Posted on 04/26/2007 9:28:48 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
‘As a theory, I believe that intelligent design fits the evidence of biology better than Darwinian evolution.’ —-- MU Professor John Marshall
A Columbia medical professor made his case for scientific acceptance of "intelligent design" last night and found himself taking fire from his peers for his view.
John Marshall, a professor of internal medicine at the University of Missouri-Columbia, argued in front of about 100 people in a University Hospital auditorium that mainstream scientists were trying to kick intelligent design "off the playing field of science."
At the heart of the argument for design, say proponents, is that elements of life and the physical world cannot be explained by evolution and show signs of being formed by an intelligent creator.
"It’s as much science as Darwinian evolution is science," Marshall said. "And as a theory, I believe that intelligent design fits the evidence of biology better than Darwinian evolution."
Marshall held up DNA as a possible example of intelligent design in action, calling it the "most complex, densely packed, elaborate assembly of information in the known universe."
He said DNA even bears similarities to computer codes or a language.
"There’s some three billion characters of information in each of our cells," he said. "If one were to put this code, write it out like you would onto a newspaper, you would fill some 75,000 pages of the New York Times."
Some scientists in the audience, however, accused Marshall of masking religion as science.
"I think" intelligent design "is a code word for God," said John O’Connor, a water consultant and retired chairman of the MU Department of Civil Engineering. "I think that there’s no reason for us to mince around and pretend that that’s not really what" intelligent design "is trying to propagate."
Frank Schmidt, an MU biochemistry professor, said he counted "21 distortions 15 half-truths and 10 untruths" in Marshall’s 45-minute presentation.
"What you are doing is cloaking a narrow definition of Christianity, which I find personally offensive, as some sort of scientific truth," Schmidt said. "And that is what really hacks me off."
Schmidt questioned Marshall about whether intelligent design proposes a testable prediction, as he said real scientific theory does, or if it simply says that we can’t understand everything. When Marshall would not directly answer the question, Schmidt turned and left the auditorium, saying Marshall should not "pretend to be objective."
Up to 10 years ago, Marshall said he was an agnostic who believed in the theory of evolution. But in 1998, he converted to Christianity, and three years later the arguments of intelligent design finally swayed him into that camp. He said that although intelligent design does have religious implications for many people, it does not rely on any religious doctrine.
Rather than convince detractors that intelligent design was truth, Marshall repeatedly said he wanted the theory to become part of the scientific discussion, asking scientists to have tolerance toward his view.
Several people in the audience said they appreciated Marshall’s message. Among them was Tim Spurgeon of Columbia. As an analytical chemist, Spurgeon said, he’s charged with searching for the truth. "I think that if we simply say that we’re going to only look at what’s in the box of only what can be natural, and yet there’s this big white elephant in the room that no one’s willing to touch … I think we’re fooling ourselves."
Now that Dr. Marshall has admitted that Evolution requires no facts, Professor Behe has a ways to go to start a “scientific discussion” on evolution.
After all the facts are indisputable, aren’t they?
The greatest barrier to the truth, is to believe that you already know it. Which means no further study in that area is necessary unless it affirms the belief that you already have, any evidence to the contrary is dismissed out of hand.
Science is not really open to new ideas, just the ones they like.
No other Scientists will belittle him, declaring that they are the holders of all truth, no evidence will be presented to discredit him, only the same old adhominim attacks that are always used by Federal grant holders.
OOGA BOOGA! Gonna jump out of the bushes and grab ya! There is no wall of separation between science, philosophy, and religion, just like there is no wall of separation between intelligence and design, or thought and action. No need to artificially construct such a wall, either, unless one happens to be devoted to a peculiar philosophy of his own. These days they call it "methodological naturalism."
“I don’t recall any instance where religion disagreed with science and turned out on the winning side.”
That may or may not be true. This disagreement is between scientists.
Intelligent Design predicts irreducible complexity.
Now, what does Evolution predict?
On the contrary, ID is testable, makes predictions (irreducible complexity), and falsifiable (requires bias).
It's Evolution that has no agreed upon scientitific falsifiability criteria, however.
No. " It's Evolution that has no agreed upon scientitific falsifiability criteria,
Ridiculous!
Then name it.
No. It invented and claims irreducible complaxity. It predicts nothing.
" Now, what does Evolution predict?"
Evolution is a scientific theory that encompasses the processes of genetic diversity. Predictions consist of possibilities and their consequences.
The issue really is, when will ID introduce any ideas.
So far ID'ers generated a lot of rhetoric and profits, but no new ideas.
Here is a short and simple speculation on how amino acids currently form in space. The 3 most common amino acids are formed floating in molecular clouds and on the surfaces of meteorites. In fact all the building blocks of life are found in space, including fatty acids and sugars.
It seems probable that these could also have formed on the surface of the earth 4.5 billion years ago. The hard part is figuring out how to get from building blocks to whatever early life-forms might've been like.
Evolution as it is usually presented in the classroom incorporates abiogenesis. There’s some talk about organic molecules forming in deep sea vents or clay substrates or outer space as you say, and something about micelles.
And from there a leap to cells and natural selection, with every confidence that science will fill in that great gap as it has filled in so many others, and the notion that organic molecules must also have been naturally selected until they reached the level of complexity called life.
I don’t think I’ve read an attempt to fill the gap in, plausible or no, although I admit I’ve not read in depth on the subject.
Mrs VS
Rubbish. Evolution isn't even scientific. To be scientific it would have to be falsifiable.
Yet you can't show any peer-reviewed scientific criteria for its falsifiability.
Nor can you enumerate specific "evolutionary" predictions.
You're just spouting the same tired old Evolutionary propaganda as if repeating old lies enough times would make something true.
Won't work.
Name Evolutionary Theory's scientific falsifiability criteria.
You can't.
Enumerate Evolutionary Theory's predictions.
You can't.
You can just spout gobbledegook in some vain attempt to wish that your audience will be bamboozled with your BS.
Hey, here's a great idea, try running away with "I don't have time" excuses, or better yet, toss a few ad hominems (I mean, Evolutionists would view such tricks as brilliant, after all). It's not as though you can answer the above challenges for specific responses...
Whatever chief.
" To be scientific it would have to be falsifiable."
It is. Learn some science.
Let's put it this way. The evolutionists on this site are also Al Gore global warming believers. Their logic requires it.
Anything is possible in public school.
But we live in an exciting time to be a scientist, so its normal for scientists to be wildly optimistic.
Time will tell whether we’re right or not.
If Evolution is falsifiable as you claim, then you should have no trouble listing its scientific falsifiability criteria.
You can't.
You've been on here long enough, and I've seen you repeatedly ignore the relevant answers given to you. When you can provide evidence that genetic control does not control the information that provides for almost all life forms, and provide evidence that mutations are impossible, you'll have evidence that falsifies the mechanism of evolution.
Like I said, you, Mr. Spunkets, can't show scientific falsification criteria for Evolutionary theory...because that theory isn't *scientifically* falsifiable (which is to say, it isn't scientific).
What I can or can't provide is beside the point, by the way. It's all up to you, and you keep coming up short.
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.