Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-497 next last
To: Rudder

Newton’s statement about intelligent design was written in The Principia, perhaps the single most important scientific treatise of all time. It was a simple unequivocal statement of fact as Newton saw it, and your attempt to twist it is pathetic.

By the way, the “God did it” explanation is really not much less “scientific” than “evolution did it.” Read what a Nobel-laureate physicist says about it:

Much of present-day biological knowledge is ideological. A key symptom of ideological thinking is the explanation that has no implications and cannot be tested. I call such logical dead ends antitheories because they have exactly the opposite effect of real theories: they stop thinking rather than stimulate it. Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause! —Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel-laureate physicist


101 posted on 05/29/2007 12:00:03 AM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: miliantnutcase
"Can you worship God, and believe that the theory of evolution is still plausible?"

I have heard many people assert that it is possible to simultaneously believe in God and in "the theory of evolution." But this is mere assertion. Usually it is accompanied by an argument that "so-snd-so" has no problem with it. But that is not even a feeble attempt at explanation.

Can anyone here give a meaningful explanation of how this conundrum is resolved? How can nature be inintended if by "God" we mean an intending being who is the source of all things?

102 posted on 05/29/2007 12:01:45 AM PDT by cookcounty (No journalist ever won a prize for reporting the facts. --Telling big stories? Now that's a hit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: sauron
C.S. Lewis put a lot of thought into the Eastern concept of duality, of a dual-natured god, or two opposing gods (good/evil), and ultimately concluded that it was inherently unstable, that one must prevail. I'm terribly oversimplifying it.

Well, not a bad effort at all.

Koestler's The Lotus and the Robot offers some interesting insights, and there's this especially interesting treatment of the topic titled Netti Netti (trans. Neither this nor that.), which argues that there is a middle between two apparently opposing concepts (e.g., faith vs science) which is actually neither one. Obviously, the book is a bit weird. If you can visualize infinity you may be able follow every word and concept---I struggled. Then there was the improbable Time magazine's cover article (may be in the late ?60's) which showed a graphic of a mountain with the pinnacle labelled something like "Understanding the Universe," or the "Meaning of it All." On one slope was scientist crawling to the top, on the other the mountaineer was a theologian. The article inside argued, effectively, that despite epistemological differences both were asking similar questions and were reaching the same, ultimate conclusions. And, lastly, don't forget Descartes.

Multiple intelligent designers? As a scientist I must ask, where's the data that there's even one?

103 posted on 05/29/2007 12:02:38 AM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty
"Can anyone here give a meaningful explanation of how this conundrum is resolved? How can nature be inintended if by "God" we mean an intending being who is the source of all things?

Sorry, I intended "how can nature be unintended," obviously (there's a stupid joke lurking in there somewhere).

104 posted on 05/29/2007 12:08:26 AM PDT by cookcounty (No journalist ever won a prize for reporting the facts. --Telling big stories? Now that's a hit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: sauron
National Socialism was simply applied Darwinism, and by its moral yardstick, killing off the weak is NOT morally wrong--by its standard.

Yeah, it's a jungle out there, that's for sure.

But don't blame a perversion of a concept upon the original version. You'll get yourself into an untenable Oedipal conflict, i.e., since the father had sex with mom, so will the son. "Applied Darwinism," has nothing to do with Darwinism, except as practiced by those who perverted the original example.

105 posted on 05/29/2007 12:14:30 AM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: RussP
Darwin was trained for the clergy too, why not throw him in? None of the scientists you quote, despite their religiousity, ever managed to elucidate a direct link between the supernatural and the natural world either. So turn the point around. If neither Newton, nor Thompson (Lord Kelvin), nor Pasteur, nor Darwin (nor Einstein, for that matter), could ever figure out how to jam God's Active Hand into their equations, I'm really doubting anybody at the Discovery Institute is going to do it either.

Of course the universe is awesome and inspires awe. Who could disagree with that. And I have no problem attributing the awesomeness and beauty of the world around me to God.

But "ID," the "Intelligent Design" theory pushed by Discovery Institute, is indeed a fraud. It went to court. It lost. Read about it in Monkey Girl or Forty Days and Forty Nights. To defend such a fraud is what is foolishness.
106 posted on 05/29/2007 12:22:22 AM PDT by omnivore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: RussP
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel-laureate physicist

Every one I know is still researching evolution, except for my deceased physicist-friend, Nobel Laureate Owen Chamberlain, who gave the topic little thought. But, I digress...we're not here to defend evolution. And no one I know thinks they have the answers on that topic. Such is the nature of science---ever-correcting.

Still, no scientific data exist that support ID.

107 posted on 05/29/2007 12:23:42 AM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

“Still, no scientific data exist that support ID.” —Rudder

“Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ...” —Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)

Well, folks, we have a dispute here between Kelvin and Rudder. What’s amazing is that we know so much more now about the amazing complexity of life and nature than was known in Kelvin’s time, yet Rudder can still make such truly asinine statements.

I think I’ll go with Kelvin on this one, even though he apparently did not understand “scientific principles.”

You anti-ID dogmatists are foolish beyond words.


108 posted on 05/29/2007 12:32:16 AM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: sauron
National Socialism was simply applied Darwinism,

While you're playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon with Darwin, have you got any quotes from Mein Kampf that indicate Hitler had the slightest inkling who Darwin even was?
109 posted on 05/29/2007 12:32:48 AM PDT by omnivore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: RussP
“Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ...” —Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)

Ah, yes. That statement, in and of itself, is "proof" of ID.

I admit my ignorance on data which prompted Kelvin to make such a statement as a scientific statement.

Kindly tell me what were the data.

110 posted on 05/29/2007 12:38:59 AM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: RussP
...The Principia, perhaps the single most important scientific treatise ...

And nowhere in it, not in any geometric diagram, not in any equation, not in any explanation of his proofs, does Newton ever show how the active Hand of God actually influenced anything. Certainly he believed it did, Newton attributed a great deal to God. But he could never show exactly where or how this supernatural influence was actually manifested in the natural world.

Newton also put a lot of stock in alchemy. Maybe that'll be next on Discovery Institute's agenda for dragging America's schoolchildren back into the dark ages.
111 posted on 05/29/2007 12:40:46 AM PDT by omnivore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: RussP
It's a fair question any scientist would first ask: "What are the data?"

Please post Kelvin's data which justified his statement quoted by you.

Thanks a bunch.

112 posted on 05/29/2007 12:41:28 AM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty
""Can you worship God, and believe that the theory of evolution is still plausible?""

The majority of biologists I've known have been religious. A few atheists. I can't imagine how or why the question comes up. Evolution is just a mechanism for how species change into other species. I don't understand what it is about the theory of evolution, versus say quantum theory, that sparks such holy wars and inquisitional questions about people's belief in God. It's just another G--d-mn branch of science.

My only guess, about your conundrum is that the concept of God, all our individual experiences of God in our minds, are so vastly different from each other's, that our casual use of the word "God" is a source of great confusion. My own experience of God's love may be so different from another person's, that while I have no expectaion of an active and "intelligently" directed interaction between God and the physical universe, or rather I have an expectation of no such interaction, having never perceived such an interaction myself, other people in their own minds might have very different perceptions, and therefore expectations.

But I have to say that's very vague blather. I tend to avoid thinking in vague blather. I think in terms of the physical and the measureable. And I can't imagine how one would measure, in the physical world, an influence of God's hand. It's one thing to marvel at a pretty lilac bush, like I'm doing now, still sitting out in my yard in the warm spring night, and think, wow, God is great. God gave me a beautiful universe, God loves me. But that's just vague words, and useless for describing, analyzing, and understanding the universe. I get the God thing, I really do. I just don't think it's possible to measure or quantify or nail down in any rational way, any specific trace of God's hand in the physical day to day world. An idea that explains all explains nothing. The hard work is in the details, not just looking slackjawed at something pretty and saying "God did it."

And the "ID" people, that's just a cammo paintjob on Creationism, forget it.
113 posted on 05/29/2007 1:05:03 AM PDT by omnivore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: omnivore
Bravo!

Jeez, I'm up too late. Time flies, etc.,...

114 posted on 05/29/2007 1:12:56 AM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: RussP
" ... proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ...” —Lord Kelvin "

Lord Kelvin was not pimping for the Discovery Institute's "Intelligent Design" (R) (TM) re-packaging of Creationism. Trolling for quotes that happen to include the words "design" and "intelligent" from a scientist who died in 1907, in an attempt to defend an outfit that launched the re-branded Creationism-Lite known as "ID" after the Supreme Court shot down Creationism in 1987, is hardly intellectually defensible. It's a deliberate conflation of two different things for the purpose of sowing confusion.
115 posted on 05/29/2007 1:20:57 AM PDT by omnivore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

“I admit my ignorance on data which prompted Kelvin to make such a statement as a scientific statement.”

Well, that’s a step in the right direction.

“Kindly tell me what were the data.”

Kelvin discovered the atomic structure of matter if I am not mistaken. He also obviously made major contributions to thermodynamics. Try looking there, and quit making a fool of yourself.

I get the impression that your mind is about the size of a thimble.


116 posted on 05/29/2007 1:25:01 AM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

Great points yourself. I’m frazzled, going to bed.


117 posted on 05/29/2007 1:26:26 AM PDT by omnivore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: omnivore

We’re talking about intelligent design. We’re not talking about the straw man that you have constructed of the “Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute addresses intelligent design, and so did many great scientists, including Newton and Kelvin. The fact that you are clueless about the history of science does not give you exclusive rights to the term “intelligent design.” Oh, by the way, I realize this is against the rules, but I have a very hard time hiding my contempt for fools like you.


118 posted on 05/29/2007 1:30:51 AM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: RussP
You'll have to be more vague on Thompson's data, that was way to specific to look up.

quit making a fool of yourself.
I get the impression that your mind is about the size of a thimble.


Okay, I think that crosses the line into ad hominem personal attack, and is obviously without merit.
119 posted on 05/29/2007 1:30:51 AM PDT by omnivore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: omnivore

“Okay, I think that crosses the line into ad hominem personal attack, and is obviously without merit.”

As is your asinine assertion about the lack of evidence for ID. You’ve swallowed the PC party line — hook, line, and sinker. Ever heard the expression “The emperor has no clothes.” Well, your emperor is naked as a jay bird, and I just hope people like you wake up to that fact someday.


120 posted on 05/29/2007 1:36:37 AM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: RussP
"Millions for defense but not one penny for tribute."

Too late for rebuttal...back at you tomorrow.

121 posted on 05/29/2007 1:42:07 AM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: RussP
No, I have not constructed a straw man. The trial lawyer who wrote the article above is trying to pull a fast one, and you fell for it. He's deliberately conflating the vague idea of intelligent design that you are talking about and keep putting up quotes about, with the "Intelligent Design" movement cooked up by Discovery Institute. Prof. Gonzalez was denied tenure because he was a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, which has been pushing an anti-intellectual, anti-evolution propaganda campaign aimed at high schools. The trial lawyer is preying on your positive feelings for the generalized, vague concept of intelligent design you keep referring to, and seeking to transfer them to the agenda being pushed by the Discovery Institute and Prof. Gonzalez.

I realize you have a hard time hiding your contempt, as you say. It's obvious that you have a lot of hatred in your heart, which makes you say silly things. I forgive you. We are all, after all, simply what God made us.
122 posted on 05/29/2007 1:43:23 AM PDT by omnivore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Rudder; sauron
don't blame a perversion of a concept upon the original version.

The problem is that the "original version" and not a perversion of it, is what led to eugenics. The notion that any variation is inheritable (Darwin) is precisely that notion which makes pathological science like eugenics and evolutionary psychology possible. Despite Mendel and all the advances in genetics, Darwinians still think in terms of Darwinian heredity, even today.

123 posted on 05/29/2007 1:50:32 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: RussP
"assertion about the lack of evidence for ID"

Well, you've been working on it half the night and I still haven't seen any evidence for "ID." All you've got is random quotes, vague blarney. You haven't shown a mechanism that connects the supernatural to the natural, much less how such a mechanism would work. This isn't about "PC," its about evidence in the physical world, or lack thereof.
124 posted on 05/29/2007 1:54:15 AM PDT by omnivore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
Darwinians still think in terms of Darwinian heredity, even today.

What the F is "Darwinian heredity?"

Even today, even?

125 posted on 05/29/2007 1:54:56 AM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
What the F is "Darwinian heredity?"

The notion that any variation is inheritable.

126 posted on 05/29/2007 2:03:45 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

I never heard of that notion. G’night.


127 posted on 05/29/2007 2:16:46 AM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
I never heard of that notion.

It's best if you remain in your happy little bubble.

128 posted on 05/29/2007 2:35:19 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
That's the crux of the professor's problem: There isn't any scientific evidence supportive of ID.

I understand the difference between a statistical inference and "evidence." What 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.

129 posted on 05/29/2007 2:59:41 AM PDT by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; marron; sauron; RussP
Let me get your argument straight... Darwin's theory of evolution... is hogwash.

That sounds a lot like your assertion: Darwinism isn't about truth, and truth is a word best avoided entirely in Darwinism. On this point you are in full agreement with many non-Darwinians here. Why complain about it?

Science is not about TRUTH - Coyoteman
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] - Coyoteman Cut & Paste

130 posted on 05/29/2007 4:02:54 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: sauron

How about a different intelligent design for each dimension of space/time, or each “universe”? (Just exploring the unknown here.)


131 posted on 05/29/2007 4:27:01 AM PDT by pleikumud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: omnivore

“If you don’t buy into the group’s beliefs, don’t expect the group to give you a lifetime guarantee of employment, is all I’m saying.”

So Christians should be excluded from tenured public university positions?


132 posted on 05/29/2007 4:47:15 AM PDT by HereInTheHeartland (Never bring a knife to a gun fight, or a Democrat to do serious work...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
You said: “Sorry, but Behe’s ideas on ID have been shot down (Recall the court decision and his embarrassing testimony in the Pennsylvania school board case.) Besides, although he’s a biochemist, his notion of ID is not based upon empirical, objective, scientifically-derived data.”

This is hardly a scientific critique of Behe’s work.
I was looking for something specific, like why the following statements are not “scientific.” I’ve studies much science at the undergraduate and graduate level. Much of what passes for science in universities does not even approach Behe’s level of discourse.

Here’s an example-
“To Darwin vision was a black box, but today, after the hard, cumulative work of many biochemists, we are approaching answers to the question of sight. Here is a brief overview of the biochemistry of vision. When light first strikes the retina, a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. The change in the shape of retinal forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein’s metamorphosis alters its behavior, making it stick to another protein called transducin. Before bumping into activated rhodopsin, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with activated rhodopsin, the GDP falls off and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but critically different from, GDP.)

GTP-transducin-activated rhodopsin now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to activated rhodopsin and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the ability to chemically cut a molecule called cGMP (a chemical relative of both GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, like a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bathtub.

Another membrane protein that binds cGMP is called an ion channel. It acts as a gateway that regulates the number of sodium ions in the cell. Normally the ion channel allows sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein actively pumps them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and pump keeps the level of sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing the cellular concentration of positively charged sodium ions to be reduced. This causes an imbalance of charge across the cell membrane which, finally, causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain. The result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision.

My explanation is just a sketchy overview of the biochemistry of vision. Ultimately, though, this is what it means to “explain” vision. This is the level of explanation for which biological science must aim. In order to truly understand a function, one must understand in detail every relevant step in the process. The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a biological phenomenon such as vision, or digestion, or immunity must include its molecular explanation.

Now that the black box of vision has been opened it is no longer enough for an “evolutionary explanation” of that power to consider only the anatomical structures of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the nineteenth century, and as popularizers of evolution continue to do today. Each of the anatomical steps and structures that Darwin thought were so simple actually involves staggeringly complicated biochemical processes that cannot be papered over with rhetoric. Darwin’s simple steps are now revealed to be huge leaps between carefully tailored machines. Thus biochemistry offers a Lilliputian challenge to Darwin. Now the black box of the cell has been opened and a Lilliputian world of staggering complexity stands revealed. It must be explained.”

from http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_idfrombiochemistry.htm

133 posted on 05/29/2007 4:55:30 AM PDT by keats5 (tolerance of intolerant people is cultural suicide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
“To resolve this as it fits ID, someone (actually many scientists) will have to put forth a testable hypothesis, test it, replicate and do it again and again with the same theme but with variation as they suggest themselves by the data. That has not been done and that’s why ID does not rise to the level of science.”

So, to paraphrase your own words, for evolution to rise to the level of science, scientists would need to repeatedly replicate random evolutionary changes from one species to another?

How exactly does one ensure pure randomness in a clinically controlled setting? There mere fact that a study is underway implies intelligent design.

134 posted on 05/29/2007 5:15:45 AM PDT by keats5 (tolerance of intolerant people is cultural suicide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Newton believed that the universe was evidence of God’s hand. Better axe him, too. Along with Einstein.

I don't need to. I believe the same thing. Are you sure you're responding to the right post? I also believe in the fallability of mankind.

135 posted on 05/29/2007 5:20:53 AM PDT by BipolarBob (Yes I backed over the vampire, but I swear I didn't see it in my rear view mirror.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob

I should have pinged the other poster. I was just supporting your comment.


136 posted on 05/29/2007 6:25:05 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
QUOTEMINE ALERT

You quoted me as saying:

Let me get your argument straight... Darwin's theory of evolution... is hogwash.

When my original post was:

[Marx] can justly be compared with contemporaries like Faraday, Darwin, and Pasteur, who are still influencing our lives and thoughts, because their ideas were important not only for their own time, but for many generations to come. These men applied scientific method to new fields. So did Marx -- J.B.S Haldane.

Let me get your argument straight. Because Darwin's ideas are still influencing our lives and thoughts, as are Faraday's, Pasters', and Marx's, that is proof that Darwin's theory of evolution, as modified by 150 years of scientific advances by tens of thousands of scientists, is hogwash.

Is that what you were trying to peddle?

Pretty dishonest.

Then you misquote me again on the roll of truth in science. Here is a definition from my FR homepage:

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.

A little different from what you are claiming I said, eh?
137 posted on 05/29/2007 7:23:26 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

BTW, to those who think that Guillermo Gonzalez does not deserve tenure because he believes the fine-tuning of the universe and the conditions that create life on our privileged planet are better explained by intelligent design, you might want to ask yourselves why the following professors who endorsed his work are TENURED :

1) Owen Gingerich
Research Professor of Astronomy and of the History of Science at Harvard University and a senior astronomer emeritus at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Author of The Book Nobody Read: Chasing the Revolutions of Nicolaus Copernicus

2)Michael J. Crowe
Cavanaugh Professor Emeritus at the University of Notre Dame

3) Philip Skell
Evan Pugh Professor Emeritus of Physics, Pennsylvania State University
Member, National Academy of Sciences

4) Henry F. Schaefer III
Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry
Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry, University of Georgia
Five-Time Nobel Prize Nominee

5) Simon Conway Morris FRS is a British paleontologist. He made his reputation with a very detailed and careful study of the Burgess Shale fossils, an exploit celebrated in Stephen Jay Gould’s Wonderful Life. Professor of Evolutionary Palaeobiology in the Department of Earth Sciences at Cambridge University.

Just to name a few...

Are these respected scientists loonies too ? Are they people who don’t know what they’re talking about when they endorse Gonzalez’s work ?


138 posted on 05/29/2007 7:24:29 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

Yes, we adapt. We adapt to the environment we live in and the universe as it is. If we didn’t we wouldn’t be here. The universe does not adapt to us.

Which leads to you previous post. If various physical constants were different, the universe would not form as it did and we would not be here. We would be in a different universe, one that allows life to form. 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.


139 posted on 05/29/2007 7:36:50 AM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

I just can’t see how the evidence for the anthropic principle exists anywhere except for pure conjecture. If Krauss can’t get his view of string theory to work, maybe it’s because it doesn’t. I don’t see how it follows that if a theory doesn’t work then the alternative must be the anthropic principle-—now that’s a leap of faith. It could also be that string theory and other, related theories are not my bailiwick. But, as a life scientist of 47 years’ practice, I see strong (a gross understatement) evidence that life forms adapt to the universe, or die, and that the universe did not or does not adapt to us.

But anthropic principle researchers are generally not examining the adaptation of life forms to the universe, or the universe to life forms, but rather asking what kind of universe would have been necessary for there to be life at all-— the same sort of question Stephen Wolfram and Stuart Kauffman have asked. And the design inference is not, "these theories don't work, therefore, magic explanation x must be true" but rather an inference to the best explantion based upon markers of design., connecting the dots much as a data mining program searching for terrorist activity does.

What Gonzalez does on his own (not the university’s) time is a subset of that work that provides empirical evidence from astronomy, chemistry and biology that the principle of mediocrity that Carl Sagan popularized was false.

Your comments about purpose making man superior to an indifferent universe are interesting. While you find purpose as something that exists in the mind of man, according to Daniel Dennett, this means you are shirking from the logic of “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” which, according to him, is like a universal acid, eating away at our notions of purpose all the way up in regards to the universe and all the way down in regards to notions of personal identity, consciousness and intentionality. In other words, wherever there appears to be “purpose”, Darwin’s 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. Now, some would say Dennett and those like Dawkins who follow him are extremists, but he would say that people who say that, whether Stephen Jay Gould or Noam Chomsky, or perhaps you, are simply refusing to accept the full force of Darwin’s discovery.

140 posted on 05/29/2007 8:30:44 AM PDT by mjolnir ("All great change in America begins at the dinner table.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

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.”


141 posted on 05/29/2007 9:18:34 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

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!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

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...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

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...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-497 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.

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