Posted on 10/25/2009 10:42:54 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Ping!
every crevo post adds another 10 days to a freepathon.
Thanks for the ping!
How did reproduction evolve? By extinction after extinction until some microbes got it right? Not likely.
If you or anyone you know in the LA area (Southern California), you might want to check out the following:
Los Angeles Premiere of Intelligent Design Film Moves to USC on Oct. 25th at 7pm
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/los_angeles_premiere_of_intell.html
Dakins is pissed as a Kid God did not give him Ice-cream when he asked for it but the Heathen Child Molester on the corner did!
Stephen C. Meyer disingenuously asserts “intelligent design is not creationism.” Of course it is. He’s asserting that God’s intelligence created life. What intelligence does Dr. Mayer think created life? Laptop computers?
“Darwinian Dissonance?
Paul A. Dernavich
Simply put, the language used by many of today's prominent Darwin defenders, at least as it appears in the popular press, is inherently self-defeating, as if they had a collective case of cognitive dissonance. They routinely describe non-human processes as if they were actual people. No sooner do they finish arguing that the universe could not possibly have an Intelligent Designer, that they proceed to comment on how the universe is so seemingly intelligently designed. No sooner do they discredit evidence for a grand, cosmic plan, that they reveal their anticipation towards what the next phase of it will be. Let me give you examples.”
The entire piece (not too long) is a good read.
I chose this part because I think it illustrates that all of us believe and recognize many things are intelligently designed, our computers, our blender, our this or that.
But the question I've asked and not received a real answer to is, How do we decide when we look at a even a simple object whether an intelligent agent designed it or not?
ID scienctists say that ID can’t answer that question, unless of course they were to discover the designer. If you asked Meyer who the designer is, he would tell you the God of the Bible, but he would do so for religious reasons. Of course, there are plenty of IDers who would tell you that the designer is a different god, or even entertain that the designers may be ETs. But all of these are outside the scope of the limits ID has placed on itself. Very simply, ID looks for design in nature, and does not go any further than science can take it. And while I find a lot of tremendously useful research (especially as it relates to origins) coming out of the ID science movement, their unwillingness to specify the designer is one of the main reasons I don’t consider myself an IDer.
Evolution, The Hopeful Monster Theory: Put all the parts of a Swiss watch into a dryer and tumble on low until they assemble themselves into a ticking watch.
ID is certainly a theory worth evaluating. In my view,
Darwin’s theory is backed by pure speculation: There isn’t
enough data to place it in realm of scientific fact.
Watched a Richard Dawkins YouTube with my son the other day. How does this guy persuade anyone?
“And while I find a lot of tremendously useful research (especially as it relates to origins) coming out of the ID science movement, their unwillingness to specify the designer is one of the main reasons I don’t consider myself an IDer.”
And of course because they would fall about laughing when you tell them that the world c. 6,000 years old.
1)nothing produces everything
2)non-life produces life
3)randomness produces anthropic fine tuning
4)chaos produces information
5)non-consciousness produces consciousness
6)non-reason produces reason
7)atoms, ions, and molecules produces free will
Intelligent design and Global Warming <= two peas in a pod.
That’s strange. The IDers routinely expose the global warming scam on their websites. Indeed, if I’m not mistaken, virtually all the the global warming alarmists masquerading as scientists are Temple of Darwin fanatics.
Well, it is and it isn't.
Likewise it is and it isn't evolution also.
In fact, it is and it isn't just about everything.
As is often said of uselessly vacuous scientific claims, "it isn't even wrong."
On absolutely every point that might lead to a testable implication (or prohibition) Intelligent Design is relentlessly (even, one might say, designedly) noncommittal. IDers refuse to posit any claim about when design events occur[ed], where they occur[ed], or how they occur[ed].
ID consists entirely of "inferring" the putative existence of "design". However it has so far come up with only two bases for this inference: the existence of specified complexity, and/or the existence of irreducible complexity.
However the mathematical model of specified complexity has never been rigorously applied to even one real world case, and SC is so poorly and problematically defined, that it most probably never can be so applied.
The case for irreducible complexity is no better. Irreducibly complex systems do exist, but the basis for inferring ID therefrom depends on the claim that it is IMPOSSIBLE for IC systems to be formed by gradual, stepwise change, or indeed by any naturalistic process. This claim is at best unproven, and at worst demonstrably false.
Thus, at least so far, Intelligent Design is worse than merely wrong. It is vacuously beneath the level of being wrong. It is completely and utterly useless.
Hasn't been my experience.
For instance the "Skeptic" group I used to belong to (The North Texas Skeptics) was, way back in the early 1990's, debunking global warming as energetically as creationism and "psychics".
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.