Pro-Darwin Biology Professor...Supports Teaching Intelligent Design

Discovery Institute ^ | June 22, 2007

[RightWhale]

for what purpose would a man divorce himself from what has created him

Since that is not possible until that man manages to create his own universe outside this one, the purpose is an illusion.

[betty boop]

It’s a very sad situation to betty boop and me – we miss our correspondents and the brisk dialogue on the issues. They were a challenging bunch.

That's the honest truth, dearest Alamo-Girl. Plus it goes without saying that they taught us much of value while they were here, in many different ways.

Truly, I personally miss very much certain people in that "exodus crowd." I regarded them long-time friends, even though we would regularly differ contentiously on "crevo" issues. And I was shocked when I learned they were gone.

Then again, there were others who "left" whose absence can only presage an improvement in civil discourse at Free Republic.

Thank you for your wonderful essay/post, dearest sister A-G!

[unspun]

js you still seem to think the question of how the cosmos got to be what it is, to be a matter addressable fby the absurdity of science operable in a vacuum.

Or, maybe you're just afraid of the boogey men outside the windowshade.

[betty boop]

There's a simple test of this. Just ask the people lurking or posting on this thread to check in and tell us if they accept common descent and a multi-billion year old earth and are, perhaps, merely concerned about the technical details of how variation occurs.

Okay, since I'm lurking: I'd vote "nay" on common descent (at least as Darwinians understand that term) and "yea" on a multi-billion-year-old earth; plus a universe of probably 15 billion years' age, give or take a few hundred million.

Anyone else want to weigh in?

[betty boop]

Since that is not possible until that man manages to create his own universe outside this one, the purpose is an illusion.

You lose me there, amigo!

You aren't, by any chance, a student of Hegel, or maybe of Nietzsche? Or may even of Bukharin?

Your thesis seems to be that if man can know nothing for an absolute certainty, then there is nothing worthy to be known by man.

[Coyoteman]

Okay, since I'm lurking: I'd vote "nay" on common descent (at least as Darwinians understand that term) and "yea" on a multi-billion-year-old earth; plus a universe of probably 15 billion years' age, give or take a few hundred million.

Anyone else want to weigh in?

Vote all you want. The scientists who are studying these issues are the one's whose opinions count. That's harsh, but that's the way it works in science.

If you haven't spent enough time studying an issue to have an informed opinion (and this is often measured in years), then your opinion will probably not be accorded much credence.

[unspun]

cornelis: There is nobody in their right mind who can deny that there are aspects to reality for which scientific thinking must take second place. This is especially so for human nature, which is social and sovereign at the same time and demands a politics which must be grounded in a reality that is larger than what science illuminates.

And so, it should be obvious that science cannot be counted upon, to tell us thoroughly how that which is discernable by the scientific process got to be exactly how it is. Nor will science be a means of ruling out the unmeasurable, untestable, and/or supernatural (whether any of that could be called an excretion from a male creature with hooves and horns, or not)

js1138: In every case where the courts have been called upon to intervene with attempts to derail the teaching of science, the people behind anti-science have revealed themselves to be young earth creationists hoping to promote Biblical literalism. This is so transparent when people are questioned under oath that the outcome of the cases is never in doubt.

1. You are conflating ID with Creationism and you really do know that, I think.

2. So what if believers in the myth of Gilgamesh were behind the attempt to allow discussion of intelligent design in public education, when the topic is cosmological etiology? Does that somehow disrupt the work of science? That matters about as much as whether or a person who wants a federal program for health savings plans is a communist or capitalist.

3. Surely you must see by now that it is absurd to either equate "evolution" (of whatever kind) with "cosmological etiology," or to say that the only inferences which may play upon the academic discussion of this subject must be those adhering to intentionless, planless, and executionless development -- because, well, because, that's what most of us scientists adhere to.. you know... like man-produced global warming. (That gets to be like the police not wanting to be policed, because, well... they're the police.)

[unspun]

"Creationism" here, i.e., "Biblical literalism."

[unspun]

Not to antici[p]ate too much I hope, but it does seem to me that the people who flack Second Realities are not the most gracious or forthcoming folks on the face of the planet. And it can be shown that they "cheat" as often as possible, so long as it is "necessary" to uphold a doctine that does not at all appear helpful to human flourishing, let alone conform with direct human observation of the natural world....

Apt point and Voegelin (not to be confused with Vogon) excerpt.

As you've attested, man must believe in, adhere to, and rely upon something that is "the greatest" (whether that is the greatest, or not).

As Diamond has pointed out, that's how we have "evolved." As I've tried to relate years ago here, that's what our impetus for survival will relate with (accurately or otherwise) in our environment, in order to survive and produce, to elucidate Darwin.

[Alamo-Girl]

js1138: There's a simple test of this. Just ask the people lurking or posting on this thread to check in and tell us if they accept common descent and a multi-billion year old earth and are, perhaps, merely concerned about the technical details of how variation occurs.

betty boop: Okay, since I'm lurking: I'd vote "nay" on common descent (at least as Darwinians understand that term) and "yea" on a multi-billion-year-old earth; plus a universe of probably 15 billion years' age, give or take a few hundred million.

Anyone else want to weigh in?

Sure, I'm glad to weigh in.

I vote "yea" on a multi-billion-year-old earth from our space time coordinates - which would be only a few equivalent earth days from the inception space time coordinates due to the expansion of space/time (inflationary theory and relativity.)

I vote "nay" and "yea" on common descent. Abiogenesis [life from non-life] is impossible on the basis of information content. Likewise, I believe many species or individual creatures were specially created and/or guided into existence – and many additional species emerged through genetic adaptation and natural selection.

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed, we must be born again.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. – John 1:12-13

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. – John 3:6-7

So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. – I Cor 15:42-45

[Alamo-Girl]

On the other hand, no one on DC tries to win arguments by threatening their opponents with hellfire.

That is good to know.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your outstanding post, dearest sister in Christ!

We cannot see the first principle involved but only indirectly, through its observable manifestations. In short, we see the surface of things, and not their principal causes. Perhaps the one principle that reconciles mass, matter, and energy will remain a mystery. After all, we are all "merely human, and should not look for anything more than a likely story in such matters," as Timaeus says.

So very true. Consider for instance that our vision and minds are "geared" to sense three spatial dimensions and one time dimension. If there exists a fifth expanded dimension (an alternative theory in the event CERN cannot observe the Higgs field/boson) - and we were able to perceive with the additional dimension - we'd see a guy's arm there, his head here, his foot over there, we'd be able to take something out of a box without opening it, etc.

So much of what we think we know about nature is merely a projection based on our assumptions. This of course goes back to cornelis' first item on the "observer problem" crib sheet.

[Alamo-Girl]

If your field of view is subjectively narrowed, you must experience it as limited by the restricted field of view you have chosen to allow. And your descriptions of it will be likewise narrow and partial (the latter in a double sense).

So very true. Thank you for your wonderful insights, dearest sister in Christ!

[Alamo-Girl]

Then again, there were others who "left" whose absence can only presage an improvement in civil discourse at Free Republic.

I very strongly agree.

A civil discourse is hard to achieve with the kind of poster who insults or provokes the host.

[Alamo-Girl]

The scientists who are studying these issues are the one's whose opinions count. That's harsh, but that's the way it works in science.

LOLOL! I laugh at the arrogance of science.

What happens on this earth is insignificant over the age of the universe much less eternity.

A thing only matters if God wills it. His opinion is the only one that counts.

To God be the glory.

[hosepipe]

[.. So much of what we think we know about nature is merely a projection based on our assumptions. This of course goes back to cornelis' first item on the "observer problem" crib sheet. ..]

So true.... To any that think they are more than a mere observer.. I ask..
Observer of the trees or the forest?..
or even observer of observers that is being observed.. i.e. chinese fire drill...

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed. Thank you for your encouragements!

[tacticalogic]

Dogma is potentially right or wrong. Observation, too, can go right or wrong.

Observations can be tested. How do you test dogma?

Easy now. Don't everyone answer at once.

[cornelis]

Sometimes a dogma follows from observation.

But remember your Aristotle. Some principles are demonstrable, others not. First principles are axiomatic. Existence for example. Do you want to test existence by making it disappear first?