Fine. He is really angry with God.
He can be "hacked off" forever here.
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."
Like most state schools, MU is a hotbed of liberal doctrine. He will be shunned and belittled without mercy.
ping list handy?
Always
Missouri ping
Low volume ping list
FReepmail me to be on, or off, this list.
Well at least he has the courage to face the anti-intelligent-design establishment. There are too many others who would cave in to their pressure & not teach the subject in their class.
...therefore it equals 'religion' to some academics?
Darwinism is more palatable with the addition of Charles to the front?
Perhaps if we started calling the INTELLIGENT DESIGNER with a first and last name!?....hmmmm? How's this....
GOD SMITH, INTELLIGENT DESIGNER of the Universe...
He won’t be shunned and belittled. But he’s wrong, and in science, if you’re wrong, other scientists will point out your errors and correct your logic.
Can’t take the heat? Get out of the kitchen.
Now that Dr. Behe has admitted that ID requires no facts, Professor Marshall has a ways to go to start a "scientific discussion" on ID.
That'll be fine with the Smithists, but it's not going to sit well with the Jonesians.
LOL. Even funnier is that a "smith" is a maker; manufacturer.
“He won’t be shunned and belittled. But he’s wrong, and in science, if you’re wrong, other scientists will point out your errors and correct your logic.”
And of course the majority of “scientists” have always been right.
Fine. He is really angry with God.
He can be "hacked off" forever here.
Liberal doctrine has nothing to od with it. It has to do with science, and ID is not science.
No. He called out Marshall for lying.
yes, ‘Smith’ is a great choice :-)
I don’t mind the idea of amino acids forming in some pool and sticking together to make peptides. I don’t mind the idea of purines and pyramidines forming in some other close by pool and sticking together with some sugars that have formed there, and some phosphates that are hanging around, and producing short strands of self-replicating nucleic acid.
I’m just wondering how the nucleic acid started making protein - where did the enzymes come from? I don’t think the protein pool could have made the right enzymes. And how does the nucleic acid get long enough to code for proteins with no enzymes? How do you make proteins without rRNA, mRNA and tRNA and why would you have them before you made proteins?
Mrs VS
I, personally, don't find his arguements some that I could make myself. But, the totally automatic opposition to anything that even hints at God within the academic setting I find disgusting.
It doesn't matter if God is mentioned in connection with ethics, philosophy, history, literature or social moral questions, there is an academic leftist disparagement that makes me loath those involved.
Plain, un-belief, I have no trouble with and even enjoy a broad circle of argument and debate. But the current culture found in many academic settings does not impress me as accepting of a wide span of beliefs. It has been some years since I lived in Columbia, but I have done enough business there recently to have a continuing flavor for the community. Is the liberal arts academic community not as I descibe?
Please read the distintions I make and the question I ask at 18.
The greatest barrier to the truth, is to believe you already know it.
Ever try to reason with a yellow dog democrat socialist?
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.