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."
The issue really is, when will evolution introduce any ideas.
So far Evolutionists have generated a lot of rhetoric and profits, but no new ideas.
Funny how this works.
Interesting choice of words. "Lying." Not that you disagree with his presentation, or that he presented any logic in the framework or self-consistency, nor valid. No - by "lying. As such, you also wouldn't dare to acknowledge that theories do not have to be perfectly accurate to be scientifically useful - as in classical mechanics.
No - for you it is "liar!"
That speaks volumes - do you realize that?
Moreover, I saw your response to Southack when he simply pointed out the double standard of your previous post and (simply and correctly stated) that evolution was evolution isn't scientific. Your flippant rebuke was:
Whatever chief.
Ah, OK. Whatever. That is a "valley girl" response. It was as impressive as your lying comment. Buzz words like that are for Bill and Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid, and that moniker fits them. You attempt to throw all of those who oppose you as liars, whatever.
I noticed in your profile you quote C.S. Lewis. Are you familiar with all of his work? Or did you pick out that one quote about tyranny because you liked how it sounded? C.S. Lewis was a man of great wisdom. He was also an incredible Christian.
I don't want to make any assumptions about you or the current status of your relationship with God, so please share that. The reason I would like you to do so is because I am observing in you a hostility that is more deep seated about the debate regarding intelligent design. Your responses ape those of the academics who launched on this guy.
Since you like to issue challenges (as you did here to Southack) I would like to issue one to you as well:
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.
spunkets - either man was created by God with a purpose and a destiny, or he is a multifaceted complex organism accidentally with no reason or purpose; and he was formed from non-living nothingness.
If the latter is true, then when we die comes "the nothing." But if the former is true, we are accountable to Him. Tell me, is that what really scares you? I
Produce the fossil of a cambrian rabbit, a shark with a pelvis, or find a centaur or a mermaid.
Any one of which will do it.
So you missed animal testing, cancer research using sea animals, antibiotic development, recombinant DNA manufacturing, organ transplants, blood screening, genetic disease research, tissue regeneration research, gene targeting to fight cancer, embryo screening (OK, this one isn't necessarily a good thing), quorum sensing, etc.
I think if I thought about for 5 minutes I could come up with more.
You don't really know anything about biology, do you?
All that is Evolution theory? You left out the 2008 Ford Taurus and the IPoD Nano.
I am speechless. Talk about a stretch. Your post must qualify for an award on Free Republic for the all time record for building a bridge out of balsa wood.
Incorrect. None of the above are enumerated as scientific falsification criteria in any peer-reviewed document on Evolution.
Which is to say, you tried to defend Evolutionary theory and failed. Hard.
Now, you can try again...but the typical Evolutionist response when revealed as such a glaring failure is to:
1. cry to mommy that you "don't have time"
2. pretend that you are right anyway, even though you can't cite actual scientific literature for your claimed "point"
3. change the subject
4. toss adhominems into the thread, or
5. insist that your failure to cite actual scientific literature is somehow my fault, followed by a demand that I do something for you to prove you to be correct for you.
Wow! You've just itemized a host of intelligent design accomplishments without managing to find a single Evolutionary advance...unless you somehow fantasize that organs are transplanting themselves...
Seemed only fair since evos always seem to leave out all the intermediate species that must have existed for Darwinism to be true. But what the everything else seems to fit pretty well, so just chalk that up as an unexplained anomily. That word alone absolves you of almost all obligation to make your argument actually make sense. Please don't bring up money again as a motive for ID, EVO's are funded by all most everyone, including the ACLU, NEA, Cristians for the seperation of Church and State..........
I never did - you are confusing me with another poster.
But, I agree that the Evolution crowd is unarguably leftist in nature and that substantial resources (financial and otherwise) are devoted to propping it up.
To a leftist, Evolution Theory cannot fail. Their carefully constructed world-view would collapse.
Sorry Sky. that post was ment for Mr. perfect himself <1/1,000,000th%
Um...you're clueless.
Apperently you don't understand physics. Classical mechanics is perfectly accurate, by the correspondence principle. Scientific theories must be perfectly accurate, else they are not theories.
"Moreover, I saw your response to Southack when he simply pointed out the double standard of your previous post and (simply and correctly stated) that evolution was evolution isn't scientific."
He was flat out wrong as usual. Evolution is a scientific theory.
"Your flippant rebuke was: ...a "valley girl" response.
whatever chief.
" I noticed in your profile you quote C.S. Lewis. Are you familiar with all of his work?"
Yes.
"It was as impressive as your lying comment. Buzz words like that are for Bill and Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid, and that moniker fits them."
Prof. Marshall lied.
"I am observing in you a hostility that is more deep seated about the debate regarding intelligent design. Your responses ape those of the academics who launched on this guy.
I am not an acedemic, so my responses couldn't possibly be the same. My responses are my own.
Re: "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.
"you like to issue challenges (as you did here to Southack)"
In case you missed it, I gave the elements of falsifiability. Notice it's a statement that includes what would falsify the theory of evolution. Try to grasp it, it's not at all challenging.
"spunkets - either man was created by God with a purpose and a destiny, or he is a multifaceted complex organism accidentally with no reason or purpose; and he was formed from non-living nothingness."
This has nothing to do with evolution, nor does the term accidentally apply. Science deals with reality and what is. There's no scientific evidence whatsoever that the world resulted from the act of some individual. In fact God said specifically that was the case. Matthew 12:39 He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah." That was in response to a challenged posed by the equivalent of the day's IDers. Matthew 12:38, "Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you."" No sign was, or is to be given, except the Holy Spirit.
"Tell me, is that what really scares you?"
Nothing scares me.
Still waiting to hear the extensive list of new ideas coming from ID.
Still waiting for the extensive list of new ideas from ID.
You wouldn't new a new idea if you saw one.>p? Ecc 1:9 The thing that hath been, it [is that] which shall be; and that which is done [is] that which shall be done: and [there is] no new [thing] under the sun.
oops>[> You wouldn't Know a new idea if you saw one.
Ecc 1:9 The thing that hath been, it [is that] which shall be; and that which is done [is] that which shall be done: and [there is] no new [thing] under the sun.
So now you’re on both sides of the issue?
You believe scientists won’t listen to new ideas from ID but its impossible for ID to have new ideas.
You sound like a leftist. Playing both sides of the issue.
Maybe you’ll show me where Genesis mentions antibiotics and open heart surgery, since these aren’t new.
This is as ridiculous as saying that ID is falsifiable by simply providing evidence that there is no designer. Words strung together that mean nothing.
ID is not science. Neither is the atheistic application of Darwinian evolution. Both are completely unprovable ideas about how things might have happened, and neither process can be observed or disproved. Neither belongs anywhere near a science classroom.
Pointless discussion, you obviously have little understanding of the Bible and a disdain for Christians in general.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Any of this look familiar?
Since you quote-mine the Bible out of context, and very quickly resort to name-calling, I don’t recognize you as a fellow Christian.
You also have a hard time following the conversation.
Good day to you sir.
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.