Posted on 08/10/2008 3:50:04 PM PDT by EveningStar
It’s like my biology teacher used to say. Similarities between a Ford and a Chevy are not enough to start theorizing that one evolved from the other!
Was your biology teacher a critic of evolution?
Wagons? Internal combustion engine? Metalurgy?
That's not the problem.
The reason ID is not a theory is that it doesn't offer an explanation for any phenomenon. It doesn't even say what phenomenon it is about.
“The evolution folks never said the whole thing was random. Ever hear of natural selection?”
The ID people call natural selection “micro-evolution” which is completely compatible with ID. ID people have a big problem with “macro-evolution”. Proponents of “evolution” can’t explain “macro-evolution”. “Macro-evolution” is the idea that all life originated from non-life.
Though they also tend to get reeeeal quiet about how the earths current biodiversity and distribution of species (i.e. lemurs in Australia) can be explained post-noah’s ark without recourse to super-evolution.
Well, that’s a problem, too. ID can have multiple problems, not the least of which is that several million people have been duped into thinking it’s scientific proof of their religious belief.
ID can’t become a theory because it doesn’t have any facts to support it. It’s an argument against evolution, not using facts, but using beliefs. “That transitional fossil is a freak” is not a fact. You can’t use a philosophical argument against science and pretend it rises to a theory in the scientific sense.
You just can’t.
ping later read
Sorry, that's incorrect. Macro evolution refers to evolution that happens above the species level; genus and family level evolution.
Most ID supporters/creationists cannot accept the actual scientific definitions of evolution, micro or macro, because it destroys their efforts to assail strawmen.
“Though they also tend to get reeeeal quiet about how the earths current biodiversity and distribution of species (i.e. lemurs in Australia) can be explained post-noah’s ark without recourse to super-evolution.”
That may be true but how many times in the Earth’s history have there been mass extinctions of life? IE: How many species were doomed along with the dinosauers and thatwas relatively recent. Life before man has been interrupted many times.
There are only two choices (religions).
“Macroevolution, simply put, is evolution above the species level.”
I’d say that life from non-life is “above the species level”. I can’t argue with that definition.
An intelligent designer could have indeed set the forces of evolution in motion, just as all the natural laws of physics have been established. But even if that is true, how does it inform anyone as to which religion (with their own rules about what you can drink, what you can eat, etc.) to follow? How does it imply that such a creative force (which could well have been from a sophisticated, but not divine) is still operating in our observable universe, and really gives a hoot about what we think, do, or say?
Yes, they do use straw man arguments. That’s a euphemism for saying that they misrepresent the other person’s point of view.
“Why couldn’t God have created evolution?”
Why do you think that is a good question?
True, a theory needs both an explanation and evidence, but ID could have a hypothesis without evidence. The problem is that ID doesn’t have a hypothesis, unless you count Behe’s assertion that it is statistically impossible for neutral mutations to accumulate to the point of enabling a dependent favorable mutation.
That one got shot down pretty badly by an actual experiment.
I don’t know how good it is but when I ask it I get the craziest answers.
The question I’ve had for the intelligent design folks is this: Even if there is evidence of intellegent design, that is irrefutable, how does that help you choose which of the tens of thousands of religions to follow?
There is irrefutable evidence of intelligent design all around us every day. It doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with helping one choose which religion to follow. Here are a few irrefutable examples of intelligently designed organisms:
1)Pioneer Hi-Bred Corn - Seed number 38D85 for example, which has multiple genetically engineered traits and features.
2)Transgenic mice from Charles River Laboratories.
3)Those dairy cows standing around munching on grass.
4)The beagle sleeping on the floor.
Of course the most interesting thing is that there is no a-priori test which lets you detect an intelligently designed organism. Without prior knowledge of the facts leading up to the creation of the organisms listed above how could you detect whether they were the product of intelligent design - and surely a transgenic mouse represents the result of intelligent design and creation - or evolved without the input of any external intelligent actor? I don't think you can.
Do I need to direct you to a website to show you that there are myriad religions invented by the mind of man? As an atheist, I think they all were. Nobody's been able to 1) prove intelligent design and 2) connect it to their sect in any convincing way.
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.