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

Skip to comments.

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design : Chesterfield School Board takes up debate on theories of life.
Richmond.com ^ | 06/05/2007 | Donna Gregory

Posted on 06/08/2007 10:45:45 AM PDT by SirLinksalot

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301 next last
To: RussP; csense; SirLinksalot
What if I said that the universe is held on the back of a turtle, who is on the back of another turtle, and so forth?

I defend this assertion by saying that the universe is too complex to simply be by itself. It needs support, and that support can be found on the back of a turtle.

Using Dr. Behe's definition, is this a scientific theory?

Should this be taught in the public science classroom alongside the Big Bang?

151 posted on 06/17/2007 6:18:32 AM PDT by Abd al-Rahiim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Abd al-Rahiim
I don’t about the others you ping’d, but I’d say I was disappointed you didn’t address my post directly, and defend your earlier assertion...but like the turtles, when it comes to defending the philosophical implications of evolutionary theory, it’s obfuscation all the way down....
152 posted on 06/17/2007 11:12:09 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Abd al-Rahiim

“What if I said that the universe is held on the back of a turtle, who is on the back of another turtle, and so forth?”

Then I’d ask you what your evidence is for that claim.

As for Behe’s definition of a scientific theory, I think SirLinksalot addressed that earlier in this thread, but I’ll touch on it again. I suggest you read the transcripts of Behe’s testimony in the Dover case (or whatever it was called).

I read most of Behe’s testimony, and I was very impressed by it. Evolutionists talk a lot about “quote mining” and taking things out of context, but that is precisely what they did to Behe here. Apparently evolutionists couldn’t address Behe’s main points directly, so instead they distorted his testimony and diverted attention to secondary points such as who reviewed his book.

What Behe said is that the word “theory” can have different shades of meaning in everyday life depending on the context. That is absolutely true. People who use that word do not always have the rigorous scientific definition in mind.

As for astrology being a “scientific theory,” evolutionists have really distorted that one. What Behe said, if I recall correctly, is that, in a loose sense of the word, astrology could have been considered a scientific theory in its time, and indeed it was. Behe certainly did not say that it was a *correct* theory or that he thought it had any merit. You see, a “theory” can be dead wrong and still be a “theory.”

That’s a point that evolutionists don’t seem to understand. They seem to think that because evolution is called a “theory” it can’t be wrong.


153 posted on 06/17/2007 12:42:19 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

“Hoyle thought life came from outer space. Where did that outer space life come from? He just moves the problem of origins one step back.”

I agree with you there, but the point is that he looked to space for the origin of life because he realized that it couldn’t have happened by random chance on earth.

If I am not mistaken, Frances Crick (or was it Watson), the co-discoverer of DNA, also seriously entertained the concept of panspermia for the same reason.

What you need to realize about Hoyle, however, is even though he thought life originated in space, he still insisted that it couldn’t have come about by random chance. In other words, he didn’t think that pushing the origin of life into space would “improve the odds” of a random origin enough to make it even remotely likely. He believed — and demonstrated through basic mathematical reasoning — that the origin of life required ID.

As for the Discovery Institute, if they believe that life was intelligently designed, it is perfectly legitimate for them to promote that view regardless of what their ultimate agenda might be.

Suppose I was a doctor who believed that smoking causes lung and heart disease. If my ultimate “agenda” is to stop people from smoking, does that agenda taint my “theory” about the effects of smoking? According to your “reasoning,” the tobacco companies could legitimately dismiss the “theory” about the harmful effects of smoking because the doctors who are promoting it have an “agenda.” Nonsense.

Oh wait, suppose some of those doctors who promote the idea that smoking is dangerous do not explicitly announce that they want people to quit smoking. Are they dishonestly “hiding” their agenda? Yeah, right.


154 posted on 06/17/2007 1:09:35 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: csense
The problem is, we don't know what that intent was, or is, so we have no standard with which to contradict. That's first and foremost.

By bringing the "designer's intent" into play, you are invoking the supernatural, which has no role in science.

155 posted on 06/17/2007 5:32:32 PM PDT by Abd al-Rahiim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Abd al-Rahiim
Sigh

You're the one that made an assertion about the "Christian God," and that is what I responded to. Again, some of you can't even follow your own reasoning and arguments....

Truly, this is frustrating beyond words....

156 posted on 06/17/2007 6:01:53 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: RussP
RussP,

I provided evidence in my post, where I stated that “I defend this assertion by saying that the universe is too complex to simply be by itself. It needs support, and that support can be found on the back of a turtle.”

Sound weak? It should be.

Yes, I have read the transcripts of Dr. Behe’s testimony. I have previously linked to them, most recently in my post 127.

It’s informally called the Dover case. I’ve consistently referred to it as Kitzmiller. But, these are minor points.

I read most of Behe’s testimony, and I was very impressed by it. Evolutionists talk a lot about “quote mining” and taking things out of context, but that is precisely what they did to Behe here. Apparently evolutionists couldn’t address Behe’s main points directly, so instead they distorted his testimony and diverted attention to secondary points such as who reviewed his book.

A wonderful example of “each to his own.” I read Dr. Michael Behe’s testimony, and I was very impressed by the skillful questioning of Mr. Rothschild. (In fact, very as an adverb does not do justice to how impressed I was.)

Although you view it as a secondary point, the reviewing of Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box, sheds further light on how Behe’s understanding of scientific words and phrases differ markedly from the accepted definitions.

Behe claims that Darwin’s Black Box was rigorously peer-reviewed by five reviewers. Yet, one of those five, Dr. Michael Atchinson, stated that his “review” consisted of a ten-minute over-the-phone gloss of the book’s material. He never saw the text. That would not constitute a “peer-review” in a scholarly journal. Behe should not have included Atchinson as one of the five.

In addition, Judge Jones wrote in his opinion that “We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.” Behe’s major points were, in fact, addressed.

What Behe said is that the word “theory” can have different shades of meaning in everyday life depending on the context. That is absolutely true. People who use that word do not always have the rigorous scientific definition in mind.

He is absolutely correct. Everything you have said is correct. I ask only that you remember the ruling, namely, “defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best ‘fringe science’ which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community.”

As for astrology being a “scientific theory,” evolutionists have really distorted that one. What Behe said, if I recall correctly, is that, in a loose sense of the word, astrology could have been considered a scientific theory in its time, and indeed it was. Behe certainly did not say that it was a *correct* theory or that he thought it had any merit. You see, a “theory” can be dead wrong and still be a “theory.”

You’ve mostly remembered correctly, but you have made one minor but very important mistake. It was not a “loose sense of the word.” It was Behe’s own definition.

Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.”

Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. There’s no question that it happens. The question is, “How does it happen?” A theory attempts to answer that question.

157 posted on 06/17/2007 6:11:44 PM PDT by Abd al-Rahiim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: csense
Exactly. The Christian God, who is by definition supernatural, should not be a subject that science studies.

In post 144, I wrote that “If he’s [the intelligent designer] the Christian God, then according to the Bible, he’s infallible. He shouldn’t make any mistakes. Whales shouldn’t have leg bones. Fruit flies shouldn’t have miniature wings that serve no purpose.”

You responded with “The problem is, we don't know what that intent was, or is, so we have no standard with which to contradict. That's first and foremost.”

Your answer violates one of the principles of scientific inquiry – natural explanations to natural phenomena. As I wrote, “By bringing the "designer's intent" into play, you are invoking the supernatural, which has no role in science.”

It’s not science’s business to determine what the “designer’s intent” was. It is, however, very much science’s business to figure out what things are used for. The leg bones of whales thus far have not been shown to have any function. Likewise, the miniature wings of fruit flies that are too weak to aid in flight also have not been shown to have any function.

That is what science does. It seeks natural explanations. The “designer’s intent” cannot be part of any natural explanation.

We share the same frustrations. It's just that you seem to believe in intelligent design, and I don't.

158 posted on 06/17/2007 6:19:32 PM PDT by Abd al-Rahiim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
The founders of the modern ID movement's stated goal of advancing the word of God is not convincing? There is probably no point in debating someone with such blinders on.

Again, I refer you to this EXPLICIT statement from the Discovery Institute:

-----------------------------------------------

Q: Is intelligent design based on the Bible?

No. The intellectual roots of intelligent design theory are varied. Plato and Aristotle both articulated early versions of design theory, as did virtually all of the founders of modern science. Indeed, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. During the past decade, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity in the natural world.

Similarity? It is flat-out a Creation book edited to be the primary Intelligent Design book for the classroom.

Which leads back to the original question --- if it is a creationist book, where again is the reference to Genesis, the Bible, the Flood and God ? You can repeat this all you want, absent an answer, I guess it is just smoke and mirrors on your part...

What gave me that hint? Maybe it was earlier titles like Biology and Creation and Creation Biology.

Which earlier titles and how do they relate to this book ?

The book Of Pandas and People. It was a central factor in ID losing the Dover court case. It is published by the Christian group, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, an associate organization of the Discovery Institute.

Another Inaccuracy again.

This is what Casey Luskin explains about the book of PANDAS AND PEOPLE :

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there more to the story? When certain pre-publication drafts of Pandas used terms such as "creation" and "creationist," they used them in a way that rejected "creationism" as defined by the courts and popular culture. In Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court declared creationism to be a religious viewpoint because it required a "supernatural creator":

The legislative history therefore reveals that the term "creation science," as contemplated by the legislature that adopted this Act, embodies the religious belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of humankind. (Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 591-592, emphasis added)

Thus, what the Supreme Court found was religion and therefore unconstitutional was not the word “creationism,” but the teaching that a “supernatural creator” was responsible for life. “Creation science” was how the Louisiana Legislature had used to describe that religious concept.

Yet pre-publication drafts of Pandas juxtaposed the word "creation" with statements to the exact opposite effect, noting that science cannot scientifically detect a supernatural creator. Consider these important excerpts from pre-publication drafts of Pandas, showing that from the beginning, their project did not do what made traditional "creationism" unconstitutional: it did not delve into supernatural explanations:

"In each of these excerpts from pre-Edwards v. Aguillard drafts of Pandas, it is clear that the idea of "creation" discussed in pre-publication drafts of Pandas was specifically NOT trying to postulate a supernatural creator! The concepts advanced by even pre-publication, pre-Edwards drafts of Pandas were sharply different from what the courts have defined as "creationism." These early drafts were not trying to study the supernatural.

To solidify this point, consider the deposition testimony of Charles Thaxton as to why he started to use the term intelligent design in the Pandas book:

I wasn’t comfortable with the typical vocabulary that for the most part creationists were using because it didn’t express what I was trying to do. They were wanting to bring God into the discussion, and I was wanting to stay within the empirical domain and do what you can do legitimately there.

(Deposition of Charles Thaxton 52-53, Kitzmiller, No. 4:04-CV-2688 (M.D. Pa., July 19, 2005))


Similarly, a 1990 post-publication rebuttal to a critic, written by the Pandas publisher explains:

As a consequence, yes, we are careful not to identify the intelligent cause behind the biological phenomena presented, but not for purposes of stealth, but rather precisely because we think that this is a religious conclusion.

Thus, the limits of what intelligent design can tell us stem not from legal strategies but from an honest effort to limit statements to scientific claims that can be made based upon the empirical data. ID is about respecting the limits of the scientific data--not hiding religion for legal purposes. In other words, even in its pre-publication form Pandas offered a theory that was conceptually distinct from what the courts have defined as "creationism."

-----------------------------------------------

So it is WRONG to say that ID "mutated" to avoid a court decision. ID was formulated in its present form--an empirically based argument that would not stray into the supernatural-- BEFORE the Edwards case was decided. Thus, even before Edwards v. Aguillard, ID lacked the very quality that caused creationism to be declared unconstitutional: it did not postulate a "supernatural creator."

Maybe you're a new convert to the religion, but similarity is simply not the case.

I prefer to think for myself rather than consider myself as a convert to anything. If reason is on the side of idea X, and I believe it is, yes you can call me a convert to idea X.

There is a definite history from Creation, to Creation Science to Intelligent Design.

I am not interested in history, I am interested in what EXISTS NOW. And what I see on the Discovery Website contradicts what you're saying.

Meyer himself started on the ID road after listening to creationists.

THerefore what follows ( assuming this factoid was true).... how does that disprove ID ?

How does the saying go, "I can't hear what you're saying because your actions are too loud."

Uh huh, and their actions show that they are not Biblical Creationists, that's what speaking loud.

No, the DI didn't consult with a schoolboard before they tried to introduce a creationist/ID book in the curriculum.

But where is the creationist book ? I don't see it. I don't read any mention of the Bible or God in any of these books.

This is one of their goals, to change the definition of science so that anything can be considered a theory.

Who defined science ? Did believers in ID like Newton and Galileo define Science when they say they believe in a God who created and (in Newton's case ), GUIDES the universe ?

How about Johannes Kepler ? Kepler sought simplicity and order that he assumed by faith would be there, and said that he was merely "thinking God's thoughts after Him."

These people did not know what science is ?

If by practicing good science, you mean methodological naturalism, then I and many others respectfully disagree with your definition.

Thus, established theories that have undergone decades of rigorous scientific scrutiny are suddenly brought down to a level where a tribal creation myth can be called a theory.

That is of course a caricature. If an Evolution were as established as you say it is,how come a lot of its predictions ( important ones for that matter ) upon closer scrutiny, do not bear out ?

Caricatures aren't arguments, BTW. They are just that --- ill-advised attempts at ridicule.

As soon as you let "God did it" be evidence, it's just turtles, all the way down. Replace the word "God did it" with "random mutation" did it. Does that make a difference ? Maybe we should just listen to the father of the Intelligent Design movement, Phillip E. Johnson:

* "We are taking an intuition most people have (the belief in God) and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator."


And listen to the leading proponent of Evolution, Richard Dawkins who said :

"...although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." -- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 6

This is the same guy who is affiliated with Council for Secular Humanism, an organization with an atheist agenda.

Oh, while we're at it, let's talk about Sam Harris, who is completing a doctorate in neuroscience and whose works Dawkins endorses. Harris spends a lot of his time trying to convince America that Christian belief is not only wrong, but EVIL. ( latest book : Letter to a Christian Nation ).

Of course, WIRED magazine profiles them here :

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html

". . . The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are not doctrinaire believers. They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it’s evil. Now that the battle has been joined, there’s no excuse for shirking.

Three writers have sounded this call to arms. They are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett."

Do I even have to mention militant atheist, Darwinist and Iowa State University professor -- Hector Avalos and his campaign to make sure that students who pass through the university become atheist ?

So, if your argument is that some IDers have as their motive, to bring America back to belief in God, then the next obvious question is this --- WHAT DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH THE TRUTH OR FALSITY OF THEIR ARGUMENTS, given that there are some Darwinists who motives are to disabuse America of any religious belief ? But I am simply repeating this. I said this before.

People with agendas on both sides of the aisle exist. How does that address the contents of the book -- Exploring Evolution ?

In a nutshell: ID is not about better science, but about Christian evangelism.

In a nutshell, all you've shown is that there are so called "evangelists" on both sides of the fence. That's all. If you cared about better science, you could have dealt with what the book presented and critiqued it.

The evidence absolutely proves it.

What evidence ?
159 posted on 06/17/2007 8:15:59 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Abd al-Rahiim

I believe in God, and if you don’t understand that you were making a philosophical argument, which apparently you don’t, then I’m just wasting my time as per usual...


160 posted on 06/17/2007 8:24:42 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
Again, I refer you to this EXPLICIT statement from the Discovery Institute:

Again, I refer you to the EXPLICIT statements from the Discovery Institute and the founders of the ID movement, that it is NOT about science but about GOD. What you read now is simply a whitewash attempt. All claims of "we don't know what the designer is, it could be anything" are absolute lies.

Which leads back to the original question --- if it is a creationist book, where again is the reference to Genesis, the Bible, the Flood and God ?

You must be missing the point on purpose. There is no explicit reference to Creation because those references have been replaced by the words "Intelligent Design" or variations thereof, but the rest of the text supporting Creation is substantially the same. In other words, Intelligent Design is equal to Creation, only an attempt at being more scientifically palatable.

Which earlier titles and how do they relate to this book ?

The earlier titles I just stated. The previous titles of "Of Pandas and People" were, in order, "Creation Biology" and "Biology and Creation" until the Aguillard decision (no creation in the science class), after which it was re-edited, replacing Creation with Intelligent Design. Then they tried the title "Biology and Origin" and eventually settled on "Of Pandas and People."

To solidify this point, consider the deposition testimony of Charles Thaxton as to why he started to use the term intelligent design in the Pandas book:

Before you start believing anything they say, please remember that that side of the issue in Dover flat-out perjured itself on the stand. They will say and do anything, including lying under oath to God, in order to further their agenda.

Interesting that the text change came just after that court case. Too much of a coincidence? Definitely.

This is just getting too ridiculous. It's like you're holding your hands over your ears and going "nananananana." Thinking like yours is dangerous. You only see what proponents currently say about themselves and completely disregard all of their actions and statements that show the current statements to be a whitewash.

The reminds me of Al Gore. The public listens to him talk about the environment, yet and accept the lame excuses he has for his own excesses. They want to believe, so any evidence to the contrary is dismissed, current lies are wholly trusted. They listen to Hillary too, ignoring her evil past because she says good things about herself today.

This is the big difference between us. You care that ID is true, because without it there is no need for God (such statements have been made by the DI). I don't care if evolution is true. I don't care if Intelligent Design is true. I only care that the integrity of science is preserved.

Show me a scientific theory that falsifies evolution and shows a better way. I'll dump evolution in a heartbeat. And as I've said before, I'll gladly be the one to take credit for the discovery, as fame and fortune awaits the one who succeeds.

161 posted on 06/17/2007 10:12:59 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Abd al-Rahiim

Hey, I agree with you that Behe looked bad on the business of the reviews of his book. I’m not sure what to make of it, but I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was just carelessness on his part. He may have left the review process in the hands of the publisher and assumed that they did a better job than they actually did.

What you need to understand is that the peer review process is not always absolutely rigorous. In engineering, research papers usually get three reviews, and sometimes the reviewers are not intimately familiar with the exact micro-topic addressed in the paper. Also, sometimes the mathematics is too difficult for some of the reviewers to follow in detail. Think you know mathematics? Try reading a few papers in the IEEE Transactions and see if you can follow the mathematics in detail.

The other thing that sometimes happens is that a particular journal has a group of “insiders” who scratch each other’s backs. So you give me a favorable review, and I’ll return the favor. Yes, reviews are supposed to be anonymous, but the reviewer can always violate the anonymity by simply telling the author.

And the most important thing to understand is that certain taboo topics are often simply prohibited by the review process. ID is one, for example. The powers that be in much of the scientific community has simply decided that ID is off limits, and it cannot get past the review process. If a particular reviewer signs off on it, the editor rejects it. And there is a strong feedback effect: if reviewers know they will be “punished” for accepting claims of ID, most will refuse to do so. Ditto for editors. How could a reviewer be punished? By making it harder to get his own papers published.

The bottom line is that peer review, while it may be the only alternative, is far from foolproof.

But this should hardly be surprising here on FR. After all, imagine trying to get a paper advocating school vouchers published in some Leftist sociology, education, or political science journal. It won’t happen.


162 posted on 06/17/2007 10:14:11 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Abd al-Rahiim

quote:

Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. There’s no question that it happens. The question is, “How does it happen?” A theory attempts to answer that question.

My reply:

Although perhaps unintentionally, you are engaging in classic equivocation. Yes, evolution is a theory. And yes, evolution is a fact too — but not with the same definition of the word “evolution.”

On the one hand, the word “evolution” can simply mean change over time, which absolutely *nobody* denies. On the other hand, the word “evolution” can be used to refer to purely naturalistic, unguided evolution from inanimate matter (or alternatively, from the first living cell) to human beings. If you think that is an established “fact,” you are extremely confused.

By the way, these truths have been pointed out many, many times in many ways right here on FR, but evolutionists never seem to remember.

Another mole whacked. How long before it pops up again? And bets?


163 posted on 06/17/2007 10:36:14 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Abd al-Rahiim

quote:

I provided evidence in my post, where I stated that “I defend this assertion by saying that the universe is too complex to simply be by itself. It needs support, and that support can be found on the back of a turtle.”

my reply:

And what does complexity have to do with the back of a turtle? Please explain that to me.

I think what you are demonstrating here is your own lack of understanding of the concept of “evidence.” Check back when you learn what it means.

By the way, forensic *scientists* routinely check for evidence to determine, for example, whether a death was “intelligently designed” or was an accident. And what is their field of study called? Forensic *science*. Get it?

And trust me: it has nothing with turtles. Well, maybe in some bizzare case ...


164 posted on 06/17/2007 11:21:45 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: RussP
Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. There’s no question that it happens.

Many creationists haven't gone with their brethren and hopped on the ID bandwagon. You didn't notice that creation museum that recently opened?

If you think that is an established “fact,” you are extremely confused. By the way, these truths have been pointed out many, many times in many ways right here on FR, but evolutionists never seem to remember.

These truths are almost always pointed out by evolutionists when a creationist is confused on the issue. It usually happens when creationists try to play with the definition of "theory."

165 posted on 06/18/2007 6:05:10 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Abd al-Rahiim
"Natural selection initially favored lighter colored tree moths, but when the environment changed, natural selection began to favor darker colored tree months. Observation – something that intelligent design can not do."

Actually, ID can observe those changes just as easily as the naturalists. Let's not pretend that the difference is in the observations, shall we?

"The second population should be affected more so than the first. Testing – again, something that intelligent design can not do."

Actually, ID can test those changes just as easily as the naturalists. Let's not pretend that the difference is in the testing, shall we?

"I hate how certain American liberals like to play word games when they defend affirmative action as not being discrimination. Likewise, I hate how certain American conservatives like to play the exact same word games when they claim that intelligent design is scientific."

Likewise, I hate how naturalists like to play the exact same word games when they claim that evolution is scientific.

166 posted on 06/18/2007 8:14:09 AM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Abd al-Rahiim
"Nevertheless, no matter how vague the wording is, the English language is not so imprecise as to allow the Discovery Institute to hide the creationism inherent in intelligent design."

I knew you had no support for your claim that ID invoked the supernatural. It's just fun watching you dance around trying to support your previous errors.

"You ask me to provide “a reference showing that our origin is best explained by natural processes - observable and testable, according to your own requirements for ID.” Please check out Biology by Campbell and Reece."

The requested document does not exist on this server.

167 posted on 06/18/2007 8:17:31 AM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RussP
"As for astrology being a “scientific theory,” evolutionists have really distorted that one. What Behe said, if I recall correctly, is that, in a loose sense of the word, astrology could have been considered a scientific theory in its time, and indeed it was. Behe certainly did not say that it was a *correct* theory or that he thought it had any merit. You see, a “theory” can be dead wrong and still be a “theory.”"

Right, Behe's point was that astrology was a scientific theory because it was falsifiable and was, in fact, falsified. Now, there are still people who believe in astrology even after it has been falsified and continue to claim that it is scientific.

In the same manner, evolution has been falsified, but there are still people who believe in it and claim that it is scientific. In this context, naturalism and astrology are on the same level.

168 posted on 06/18/2007 8:27:44 AM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
In the same manner, evolution has been falsified

When did this happen? Did I miss the biggest scientific news in decades, that one of the oldest, most researched, most tested theories in science has been falsified?

169 posted on 06/18/2007 9:38:52 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: RussP
He believed — and demonstrated through basic mathematical reasoning — that the origin of life required ID.

The problem with mathematical "reasoning" of this type is that you have to have a model. Models are often flawed, just look at Global Warming. Odds calculations are personal awe put into mathematical guesswork.

If I am not mistaken, Frances Crick (or was it Watson), the co-discoverer of DNA, also seriously entertained the concept of panspermia for the same reason.

You may like to know that Crick later retracted that, admitting his view was overly pessimistic in light of later scientific discoveries.

Someone might want to remove Crick from the Creation Handbook of Rebuttals, filing it with the gross misuse of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You're the second person on this thread to bring up this deceptive reference.

170 posted on 06/18/2007 9:57:23 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: RussP
If I am not mistaken, Frances Crick (or was it Watson), the co-discoverer of DNA, also seriously entertained the concept of panspermia for the same reason.

Wait a minute. I got confused. You aren't the second person to bring this up, it was you who brought it up both times.

You brought it up a second time after I already told you of Crick's retraction of that position in light of scientific advances. This is no longer a mistake, it is dishonesty to use materials known to be false.

What could I expect, it is coming from the ID movement, which is chock-full of lies, half-truths, out-of-context quotes and shoddy agenda-driven "research."

171 posted on 06/18/2007 10:06:13 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Again, I refer you to the EXPLICIT statements from the Discovery Institute and the founders of the ID movement, that it is NOT about science but about GOD.

Sure you can refer them to me ... where are they in their OFFICIAL website ? If I can't find it, all I have is your word. Why should I trust you ?

What you read now is simply a whitewash attempt. All claims of "we don't know what the designer is, it could be anything" are absolute lies.

Uh huh, and because you said so, it must be so. So nice to know that I can depend on an assertion like this.

You must be missing the point on purpose. There is no explicit reference to Creation because those references have been replaced by the words "Intelligent Design" or variations thereof,

And intelligent design implies an AGENT... who is the agent ? We don't know and ID proponents do not claim that science claims to know. It could be God, it could be a telic principle, it could be aliens...ID is SILENT about it. They've repeatedly said that. Since that has been their argument, I have to take it at face value. Why should I put words in their mouths ?

but the rest of the text supporting Creation is substantially the same. In other words, Intelligent Design is equal to Creation, only an attempt at being more scientifically palatable.

Correction -- Intelligent Design COULD imply that the Judaeo/Christian God is the creator but IT NEED NOT BE.

And BTW, I don't see why the mere implication that someone ( be it God or someone else ) created something has to be scientifically unpalatable. Scientists CREATE things. We observe intelligent agents CREATE all the time. I don't see why this has to be scientifically unpalatable.

The earlier titles I just stated. The previous titles of "Of Pandas and People" were, in order, "Creation Biology" and "Biology and Creation" until the Aguillard decision (no creation in the science class), after which it was re-edited, replacing Creation with Intelligent Design. Then they tried the title "Biology and Origin" and eventually settled on "Of Pandas and People."

But here's my question ( which I asked before ) ---- LOOK AT THE CONTENTS OF "OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE", does it mention anything about God ? Or does it address scientific issues relating to Evolution ?

In fact, if you took the time to even scan the book, you will see that Pandas explicitly and repeatedly makes the claim that Intelligent causes may be either INSIDE or OUTSIDE of nature, and empirical evidence alone can't determine which option is correct. Pandas made this distinction even in its early drafts, one of which emphatically stated that "in science, the proper contrary to natural cause is not supernatural cause, but intelligent cause."

The Original Dover Board did not even mandate that the book be read. It simply added a statement saying that if a student wanted to do his own research, OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE is one book they might want to read.

What happened ? This simple recommendation became the basis for the lawsuit. Very open-minded and tolerant of the Darwinist and their defendants.... No wonder they're not getting anywhere with the public.... Heavy handed tactics might win court cases with sympathetic judges, but do nothing to convince Americans.

Before you start believing anything they say, please remember that that side of the issue in Dover flat-out perjured itself on the stand. They will say and do anything, including lying under oath to God, in order to further their agenda.

Sorry, no dice. I followed the Dover case and I have to say that Judge Jones can't point to even a single doctrine unique to Christian fundamentalism that is incorporated by ID. In fact, he effectively concedes that ID proponents distinguish their theory from fundamentalism by pointing out that it does NOT involve arguments based on "the Book of Genesis", "a young earth," or "a catastrophic Noaich flood." (p. 35) So where's the fundamentalism?

In wrongly trying to conflate ID with fundamentalism, Judge Jones simply ignored the testimony in his court of two of the most prominent ID scientists, biologists Michael Behe and Scott Minnich. Neither Minnich nor Behe were shown by the ACLU to be fundamentalists (they aren't), neither were shown to believe in a literal reading of Genesis (they don't), neither were shown to come to their beliefs in ID from fundamentalism (they didn't), and both reject neo-Darwinism on scientific grounds. Indeed, Behe has made clear that he had no problem with the modern theory of evolution until he discovered that what he was seeing in the lab did not fit with what he was being told in standard textbook accounts. Behe's skepticism of neo-Darwinism was not driven by a change in religion, but by scientific evidence. So again, where's the fundamentalism?

I cannot help but conclude that Judge Jones' repeated mistatements of fact and his one-sided recitation of the "evidence" reveal not only a judicial activist, but an incredibly sloppy judge who selects the facts to fit the result he wants.

The reminds me of Al Gore. The public listens to him talk about the environment, yet and accept the lame excuses he has for his own excesses. They want to believe, so any evidence to the contrary is dismissed, current lies are wholly trusted. They listen to Hillary too, ignoring her evil past because she says good things about herself today.

If you took the time to even scan the web pages of ID proponents, you will see that they are just as skeptical of Al Gore's presentation as anyone here in Free Republic. DISCOVERY INSTITUTE has published article after article refuting Al Gore and his cohorts and here you are equating the two ....

Just go to their website and google on their site -- Global Warming. I challenge you to find any article even supportive of Al Gore's thesis.

I can't help but conclude that what you are reading is simply a caricature of what you purport to know.

This is the big difference between us.

Tell me something that I don't already know.

You care that ID is true, because without it there is no need for God

Wrong, I don't care either way. But I'd like to follow the evidence and the evidence show me that they seem to have better arguments than the Darwinists. The fact that Darwinists are using heavy handed tactics like lawsuits and ( in the case of Hector Avalos ), militant protests to deny tenure to well-deserved faculty members simply because of their personal sympathy for the idea just tells me Darwinists are beginning to lose their grip.

I only care that the integrity of science is preserved.

Well, welcome to the club. I just hope you are not sympathetic of the heavy handed persecutors I see on the side of those who are sympathetic to Darwinists.

Show me a scientific theory that falsifies evolution and shows a better way.

We can start by discussing the book EXPLORING EVOLUTION if you wish.

I'll dump evolution in a heartbeat.

You don't have to, and I could care less if you didn't. But yes, let's argue the scientific evidence and let us not be sidestepped by such tangential issues as -- who has a cultural agenda ... that has nothing to do with the arguments presented ( but then, I already said that ).

And as I've said before, I'll gladly be the one to take credit for the discovery, as fame and fortune awaits the one who succeeds.

As for me, I don't care who takes the credit. I just want the truth to be explored. We can start by not suppressing discussions BY FORCE ( as in the lawsuit brought against Dover ).
172 posted on 06/18/2007 10:21:47 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: RussP
What you need to understand is that the peer review process is not always absolutely rigorous. In engineering, research papers usually get three reviews, and sometimes the reviewers are not intimately familiar with the exact micro-topic addressed in the paper. Also, sometimes the mathematics is too difficult for some of the reviewers to follow in detail. Think you know mathematics? Try reading a few papers in the IEEE Transactions and see if you can follow the mathematics in detail.

I'll trust you on the engineering peer review process. It seems that's not significantly different from economics peer review, which I'm slightly more familiar with. (My dad is an economics professor.) I have no doubt that the mathematics can be very difficult in engineering - it's already pretty difficult in economics and finance, but I do have some doubts that the reviewers wouldn't be able to follow the math in detail. Unless I'm mistaken, the reviewers of a paper should be very familiar with the subject area of that paper (i.e. should know how to at least follow the steps of the math.)

It's unfair to ask an engineer to think of a proof on the spot. It's fair, though, to ask him to follow the steps of a proof.

173 posted on 06/18/2007 10:27:17 AM PDT by Abd al-Rahiim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: RussP
The first definition you give, "change over time," can result in evolution being both fact and theory.

A few pages back, the theories of gradualism and punctuated equilibrium were brought up to demonstrate how there are different ways to explain what happens. Neither proponents of gradualism nor proponents of punctuated equilibrium deny that "change over time" happens. They argue on how is that change best described (i.e. theory).

On the other hand, the word “evolution” can be used to refer to purely naturalistic, unguided evolution from inanimate matter (or alternatively, from the first living cell) to human beings. If you think that is an established “fact,” you are extremely confused.

No, I don't think I'm confused on this matter. Your word choice is appropriate. If it were not purely naturalistic and unguided, then it would be supernaturalistic and guided, the result of which would be beyond the realm of science.

174 posted on 06/18/2007 10:32:06 AM PDT by Abd al-Rahiim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: RussP
And what does complexity have to do with the back of a turtle? Please explain that to me.

It's obvious. Anyone with basic high school science (university science not necessary but recommended) can see it. The universe is so complex. Thus, I propose that the back of a turtle serves as a physical support to house the immense complexity of our universe.

If you think that's poor evidence, which it is, how is that any different from the evidence cited by intelligent design advocates?

I made sure to use similar wording (i.e. "it's obvious" and "it's too complex.")

175 posted on 06/18/2007 10:35:41 AM PDT by Abd al-Rahiim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
You are correct. Intelligent design advocates can observe the changes in the moth populations just like real scientists. They can also come up with the same conclusion – microevolution occurred. Intelligent design advocates can test the changes in the moth populations just like real scientists. They can also come up with the same conclusion – microevolution by natural selection occurred. I type corrected.

Likewise, I hate how naturalists like to play the exact same word games when they claim that evolution is scientific.

But, evolution is scientific. It conforms to the scientific method and has a large body of reproducible experiments and peer-reviewed papers.

I direct you to the ruling of Judge Jones, as follows:

What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best "fringe science" which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community.

176 posted on 06/18/2007 10:43:07 AM PDT by Abd al-Rahiim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
I knew you had no support for your claim that ID invoked the supernatural. It's just fun watching you dance around trying to support your previous errors.

Let’s take a look at the name, shall we?

Unless the title is a misnomer, intelligent design in the context of biology indicates a belief that some aspects of life were created by an entity that no one has ever encountered, either in the lab or in the real world. The identity of this entity is vague. But, nevertheless, the ideology posits that an entity is responsible.

I again direct you to the ruling of Judge Jones, as follows:

First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to "change the ground rules" of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces.

Also, if you were unable to google the textbook, please click here. Hopefully, you won’t wait a week to click the link.

177 posted on 06/18/2007 10:47:22 AM PDT by Abd al-Rahiim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Evolutionary theory has been falsified. For example, see how gradualism’s supporters counter the arguments of punctuated equilibrium’s supporters and vice versa.

Evolution as a fact has not been falsified.

178 posted on 06/18/2007 10:48:57 AM PDT by Abd al-Rahiim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
I cannot help but conclude that Judge Jones' repeated mistatements [sic] of fact and his one-sided recitation of the "evidence" reveal not only a judicial activist, but an incredibly sloppy judge who selects the facts to fit the result he wants.

Do you think our President would nominate a judicial activist?

Do you think a judicial activist would have been unanimously confirmed by a GOP-dominated Senate?

Judge Jones adhered to precedent and took into account the testimonies of expert defense witnesses in his ruling, including their confessions that intelligent design is at best a "fringe science."

179 posted on 06/18/2007 10:52:57 AM PDT by Abd al-Rahiim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

We live in Chesterfield, VA and our son is kindergarten age. It is issues like this (among others) that have led us to homeschool.


180 posted on 06/18/2007 10:55:35 AM PDT by P8riot (I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

“Another speaker, Michael Slagle, presented a document containing 700 signatures of scientists worldwide who have questioned the validity of evolution.”

Wow! A whopping 700 signatures? Worldwide? I am so unimpressed.


181 posted on 06/18/2007 11:03:52 AM PDT by Bogtrotter52 (Reading DU daily so you won't hafta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Bogtrotter52

Of course, why would I think you would be impressed? Nothing would impress you unless it agreed with your opinion. Typical of evos.


182 posted on 06/18/2007 12:16:35 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
"When did this happen?"

Long time ago. When coded information systems independent of the underlying medium were discovered.

183 posted on 06/18/2007 1:07:55 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Abd al-Rahiim
"But, evolution is scientific. It conforms to the scientific method and has a large body of reproducible experiments and peer-reviewed papers."

No, evolution is not scientific. It departs from the scientific method when it assumes that observations can be extrapolated into unobserved events. Evolution does the very same thing that ID does, it just invokes naturalism instead of intelligent design. No difference.

"I direct you to the ruling of Judge Jones, as follows:

"What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best "fringe science" which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community."

Yeah, and OJ didn't do it because the jury said he didn't.

184 posted on 06/18/2007 1:11:31 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Long time ago. When coded information systems independent of the underlying medium were discovered.

You'd think the science community would have heard about it if it had any validity. Or is it just your opinion, your awe at the complexity of things, minus any actual scientific falsification?

185 posted on 06/18/2007 1:14:25 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

I think it was just before we rediscovered that the earth is the center of the universe.


186 posted on 06/18/2007 1:16:01 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Abd al-Rahiim
"Unless the title is a misnomer, intelligent design in the context of biology indicates a belief that some aspects of life were created by an entity that no one has ever encountered, either in the lab or in the real world. The identity of this entity is vague. But, nevertheless, the ideology posits that an entity is responsible."

And evolution is a belief that some aspects of life were created by processes that no one has ever encountered, either in the lab or in the real world. The identify of the processes is vague. But, nevertheless, the ideology posits that these processes are responsible.

"Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces."

Sorry, that is just incorrect. Supernatural forces do not have to be considered, only intelligent ones.

"Also, if you were unable to google the textbook, please click here. Hopefully, you won’t wait a week to click the link."

Sorry that FR isn't the focal point of my life, as it apparently is with you. If you had a point, apparently it is that responses that are not within your self-proscribed timeframe are somehow less valuable. Interesting thought pattern. Irrational, but interesting.

187 posted on 06/18/2007 1:19:55 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Abd al-Rahiim
"Evolutionary theory has been falsified. For example, see how gradualism’s supporters counter the arguments of punctuated equilibrium’s supporters and vice versa."

That's correct.

"Evolution as a fact has not been falsified."

All that is going on there is that 'evolution' has been defined to conform to the adaptation that is observed. No adaptive observation can be identified as having uniquely arisen through natural processes. I don't think you understand the problem.

188 posted on 06/18/2007 1:25:45 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
"You'd think the science community would have heard about it if it had any validity."

You don't understand that the 'science community' is absolutely committed to the concept of naturalism and the impact of this commitment on the interpretation of observations.

The commitment to naturalism means that the 'science community' will *always* interpret *any* evidence as having risen through 'natural' processes. They have no other choice.

"Or is it just your opinion, your awe at the complexity of things, minus any actual scientific falsification?"

I love it when the naturalists trot out the 'incredulity' argument. It makes such a nice backdrop for their own credulity in believing that the 'awesome complexity of things' just happened for no reason whatsoever.

189 posted on 06/18/2007 1:29:59 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
You don't understand that the 'science community' is absolutely committed to the concept of naturalism

Maybe that's why they call them the natural sciences? Without this concept, we wouldn't have evolutionary theory, we'd have a hundred competing creation myths, each one with as much objective justification as the other, as they all rely on their god for the answer.

The problem is that by the very concept it is impossible to falsify theological explanations, and science depends on the concept of falsification. Falsification is how science rids itself of theories that cannot support themselves.

Science is a brutal dog-eat-dog world where new scientific ideas are normally viciously attacked. Don't be surprised when your non-scientific ideas receive at least the same treatment.

The commitment to naturalism means that the 'science community' will *always* interpret *any* evidence as having risen through 'natural' processes.

Or, as in the case of Darwin and others, know what they can show objectively and learn to separate that from personal theological speculation, which is beyond any possible falsification.

'awesome complexity of things'

"Awesome complexity" is a personal point of view, and therefore has no place in science.

190 posted on 06/18/2007 1:50:21 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
"Maybe that's why they call them the natural sciences? Without this concept, we wouldn't have evolutionary theory, we'd have a hundred competing creation myths, each one with as much objective justification as the other, as they all rely on their god for the answer."

The point is that there is no difference between a creation myth with a god as the active agent and a creation myth with natural processes as the active agent. They are both 'a priori' metaphysical decisions. You already have competing creation myths for naturalism, why do you think that's a problem?

"Or, as in the case of Darwin and others, know what they can show objectively and learn to separate that from personal theological speculation, which is beyond any possible falsification."

Again, an 'a priori' commitment to naturalism is indistinguishable from personal theological speculation. Both sides are beyond falsification, not just the one you happen to oppose.

I see you have a problem understanding the concept. Would that be your 'a priori' commitment to naturalism getting in the way?

191 posted on 06/18/2007 2:03:40 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
No, evolution is not scientific. It departs from the scientific method when it assumes that observations can be extrapolated into unobserved events. Evolution does the very same thing that ID does, it just invokes naturalism instead of intelligent design. No difference.

So, is theoretical physics nothing but a sham? It can also involve "extrapol[ating] observations into unobserved events."

Was Dr. Richard Sander guilty not of not being scientific when he argued in a paper that without affirmative action, the number of black lawyers would rise? Granted, he is a social scientist. Nevertheless, he "extrapolated observations into unobserved events." So, was he not being scientific?

You're admitting that intelligent design is not natural. Therefore, it has no role in science. Agreed?

Also, Judge Jones wrote "defense experts concede...

No mention of a jury.

192 posted on 06/18/2007 3:03:20 PM PDT by Abd al-Rahiim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
And evolution is a belief that some aspects of life were created by processes that no one has ever encountered, either in the lab or in the real world. The identify of the processes is vague. But, nevertheless, the ideology posits that these processes are responsible.

No, evolution is change in allele frequencies of a population over time. The mechanism behind the origin of life is not relevant to evolution. That is, whatever the cause, it does not affect the changing of populations’ allele frequencies .

Perhaps you’d be better served redirecting your dislike of evolution as both fact and theory to origin of life theories.

Sorry, that [Professor Minnich's testimony that for intelligent design to be considered science, supernatural forces must be considered in science] is just incorrect. Supernatural forces do not have to be considered, only intelligent ones.

Please send an e-mail to Professor Minnich and tell him what you have just told me. Please give me an example of how an intelligent being can design the life that we know without being considered supernatural. Thank you.

Sorry that FR isn't the focal point of my life, as it apparently is with you. If you had a point, apparently it is that responses that are not within your self-proscribed timeframe are somehow less valuable. Interesting thought pattern. Irrational, but interesting.

There’s no need to apologize to me. I’m probably younger than you as it is. I do indeed have a point, though – there's a search engine called Google, and a few keywords can direct you to an introductory biology textbook of your choosing. Do not rely on me to do all the hard work for you.

Thanks!

193 posted on 06/18/2007 3:38:22 PM PDT by Abd al-Rahiim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Abd al-Rahiim
"So, is theoretical physics nothing but a sham? It can also involve "extrapol[ating] observations into unobserved events."

It's really very simple. If it's not observable, it's not science.

"You're admitting that intelligent design is not natural. Therefore, it has no role in science. Agreed?"

Not at all. It is just as natural as is evolution and therefore has just as much role in science. Agreed?

194 posted on 06/18/2007 3:44:55 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
All that is going on there is that 'evolution' has been defined to conform to the adaptation that is observed. No adaptive observation can be identified as having uniquely arisen through natural processes. I don't think you understand the problem.

I disagree. Is there a problem with defining evolution to fit natural phenomena? That is how definitions typically come about. Something happens, and then a name is assigned to this “something happens.” In the case of evolution, the allele frequencies of populations change. Evolution is the word used to describe this phenomena. There’s no problem here, GourmetDan.

Your statement “No adaptive observation can be identified as having uniquely arisen through natural processes” is ignorant and ignores volumes of evidence in support of both micro and macroevolution. I (re)present to you antibiotic resistance and Darwin’s finches. Have a nice evening.

195 posted on 06/18/2007 3:45:31 PM PDT by Abd al-Rahiim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Abd al-Rahiim
"No, evolution is change in allele frequencies of a population over time. The mechanism behind the origin of life is not relevant to evolution. That is, whatever the cause, it does not affect the changing of populations’ allele frequencies."

Exactly the point. A 'change of allele frequencies of a population over time' is equally consistent with a created biology that is in decline and is no unique evidence supporting evolution. It is merely a definition-game where you define a word one way and then use it another.

"Perhaps you’d be better served redirecting your dislike of evolution as both fact and theory to origin of life theories."

Ah, the fallacy of appeal to emotion. Good one. You must be about out of arguments.

"Please send an e-mail to Professor Minnich and tell him what you have just told me."

And you think that would accomplish what? Are you really this juvenile?

"Please give me an example of how an intelligent being can design the life that we know without being considered supernatural. Thank you.

Isn't mankind on the verge of designing completely new living beings? Are you saying that men are supernatural?

"There’s no need to apologize to me. I’m probably younger than you as it is."

That much is rather obvious from the juvenile 'argument' posted above. Glad you finally caught up.

"I do indeed have a point, though – there's a search engine called Google, and a few keywords can direct you to an introductory biology textbook of your choosing. Do not rely on me to do all the hard work for you."

Already done it. Already know that there is no evidence that uniquely supports evolution over creation. You would do well to take your own advice instead of using the typical naturalist hand-waving generalizations.

Go ahead, find me a piece of evidence (not an interpretation of evidence) that uniquely supports evolution over creation.

We'll see if you have the critical-thinking skills to be able to tell the difference. My bet is that it's teaching-time for you.

196 posted on 06/18/2007 3:55:28 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
If it's not observable, it's not science.

I wouldn't call theoretical physics unscientific, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Not at all. It is just as natural as is evolution and therefore has just as much role in science. Agreed?

Not at all. Kindly remember that you wrote "...it [evolution] just invokes naturalism instead of intelligent design." Based on your categorization, you admitted that intelligent design is not natural.

Thanks.

197 posted on 06/18/2007 4:02:19 PM PDT by Abd al-Rahiim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Abd al-Rahiim
"I disagree. Is there a problem with defining evolution to fit natural phenomena? That is how definitions typically come about. Something happens, and then a name is assigned to this “something happens.” In the case of evolution, the allele frequencies of populations change. Evolution is the word used to describe this phenomena. There’s no problem here, GourmetDan."

It's a problem because the term is defined to match observations which do not uniquely support evolution and is then used as though it is unique support for evolution. It's a circular thought-pattern and most naturalists don't have the critical-thinking skills to understand that.

Changing allele frequencies over time does not uniquely support evolution. It could equally apply to a created genetic code that is in reproductive error-catastrophe and would never produce men from hominids. You would never know that because you take the definition and apply it to a concept that the observations cannot support. The problem is that you are being misled by the old bait-and-switch and you don't have the critical-thinking skills to recognize that.

"Your statement “No adaptive observation can be identified as having uniquely arisen through natural processes” is ignorant and ignores volumes of evidence in support of both micro and macroevolution. I (re)present to you antibiotic resistance and Darwin’s finches. Have a nice evening."

No, you are projecting ignorance onto me because your credulity is so complete that you cannot begin to understand what I am actually saying.

Antibiotic resistance was already present before antibiotics existed and cannot be said to have 'evolved'. That variety was already there. Darwin's finches have been shown to fluctuate back and forth between beak sizes and cannot be said to have 'evolved'. That variety was already there. It is only in your imagination that such variation could produce the observed variety of life from some proto-life form.

You apparently have believed the naturalist misrepresentation that life cannot have been created with an ability to adapt and that therefore any adaptation is unique support for evolution. That, however, is a metaphysical belief along with the 'a priori' commitment to naturalism.

Your level of understanding on this subject is woefully inadequate, almost child-like. You have a nice evening.

198 posted on 06/18/2007 4:09:12 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
GourmetDan,

It's obvious neither of us can convince the other.

You're a creationist (..."evolution over creation", your words), and I'm not.

Biology has rebuked creationism as a junk science. The Supreme Court has ruled that it cannot be taught in the public science classroom (Edwards).

But, this is America, and you're free to believe whatever you want. In closing, please know that I support your right to believe in creationism. Also know that I will not support any attempt on your part to play word games and attempt to get creationism into the public science classroom.

PS:

I'm surprised that you chose to respond to my request with a rhetorical question.

I quote your original post and my response, as follows:

You: Sorry, that [Professor Minnich's testimony that for intelligent design to be considered science, supernatural forces must be considered in science] is just incorrect. Supernatural forces do not have to be considered, only intelligent ones.
Me: Please send an e-mail to Professor Minnich and tell him what you have just told me. Please give me an example of how an intelligent being can design the life that we know without being considered supernatural. Thank you.

Based on what you wrote, you seem to think that both Judge Jones and Professor Minnich are mistaken. Don't tell me, tell the professor. If your anger made you unable to see that, my apologies.

199 posted on 06/18/2007 4:10:54 PM PDT by Abd al-Rahiim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Abd al-Rahiim
"I wouldn't call theoretical physics unscientific, but hey, whatever floats your boat."

Well of course you wouldn't. You think that evolution is scientific and that is unobservable too. The fact that you are unable to recognize that theories must be observable, repeatable and falsifiable to be scientific doesn't mean that everyone must be so.

"Not at all. Kindly remember that you wrote "...it [evolution] just invokes naturalism instead of intelligent design." Based on your categorization, you admitted that intelligent design is not natural."

As you know, I said that man is coming close to designing new life forms himself. Now how could intelligent design not be natural if intelligent mankind is about to intelligently-design new life forms? Based on your categorization, you just admitted that mankind is supernatural.

That you are young and think that cutsie word games count as rational debate is becoming more evident.

200 posted on 06/18/2007 4:19:37 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301 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