Skip to comments.
Academia's Assault on Intelligent Design
Townhall ^
| May 27,2007
| Ken Connor
Posted on 05/28/2007 5:44:20 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 481-497 next last
To: omnivore
Does belief in Panspermia ( i.e., a hypothesis that the seeds of life are prevalent throughout the Universe, and furthermore that life on Earth began by such seeds landing on Earth and propagating.) count as intelligent design ?
No less a distinguished scientist than E.O. Wilson (Pellegrino Research Professor in Entomology for the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University) seems to be attracted to it. There is a hypothesis that alien lifeforms seeded earth eons ago with microorganisms to produce life as we know it.
See here for instance :
http://www.panspermia.org/whatsnew.htm
It says :
“E.O. Wilson thinks panspermia is likely: Some serious biologists and I count myself among them have begun to wonder that among the enormous and still unknown diversity of microorganisms one might just might find aliens among them true aliens that arrived from outer space. They’ve had billions of years to do it. But especially during the earliest period of biological evolution on this planet. We do know that some bacterial species that have earthly origin are capable of almost unimaginable extremes of temperature and other harsh changes in environment, including hard radiation strong enough to crack the Pyrex vessels around the growing population of bacteria.”
To: SirLinksalot
Keep those strawmen coming!
142
posted on
05/29/2007 9:23:49 AM PDT
by
yahoo
(There IS a solution to illegal immigration. It's called the Mexipult.)
To: SirLinksalot
Does belief in Panspermia ( i.e., a hypothesis that the seeds of life are prevalent throughout the Universe, and furthermore that life on Earth began by such seeds landing on Earth and propagating.) count as intelligent design ?No more than it counts as "intelligent design" if a species of bee settles a new island and evolves into several different species, or if our Mars crawlers deposit bacteria from Earth in the rocks that somehow survive and evolve into new bacterial species.
143
posted on
05/29/2007 9:46:52 AM PDT
by
ahayes
("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
To: ahayes
Does belief in Panspermia ( i.e., a hypothesis that the seeds of life are prevalent throughout the Universe, and furthermore that life on Earth began by such seeds landing on Earth and propagating.) count as intelligent design ?Panspermia is not in opposition to evolution.
Evolution is a theory of change in populations, not a theory of origins of life. Lateral transfer is not in opposition to evolution. Gene transfer is one of many mechanisms of change.
Regardless of the source of variation, some individuals will have more reproductive success than others. This is true of artificially engineered organisms as well as ones arising from mutation. Selection by humans did not protect the Irish potato from natural selection. There is not enough computing power on earth or possible in theory to anticipate all the possible ecological changes that can occur.
Even if the original living things were created in an instant, evolution describes how populations adapt and change over time.
144
posted on
05/29/2007 10:26:05 AM PDT
by
js1138
(The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
To: SirLinksalot
My post #144 was intended for you.
145
posted on
05/29/2007 10:33:50 AM PDT
by
js1138
(The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
To: Rudder
"Digital design of DNA:" Talk about begging the question... Alright, from one who must wear tightass logic pants, I'll put it another way...
WHO or WHAT introduces the sequence in a DNA chain?
I'll remind you "information" just doesn't spontaneously erupt.
146
posted on
05/29/2007 2:08:56 PM PDT
by
sirchtruth
(No one has the RIGHT not to be offended...)
To: metmom
But, don't you know that order and complexity are NOT indications of intelligence or design? *roll eyes*LOL! It just seems so twisted when supposed scientist insist something is absolutely, NOT an indication of something!
147
posted on
05/29/2007 2:14:19 PM PDT
by
sirchtruth
(No one has the RIGHT not to be offended...)
To: sirchtruth
I'll remind you "information" just doesn't spontaneously erupt.But according to the naturalistic philosophy, everything just sort of happened and somehow got together and started self-replicating, and......
I googled "origin of life" and went to the Wiki article just for the summary. What a joke. What they won't stretch to try to figure out how it happened without help.
148
posted on
05/29/2007 3:04:58 PM PDT
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
No, I meant of the specifier, “Darwinian.” How is that distinguished from the broader concept of heritability?
149
posted on
05/29/2007 4:24:39 PM PDT
by
Rudder
To: sphinx
...I object to in this debate is the heated assertion that a statistical inference -- in this and apparently only this -- case cannot be admitted into the discussion.So far as I can recall, I've not made any strenuous use of inferential statistics, nor said they were inadmissible. I guess I need more details.
150
posted on
05/29/2007 4:32:33 PM PDT
by
Rudder
To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
The problem is that the "original version" and not a perversion of it, is what led to eugenics. So you say. Prove it.
The eugenics movement is a gross perversion of Darwin.
151
posted on
05/29/2007 4:38:23 PM PDT
by
Rudder
To: keats5
At this point in time ID will have to establish itself-—not by discussion-—by hard data, and hard data alone, if it is to enter the realm of science.
152
posted on
05/29/2007 4:42:51 PM PDT
by
Rudder
To: sirchtruth
WHO or WHAT introduces the sequence in a DNA chain?Repeated effectiveness in surviving.
153
posted on
05/29/2007 4:45:04 PM PDT
by
Rudder
To: keats5
How exactly does one ensure pure randomness in a clinically controlled setting? In the assignment of subjects or the assignment of various treatments, a table of random numbers is often used as one of many approaches.
154
posted on
05/29/2007 4:50:43 PM PDT
by
Rudder
To: HereInTheHeartland
"So Christians should be excluded from tenured public university positions?"
No, not in general. But if a person, in the scholarly writings they put down on their CV/resume, includes publications which argue for unphysical or supernatural explanations for natural phenomena, or, say, a literalist interpretation of creation myths such as those in Genesis, as an explanation for the natural world we find around us, they would clearly be unqualified for tenured positions in departments such as geology, astronomy, biology, etc. The department would face losing accreditation for their program, for one thing. The students seeking legitimate teaching in their chosen field would not put up with it, for another. (Complaint from student to Dean: "I want to get into a grad school and specialize in quasars that are 12 billion years old, but my senior thesis advisor is telling me nothing is more than 6000 years old." No Dean is going to put himself in that position.) They may well be qualified for a tenured position in a religion department at a Bible college, I wouldn't know.
A lot of departments have been imploding for decades due to political influences. Literature and other humanities, for instance, which are collapsing under things like postmodernism, critical theory, all manner of politically driven race/class/gender theories. Departments of literature discarded their scholarly standards and embraced their "critics," and look what happened, they turned into laughingstocks of nonsense. Nobody in the sciences wants to see that happen by letting in politically motivated "critics" of science. Which the Discovery Institute clearly is.
To: gcruse
The anthropic principle most explicitly does not say the universe was made to suit us. We just happen to be living at a time a place where it does.I guess that settles that.
So, from now on, if asked why there's life on earth, my answer can be a truthful, "just because." While this could well be true, we really don't know if it is. More scientific research is needed.
But yet, those of the ID persuasion use the anthropic principle as strong evidence of there being an Intelligent Creator and, at the same time, argue that their postulates are scientifically-derived.
Back to the old saw for me: show me some data.
156
posted on
05/29/2007 5:09:46 PM PDT
by
Rudder
To: Rudder
” More scientific research is needed.”
The only way to test the theory is to find universes besides ours with different properties and see if there is life there. Good luck with that. I’d say there’s life in the universe because it there weren’t we wouldn’t be here to miss it.
157
posted on
05/29/2007 5:18:03 PM PDT
by
gcruse
To: SirLinksalot
"Does belief in Panspermia ... count as intelligent design ?"
Using the same term, in this case "intelligent design," to mean two or more different things, is to cause confusion deliberately. Panspermia theory is clearly not what the Discovery Institute means by "Intelligent Design," so I wouldn't include it in this discussion.
There are at least two versions of Panspermia. One just pushes the abiogenic origin of life off earth and puts is somewhere else. Such a simple change of location for an event would not affect whether it was a purely physical event or there was supernatural intervention needed, so it would hardly matter to the present debate. Another also makes the same change of location for abiogenic origin of life, but also adds the twist of "space aliens" (little green men, etc.) going around deliberately seeding planets with life, like farmers seeding soil. But those green guys would have had to come from somewhere, etc., again, it just pushes the same questions off to another locale and circumstance, it doesn't change the fundamental dynamics of the question of whether or not there are links between the natural and supernatural world.
The panspermia meme comes up again and again on these threads wherever evolution comes up for a bashing. Is it on some Talking Points being handed out by one of the Creationist outfits? I don't get the big interest in it.
Hard to imagine what difference panspermia would make. If life is ubiquitous in the universe, it would still evolve the same way it does here on earth. Same universe, same rules. Methane has the same properties on Neptune as on earth, helium has the same properties on Arcturus as it does on our sun. I don't see what a change of venue buys.
To: mjolnir
Darwins dangerous idea gives us every reason to think that science, perhaps on the part of you or one of your fellow neuroscientists, will show that purpose to have been merely epiphenomenal i.e. an illusion.If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, is there a sound? No.
As perceivers we are all constrained by phenomenology.
Where is the totality of the universe? Between our ears.
159
posted on
05/29/2007 5:29:22 PM PDT
by
Rudder
To: gcruse
Id say theres life in the universe because it there werent we wouldnt be here to miss it.Rewrite. I can't comprehend.
160
posted on
05/29/2007 5:40:35 PM PDT
by
Rudder
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 481-497 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson