing Junior. There is no Sinosauroptyrex.

413 posted on 12/05/2005 5:28:01 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
How do you explain the law-like nature of the universe apart from either intelligence or design?

Hey Fester, keep in mind that random events can allow a great degree of prediction. Study a short text about the 'Standard Normal Curve,' and you'll see that randomness certainly does not imply design---it's the diametric opposite---yet it does provide scientists with a tool: Probability.

414 posted on 12/05/2005 5:28:15 PM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; CarolinaGuitarman; Fester Chugabrew; <1/1,000,000th%


POINT #1:


George Lemaitre's assertion of a Big Bang: 1927.
Not proven until scientists confirmed prediction associated with BB, the CBR, in 1965.

38 years.


Miller-Urey: 1953.

We've had 52 years for someone to advance the theory of abiogenesis.

(We're still waaaaaiiiiting....)


The fact that nothing has happened along these lines (abiogenesis) doesn't necessarily prove anything, but it is, at the least (now let's be honest, guys) indicative that, perhaps, if abiogenesis were easily provable...someone would have LOVED to have been the prover, and win the prize that let's you travel to Stockholm and meet Swedish royalty.

No one has.

When a golden apple is put up for anyone to grasp...and no one does...it means the apple is a little tougher to grasp than people are admitting.

My thinking is that it would seem that the irreducible complexity of biological organisms at even the smallest levels seems to be the roadblock preventing us from, after 52 years, being able to settle this point.

It ain't settled.

Why has no one been able to build upon the Miller-Urey experiment toward something--anything--more substantial? Certainly, you would think someone would at least try.

It's very telling.

Yet...and I don't want to play both sides, here, but Genesis does say this: the Earth created ("produced, brought forth") life. The waters created life. Some Christians won't want to hear this. But there it is. Genesis supports evolutionary abiogenesis.

There. Now, I've got BOTH sides on the Crevo debate mad at me. ;)


POINT #2:


This thread was initiated by the article in Science & Theology News. The article correctly pointed out that science is ill-equipped and not in the position to ever be able to prove or disprove the existence of the Creator.

I am in full agreement. I wish I weren't. We have to rely on circumstantial evidence for deducing the existence of the Creator, of which we have plenty.

The article's main point, however, was of the dissimilarity of the Big Bang and Intelligent Design, how the BB was later supported by the evidence in 1965, and how ID doesn't have that level of supporting evidence--and so the analogy breaks down that ID and BB, according to Michael Behe, are analogous.

*** I think the author missed a vital point: When Lemaitre argued for a Big Bang, and when the CBR (cosmic background radiation) was discovered in 1965 supporting it, the new discovery didn't prove the existence of a Creator, merely that the universe had been created. It did take us a step closer, to be sure, and I'm glad for it.

When Intelligent Design was proposed and is defended, we have a problem in that there is nothing like a CBR to be found that might prove/disprove it. The analogy between the astronomical and the biological discovery doesn't hold--the best that can be done in biology, sad to say, is to note the piling up of uncanny coincidences (anthropic argument, to be sure, but the sword of the anthropic can cut for or against both sides in the debate).

I think there's a lot going for irreducible complexity. Activity at the sub-cellular level is astonishingly SPECIALIZED. Not many on this list can make the claim that they understand this high degree of specialization, which is itself irreducibly complex.


POINT #3:


Kalam Cosmological Argument. No such thing as infinity. Can't be. The universe has not always been here. What created it?

I bring this up repeatedly because NO ONE HAS ATTEMPTED TO ANSWER IT. I know it's cosmogeny, and we started this as a biologically-based discussion, but as I pointed out, supra, it is my belief that biology can't move us any closer to understanding the Creator than humanity taking note of the apparent design inherent in living organisms. Still can argue that one either way, and it doesn't seem to nail the lid shut.

But when you take into account issues in cosmogeny, the origin of the universe, you quickly realize (ahem, Kalam) that the Big U didn't self-create, and you cannot argue that some other universe created this one (brane theory--stupidest thing I've heard of, begs the whole question!) because you then ask: what created THAT universe? And on, and on.

At some point, there has to be a First Cause of it all.

And then one realizes that any First Cause cannot exist either within THIS universe, nor within another universe that might have caused this one, but must exist OUTSIDE of it all. One simultaneously realizes that whatever caused this universe to spring into existence wasn't inanimate matter itself, but something intelligent. Intelligent things act upon things. They cause. Things don't cause things. Things don't cause things to exist.

Biology hints at a Creator.

Astronomy SHOUTS at a Creator.

My $0.02. YMMV.

Sauron


415 posted on 12/05/2005 5:28:18 PM PST by sauron ("Truth is hate to those who hate Truth" --unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: pby
Stick to the facts and people won't have to correct you so often. Mr. Harper is a highly relevant authority, being a senior VP at JTF.
416 posted on 12/05/2005 5:29:51 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
There are already companies that are creating DNA libraries and building the capability to build organisms one base pair at a time.

That would be no more significant than when I was a kid and cut and pasted hexadecimal code to crack a game...although I did it, did I know what the hex code represented?

Likewise: Do the scientists truly understand the DNA they're cutting and pasting?

Or are they merely playing with materials that, yes, they can manipulate, but cannot understand?

Are they just kids eagerly taking credit for something they really don't understand?

A poor analogy might be this: I understand how to create fire. I know what it will do once I create it. I know its heat, its light, and how to propagate it--or, more likely, avoid propagation!

...but do I understand what the FLAME ITSELF is made out of?

417 posted on 12/05/2005 5:34:31 PM PST by sauron ("Truth is hate to those who hate Truth" --unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: sauron
George Lemaitre's assertion of a Big Bang: 1927.
Not proven until scientists confirmed prediction associated with BB, the CBR, in 1965.

And still not proven.

418 posted on 12/05/2005 5:34:55 PM PST by dread78645 (Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: sauron
We've had 52 years for someone to advance the theory of abiogenesis. (We're still waaaaaiiiiting....)

Asked you once already, was there a deadline?

The fact that nothing has happened along these lines (abiogenesis) doesn't necessarily prove anything...

Probably shows you aren't following the research.

When Intelligent Design was proposed and is defended, we have a problem in that there is nothing like a CBR to be found that might prove/disprove it.

Right. There never will be, either. The whole idea is useless as tits on a boar hog, scientifically speaking.

419 posted on 12/05/2005 5:34:58 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Let us look at the Templeton Foundation's statement in its entirety, with my comments in brackets:
The John Templeton Foundation does not support research or programs that deny large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge. [Thus, ID is out.] In addition, we do not support political agendas such as movements to determine (one way or the other) what qualified educators should or should not teach in public schools. [Again, ID is out.] However, it is not the policy of the John Templeton Foundation to “black list” organizations or individual scholars or to proscribe the outcome of well-designed research projects. In addition, the Foundation does not itself hold, or require that its grantees accept, any specific position on scholarly questions that remain open to further study. (The Foundation’s motto is “How little we know; how eager to learn.”) Thus while it is our judgment that the general process of biological evolution is well attested by many lines of research, 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.” But the Foundation does not support the movement known as Intelligent Design as such, as an intellectual position or as a movement. [Clear enough?] The Foundation is a non-partisan philanthropic organization and makes funding decisions based on a process of peer review as is standard practice in scientific research funding and publication. Our expectation is that the products of Templeton-funded research will appear in high-quality and peer-reviewed journals. [Thus ID is out.] If your project takes an anti-evolutionist position scientifically, or seeks to engage in political advocacy concerning evolution or anti-evolution, it is unlikely to pass through the initial filters and external expert review process of the John Templeton Foundation. [So ID is out.] In contrast, some advocates of the ID position have received grants from the Foundation on the basis of successful participation in intellectually-rigorous, openlyjudged and peer-reviewed grant competitions. [Obviously, the grants didn't fund ID, even though the grant recipients may have been advocates of ID.]

While the Foundation does not generally support theologically-motivated critiques of evolutionary science, [thus ID is out] we do fund open and rigorous debate concerning the “ID” position. [Debates aren't scientific research into ID.] We believe that open debate and competition among positions is the best long-term method for choosing a wise course of action. This is particularly important in this instance because debate about the philosophical interpretations of evolutionary science (as distinct from wholesale rejection of the scientific findings relevant to evolution) is much needed.


420 posted on 12/05/2005 5:37:16 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

What is the difference between arguing from probabilities and arguing from astonishment?


421 posted on 12/05/2005 5:39:07 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Astutely commented. I'm going to pass up troll-rolling for the delights of Monday Night Football, methinks.
422 posted on 12/05/2005 5:39:58 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
One more time Vade...because you seem to be having difficulty with this one. From PH's link:

"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.

and

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".

In contrast, some advocates of the ID position have received grants from the Foundation...

...we do fund open and rigorous debate concerning the "ID" position. We believe that open debate and competition among positions is the best long-term method for choosing a wise course of action. This is particularly important in this instance because debate about the philosophical interpretations of evolutionary science...is much needed.

There is the evidence...argue with them now.

423 posted on 12/05/2005 5:45:10 PM PST by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

To: sauron
Exactly
424 posted on 12/05/2005 5:45:52 PM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Stop confusing Junior.

Too late. I'm extremely confused.

There is no Sinosauroptyrex.

At least not in the official literature. However, your chart earlier spells it exactly the same way as pby, which really makes me confused. One would think there would be lots of literature available on just about any dinosaur, let alone one as somewhat controversial as this one.

I'm beginning to think I've slipped into an alternate universe... again.

425 posted on 12/05/2005 5:46:09 PM 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 413 | View Replies]

To: sauron
"Not proven until scientists confirmed prediction associated with BB, the CBR, in 1965. "

Not proven even now. It is strongly supported though.

"Miller-Urey: 1953.

We've had 52 years for someone to advance the theory of abiogenesis.

(We're still waaaaaiiiiting....) "

We're still waiting for you to understand that the above experiment was NEVER meant to produce life. And no, we are not *still waiting* as if there have been no advances since Miller-Urey. The field is progressing, but it is going slow because it's a tough puzzle to solve.

"My thinking is that it would seem that the irreducible complexity of biological organisms at even the smallest levels seems to be the roadblock preventing us from, after 52 years, being able to settle this point."

There is no such thing as *irreducible complexity*. The phrase was bastardized from a legitimate term in engineering called *irreducible simplicity*. Most of the *IC* examples that ID'ers have provided turn out to be not *IC*.

"When Intelligent Design was proposed and is defended, we have a problem in that there is nothing like a CBR to be found that might prove/disprove it."

It's been around for over 2,000 years.

"Not many on this list can make the claim that they understand this high degree of specialization, which is itself irreducibly complex."

*Specialization* is not *IC*.
426 posted on 12/05/2005 5:46:27 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Thank you PatrickHenry.

Perhaps Vade can read it in blue.

427 posted on 12/05/2005 5:47:30 PM PST by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: sauron

The earth brought forth life and continues to sustain it on account of a cause beyond itself.

Would ID predict something akin to a periodic table of elements, "laws of nature," and the like?

If the definition of "supernatural" is subject to the extent of human understanding, what is there that cannot be defined as either "natural" or "supernatural," with the observer being the sole determinant of which is which?

Maybe the "natural" state of things is for them to fly apart, disintegrate, and disappear. If so, then the presence of any data for any observer to contemplate would be far from natural. I maintain that science is in and of itself a supernatural occurence.


428 posted on 12/05/2005 5:47:42 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: Junior; VadeRetro
However, your chart earlier spells it exactly the same way as pby...

I knew I remembered seeing it spelled that way.

429 posted on 12/05/2005 5:50:11 PM PST by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; Fester Chugabrew

"I maintain that science is in and of itself a supernatural occurence." (Fester Chugabrew, post 428)


Your Brain on Creationism worthy?


430 posted on 12/05/2005 5:50:35 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
The speed up of the universe could be explained because of the black hole discovered at the center of the Milky Way, or some other reason yet to be discovered.

And I thought this thread wouldn't be entertaining.
431 posted on 12/05/2005 5:52:07 PM PST by self_evident
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
In addition, we do not support political agendas such as movements to determine (one way or the other) what qualified educators should or should not teach in public schools. [Again, ID is out.]

Your bracketed comment contradicts what the sentence says. It seems to me the author is stating antipathy toward supporting "one way or the other." That means nothing is ruled in or out, other than supporting political agendas.

432 posted on 12/05/2005 5:52:57 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: Junior; pby
Dyslex much? Padian's chart says "Sinosauropteryx." That's the only one I remember.

Look for yourselves.


433 posted on 12/05/2005 5:54:06 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

Ahhh... Tired eyes. "E" before "Y" if it's dinos that fly...


434 posted on 12/05/2005 5:56:16 PM 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 433 | View Replies]

To: pby
There is the evidence...argue with them now.

Just brazen. They do not fund ID. You said they do.

Now, I allowed that you could have been innocently mistaken in your initial reading.

That cannot be true now. You, sir, are absolutely, positively, without a doubt a shameless liar.

Out for probably the rest of the night. You may have the last word. Have a ball with it.

435 posted on 12/05/2005 5:58:11 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: KamperKen
I'm neither a Christian or relgious. Merely curious enough to put aside long-held beliefs and entertain the arguments being made.

Well, in fact, a goodly number of scientists look at the problem of very early life, and other conundrums, and find there's a good case to be made for ID. However, they also mostly understand the difference between idle speculation, that offers, as yet no tangible traction for critical experiment or field work, and natural science. There is another branch of thought, presently spearheaded by Kauffman, Woese and Wolfram, who do perform experiments with critically examinable results, that holds that self-reproductive organization is a natural state of chaotic matter over time, and is inevitable even in the short run.

Kinda easier to get your mits around an ongoing physical phenomenon, than it is to examine a supposed one-shot event a couple of billion years ago.

436 posted on 12/05/2005 6:01:00 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

What is "Creationism?"


437 posted on 12/05/2005 6:01:17 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

"What is "Creationism?"

??


438 posted on 12/05/2005 6:02:18 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
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.

How so? 1965-1927 is 38 years.

Gamow and Teller were both proponents of the expanding-universe theory that had been advanced by Friedmann, Edwin Hubble, and Georges LeMaître. Gamow, however, modified the theory and named his version the “big bang.” He and Ralph Alpher published this theory in a paper called “The Origin of Chemical Elements” (1948). This paper, attempting to explain the distribution of chemical elements throughout the universe, posits a primeval thermonuclear explosion, the big bang that began the universe. According to the theory, after the big bang, atomic nuclei were built up by the successive capture of neutrons by the initially formed pairs and triplets.

That is 21 years before the testable prediction was made followed by 17 years before the theory was widely accepted.(and I'm not sure how close that initial description is to the current theories synthesis of elements)

http://cosmos.colorado.edu/stem/courses/common/documents/chapter12/l12S7.htm

But, in 1950, a Japanese astrophysicist, Chushiro Hayashi, pointed out a big flaw in Gamow's theory. One of Gamow's basic assumptions, that the universe was originally filled with neutrons and gamma rays, could not be correct. If the radiation had a temperature of 109 K when the universe was 20 minutes old, it would have to be much hotter when the universe was much younger, say 1 second A.B.E. But if the radiation is hotter than 1010 K, the gamma rays will be sufficiently energetic to produce electrons and positrons (anti-electrons) by the reaction:

"Darwin's Black Box" was written in 1996.

439 posted on 12/05/2005 6:03:47 PM PST by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
I am frankly alarmed at the suggestion one can have abiogenesis without evolution. How can this be?Or, Vice Versa, right?

I understand your intuition about these two disciplines---they should be related, you feel.

There are many obstacles to that happening. To mention a few, I think, is sufficient.

Where does, in historical perspective, abiogenis begin? Before the Big Bang? After? etc.

That takes us immediately back to the Big Bang, and events before which we must forever remain ignorant. We'd be getting close to the supernatural, and science abhors the unempirical.

Outside the MSM, the Theory of Evolution, and its proponents, has never been about the beginning of life. I think that is the result of the first issue I raised. Also scientists tend not to venture beyond the limitations of the scientific method.

Some scientists, on the other hand, do research in abiogenesis. Most are in the Chemetistry areas of research. Today, bringing the Chemical research into the fold of those searching for the beginning of life is unwarranted simply because the data are not sufficiently supportive.

440 posted on 12/05/2005 6:05:07 PM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: Axlrose

Well, case closed then. Shut 'er down and retool for the full and final proof of the pentultimate "theory of everything": Intelligent Democrats


441 posted on 12/05/2005 6:09:08 PM PST by Orbiter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
What is the difference between arguing from probabilities and arguing from astonishment?

Predictability.

442 posted on 12/05/2005 6:13:40 PM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

Darwin dedicated a whole chapter of "On the Origin of Species" to what he called "a crowd of difficulties". For example, "Can we believe that natural selection could produce...an organ so wonderful as the eye". How could organisms that need it survive without it while it was evolving over thousands or millions of years? Most complex organs and organisms must have all of the parts functioning together at once from the beginning. Any gradual acquiring of them would be fatal to their functioning. Further, "can instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection?" Darwin admits the difficulties with evolution that "some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered". Darwin admitted, “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory”. Darwin hoped that enough of these “missing links” would eventually be found to substantiate what he called the “theory of evolution”. Gould says, “Darwin’s argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly.” Dawkins adds, “Some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too.” Gould admits, “All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” We all know this is a waste of time posting these apparent contradictions because readers have made up their minds even though this theory on the origin of species has been decimated.


443 posted on 12/05/2005 6:15:17 PM PST by dotnetfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: dotnetfellow
"Darwin dedicated a whole chapter of "On the Origin of Species" to what he called "a crowd of difficulties".

And if you were honest you would include the fact that Darwin ANSWERED all these apparent problems right after he mentioned each one.


The rest of your quotes are egregious quote mines. Neither Dawkins nor Gould thought there was any problem with evolution.
444 posted on 12/05/2005 6:27:27 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
Or, Vice Versa, right?

No. It is easy to study evolution apart from abiogenesis.

Where does, in historical perspective, abiogenis begin? Before the Big Bang? After? etc.

It seems fairly apparent that this would happen after the big bang, when the elements are present and in such a condition as to facilitate the presence of life. Why do you consider this question to be a serious obstacle to a relationship between evolution and abiogenesis?

That takes us immediately back to the Big Bang.

Wait a minute. The Big Bang is necessarily tied to abiogenesis, but evolution is not? I can appreciate the desire to see science remain strictly within the limits of empirical practice. Most believers in evolution have a difficult time distinguishing between empirical facts and reasonable conjecture. Why is it they are permitted to indulge reasonable conjecture to the hilt and still be considered "scientific", while proponents of ID are not? Why is it "unscientific" to infer intelligence is involved in cases where matter is organized, while it is "scientific" to assert anything but intelligence is involved with the same arrangement of matter?

If organized matter is not the result of intelligent design, then what is it? The opposite? Something in between? Which choice is most reasonable?

445 posted on 12/05/2005 6:28:05 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies]

They wouldn't admit to them, that is correct. They would rather dance around them, but they never could confront them adequately.


446 posted on 12/05/2005 6:28:35 PM PST by dotnetfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 444 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Your Brain on Creationism worthy?

Definitely! We don't have a specimen from that individual. I'll post the results when it's ready.

447 posted on 12/05/2005 6:29:29 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

Creationist Talking Himself Placemarker
448 posted on 12/05/2005 6:29:45 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 446 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Talking to Himself too. :)


449 posted on 12/05/2005 6:30:19 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

So how would probability and predictabilty speak to the present universe as either a.) a product of intelligent design or b.) a product of unguided processes?


450 posted on 12/05/2005 6:32:16 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 351-400401-450451-500 ... 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