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

Skip to comments.

Intelligent Design and the Death of the "Junk-DNA" Neo-Darwinian Paradigm
Discovery Institute ^ | June 15, 2007 | Casey Luskin

Posted on 06/16/2007 1:09:15 AM PDT by balch3

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-130 next last
To: fabian
==A brainfull of false knowledge is a very big burden!

AKA brainwashing. That is precisely what Richard Dawkins et al are doing when they use our public schools to brainwash OUR children into believing that the very living things that “overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design” are but an illusion. If that isn’t false religion, I don’t know what is!

81 posted on 06/16/2007 7:59:58 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
But disproving Darwin’s theory would certainly remove the current gatekeepers tasked with preventing ID from becoming a mainstream scientific research project.

Oh, yeah, preventing IDers from doing actual, original and relevant scientific research advancing ID. The gatekeepers we evilutionists assign to this task is based on the difficulty. Currently we have one small boy and his puppy dog handling this. Part time.

82 posted on 06/16/2007 8:03:28 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
disproving the theory of evolution would not “prove” ID.

I assume you mean Darwin’s theory of evolution. There are many competing theories of evolution just waiting for their chance. But disproving Darwin’s theory would certainly remove the current gatekeepers tasked with preventing ID from becoming a mainstream scientific research project.

If the theory of evolution is disproved, it will be by another scientific theory. That is unlikely, but possible.

That would make it even harder for ID to replace the new theory of evolution.

The one thing that is preventing ID from "becoming a mainstream scientific research project" is that it is inspired by religious belief, not science! The vast majority of ID proponents are Christian creationists, who believe the Bible is the ultimate authority. When they try to do science it is transparently obvious where their beliefs lie, and their beliefs are not in the scientific method.

Look at your own FR name: GodGunsGuts. It is not IDGunsGuts, or ScienceGunsGuts.

A significant percentage of folks who argue for ID also quote scripture, suggest those who support the theory of evolution are destined to hell, and exhibit other characteristics which suggest that it is not science, but pushing religion, that is their primary motivation.

Why should we believe for a minute that ID is anything more than creation "science" warmed over after the Supreme Court decision of the late 1980s?

83 posted on 06/16/2007 8:05:38 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

==And if there was so much scientific evidence for ID, the Discovery Institute would not be running a PR campaign instead of conducting scientific research.

I hate to break it to you, but that’s the way the real world works. Both sides are engaged in intense PR campaigns. One side is holding on for dear life, while the other side is trying to become mainstream. What do you think “Darwin’s bulldog” was doing when he was going around trying to sell Darwin’s theory of origins?


84 posted on 06/16/2007 8:07:38 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

==If the theory of evolution is disproved, it will be by another scientific theory. That is unlikely, but possible.

Not true. It is possible to falsify bad science with good science without ever having to provide an explanation of the same. For instance, there have been a number of diseases that were thought to be contagious that were proved to be non-contagious without knowing the underlying cause of the disease (ie scurvy, pallegra, beri-beri, etc). This kind of thing happens all the time in science. And in many cases, science cannot provide the explanation until much later.


85 posted on 06/16/2007 8:21:54 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
If the theory of evolution is disproved, it will be by another scientific theory. That is unlikely, but possible.

Not true. It is possible to falsify bad science with good science without ever having to provide an explanation of the same. For instance, there have been a number of diseases that were thought to be contagious that were proved to be non-contagious without knowing the underlying cause of the disease (ie scurvy, pallegra, beri-beri, etc). This kind of thing happens all the time in science. And in many cases, science cannot provide the explanation until much later.

Causes for specific diseases are not well-supported theories, as is the theory of evolution. Your comparison is not accurate.

To overturn the theory of evolution, it will require a competing scientific theory with more explanatory power, power to explain facts which the theory of evolution cannot explain. It will require a theory with better predictive power.

Hint: ID is not even close to being a scientific theory. For the most part it is not even science.

Lets try a test! What is the opinion of ID on these questions: How may IDers where there, and what is the basis for your answer? When did ID occur, and what is the basis for your answer?

86 posted on 06/16/2007 8:33:59 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
==Look at your own FR name: GodGunsGuts. It is not IDGunsGuts, or ScienceGunsGuts.

My screenname is DESIGNED to emphasize that God, guns and guts made America free—and that includes the freedom to pursue science. And while there are many benefits of science, science did not make America free. Science is but a tool used to investigate the nature of things, and thus infinitely inferior to nature’s God.

87 posted on 06/16/2007 8:35:01 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

==To overturn the theory of evolution, it will require a competing scientific theory with more explanatory power, power to explain facts which the theory of evolution cannot explain. It will require a theory with better predictive power.

Wrong again. All you need to do is falsify Darwin’s theory of origins. There’s no need to replace it. Although, it would by definition mean that we are closer to replacing it if only by process of elimination.


88 posted on 06/16/2007 8:37:42 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Look at your own FR name: GodGunsGuts. It is not IDGunsGuts, or ScienceGunsGuts.

My screenname is DESIGNED to emphasize that God, guns and guts made America free—and that includes the freedom to pursue science. And while there are many benefits of science, science did not make America free. Science is but a tool used to investigate the nature of things, and thus infinitely inferior to nature’s God.

Exactly! I realize that this where your belief lies. That is why I can't accept that you really support ID as a scientific study separate from creationism.

You realize that for IDers, intelligent aliens are equal to some "unnamed designer" or the Christian Deity, don't you? That is what they tell us! "We're looking for design, but we don't know (wink, wink) who the designer is!"

Do you begin to see why those of us who actually study the theory of evolution can't take ID seriously? It's religion in a new package, trying to sneak into the science classes where creationism and then creation "science" failed.

89 posted on 06/16/2007 8:45:05 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

==Hint: ID is not even close to being a scientific theory.

Again, there is no need for ID to comprehensively explain the origin of life. If all ID does is find incidences of design in nature, that’s enough. SETI does not seek to to explain the origin of species, and yet it is considered a scientific research project. And besides, ID disproves Darwinian evolution every time it shows that design is a better explanation for any given biological phenomena.


90 posted on 06/16/2007 8:46:55 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
ID and Creation Science are not the same. Certain aspects of ID can be fit into Creation Science, but Creation Science cannot be fit into ID. They are two different research projects. But as Richard Dawkins admits, they are both asking imminently scientific questions...even if he does think the evidence favors Darwinian evolution.
91 posted on 06/16/2007 8:51:46 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Again, there is no need for ID to comprehensively explain the origin of life.

I agree. The theory of evolution does not seek to explain the origin of life either.


If all ID does is find incidences of design in nature, that’s enough.

False! Finding design in nature is easy. Look at snowflakes! That does not prove a designer. You have a major step to fill in there.


SETI does not seek to to explain the origin of species, and yet it is considered a scientific research project.

?????? That is a pretty disconnected statement. Why should SETI explain the origin of species when the theory of evolution handles that quite well? SETI is just looking for signals of a kind that are known to associate with our own civilization, under the assumption that those signals would signify intelligent civilizations elsewhere. What does that have to do with the origin of species?


And besides, ID disproves Darwinian evolution every time it shows that design is a better explanation for any given biological phenomena.

And it has yet to come even close. ID is simply religion lite, and it's not fooling anybody.

92 posted on 06/16/2007 8:56:37 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
"More desperate babbling by the ID-iot crowd."

When you resort to personal insults, you pretty much admit that you cannot argue the facts on their merits. So much of Evolution has been exposed as fraud and charlatanry that I'm surprised anyone still arguing its validity would dare pose as an academic at all.

While there is ample evidence for Creation, there exists no evidence whatever for Evolution. None.

;-/

93 posted on 06/16/2007 9:03:01 PM PDT by Gargantua (For those who believe in God, no explanation is needed; for those who do not, no explanation exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
==I agree. The theory of evolution does not seek to explain the origin of life either.

Wrong. The theory of evolution has been extended to attempt to explain the origin of life. Ever hear of the so-called pre-biotic soup?

==False! Finding design in nature is easy. Look at snowflakes! That does not prove a designer. You have a major step to fill in there.

I’m not even going to dignify your sophomoric example with an answer. I suggest you study up on ID before attempting to link non-informational order with the requirements of INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

==SETI is just looking for signals of a kind that are known to associate with our own civilization, under the assumption that those signals would signify intelligent civilizations elsewhere.

They are looking for evidence of intelligence in the universe in much the same way that ID searches for intelligence in nature. Again, study up on ID before making such claims.

==And it has yet to come even close. ID is simply religion lite, and it’s not fooling anybody.

I’m not sure what planet you flew in from, but by my count ID (and Creation Science) is disproving Darwinian evolution left and right.

94 posted on 06/16/2007 9:14:37 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
I particularly enjoy the huge dinosaur footprints imbedded in petrified mud in Texas... with human footprints petrified right inside of them.

When "Nova" showed up to film the discovery, the producers scrapped the footage because it so plainly disproved any notion of Evolution being credible.

Kind of makes Evolutionists look silly, since it is an unimpeachable geoligical record of humans existing right alongside the same creatures which The Theory of Evolution insists all died out "over 60 million years ago..."

Get a grip. Your religion (Evolution) is built upon lies. The Biblical record is unbroken and accurately goes back to the beginning of all time (between 8,000-10,000 years).

;-/

95 posted on 06/16/2007 9:19:47 PM PDT by Gargantua (For those who believe in God, no explanation is needed; for those who do not, no explanation exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

After your last post it is clear we have no rational basis for discussion. Good night.


96 posted on 06/16/2007 9:20:56 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Gargantua

Correction: “geological”


97 posted on 06/16/2007 9:21:48 PM PDT by Gargantua (For those who believe in God, no explanation is needed; for those who do not, no explanation exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
"...no rational basis for discussion."

You've got that right! Good night.

;-/

98 posted on 06/16/2007 9:24:31 PM PDT by Gargantua (For those who believe in God, no explanation is needed; for those who do not, no explanation exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

exactly.


99 posted on 06/16/2007 9:27:32 PM PDT by balch3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

As I said before, may your night be as peaceful as the night Guillermo Gonzalez learned his tenure was denied by the Church of Darwin.


100 posted on 06/16/2007 9:29:49 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-130 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