Posted on 08/26/2005 8:57:58 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
My mother says she is a Darwinist. I’m not sure of all the things that could or should imply. I take it to mean the she does not believe that the Cosmos and all that it contains is the result of the will of a Supreme Being. Nature just exists and that is all there is to it. Asking what is the purpose of human existence is a nonsense question. It has no meaning. As we have no conscious origin, we have no conscious destination. Hence no purpose.
This idea is quite troubling to many humans as we are quite reluctant to attach no meaning to the thoughts and desires coursing through the synapses of our brains. And so, for most of human existence, the idea that there was no God was a heresy to be condemned, punished, reviled, tortured and even burned at the stake.
When our social institutions evolved to the point where asking such a question wasn’t as quite as painful or harmful to one’s health, science, in the sense that we use today, began to blossom. And it bloomed because of its explanatory power, its predictive power. If you combine A, B, and C – bingo! – you get D. And no one had ever seen, heard or thought of D before!
One of the best and most widely known examples of this is Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc^2. Exactly what this means is not, for the purposes of this discussion, important. What is important is that this conclusion results from a very simple postulate. Namely, that the speed of light is constant relative to an observer – hence the term “relativity” theory. The other postulate is that we are only dealing with non-accelerated frames of reference. That means constant velocities and no gravitational fields. Hence the term “special” relativity. General relativity, dealing with accelerated frames of reference, is, both conceptually and mathematically, a great deal more abstract and difficult. And, unfortunately, I’m not one of those privy to its secrets.
We still believe, given compliance with the postulates, that the mass-energy equivalence equation is an accurate description of physical reality. For someone with an undergraduate’s knowledge of physics and fair skill with the calculus, it isn’t even very difficult to derive. But that is not the reason for its endurance. Our “faith” in this equation is borne out by innumerable observations, experiments and even a couple of unfortunate events in Japan that took place just about sixty years ago. Though the details of specific processes may, to some extent, still elude us, we have an explanation for the enormous energy levels and extreme duration of the power generated by stars. It was this question that stumped some of the greatest scientific minds of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Einstein’s answer still has no competing theory and it does not leave unanswered questions as to its validity lying about unaddressed.
The same cannot be said of evolutionary theory. There are unanswered questions. Evidence that does not fit. “Facts” that have proven illusive or false. Fabricated evidence. Explanations that are logically incomplete. Jerry-rigged computer models – oops! – sorry, that’s global warming. Result? A competing theory, Intelligent Design or ID, has been proposed as an alternative to Darwin’s rumination. Is this “unscientific” as many wail and gnash in their haste to keep “God” out of science? No. It’s an alternative hypothesis. A competing theory. Not religion. Not superstition. Not a conspiracy by those pesky right-wing, Christian fundamentalist – fundamentalist Christians, if you prefer. A proposed theory. This is how science advances. If one never questions, there are no answers to be had.
If you would like to bone-up on the fundamentals of ID, I suggest that you read Dan Peterson’s piece in the American Spectator, “The Little Engine That Could...Undo Darwinism.” He gives a rundown of the main players in the ID debate along with their academic backgrounds and achievements as well as the main arguments supporting their positions. For an opposing view by a man of science in the field of evolutionary theory, read Jerry Coyne’s offering in the New Republic Online, “The Case Against Intelligent Design.” This was at one time linkable without a subscription as I have a copy saved. But alas, one now seems mandatory.
Based on my brief acquaintance with the subject, there seems to be two fundamental lines of argument used by ID theorists. The first is that which asserts the probability of the complex molecules that form our DNA occurring by chance is infinitesimally small and therefore unlikely to have ever happened by chance. This is the argument put forth by the mathematician and physicist William Dembski.
Michael Behe, who popularized the flagellar motor found in e. coli and other bacterium as an example of intelligent design, is a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. His arguments are based on the concept of irreducibly complex processes or structures as opposed to those that are cumulatively complex. Those that are irreducibly complex do not lend themselves without great difficulty to explanation by a theory of evolution. For Darwin himself stated that if one could show that a blind, incremental process could not explain a natural phenomenon, his theory would fall apart.
Darwin’s theories are being questioned, but here we are not talking about religious zealots making the inquiry. We’re talking about real, live, grown-up scientists, who, because of our advancing knowledge of the molecular basis of life, and not just bible stories, are asking legitimate and profound questions that are undermining the basis of Darwinism. And they’re not doing so with the desire nor intention of substituting scripture for textbooks. God, as the Jews or Christians or even Muslims perceive Him, is not being offered in place of Darwin.
What is? Good question. I’ll ask my mom. She always had the answers.
If it isn't supernatural than it is measurable, observable and replicable; you know, like GRAVITY. Unless you want to wrap a natural force like gravity with the mantle of godhood you have a very confused theology.
Army ants are not irreducibly complex, and could easily arise from mutations that effect chemical signaling and thus behavior of the ant colony. And they don't have a "king" they have drones.
Energy counters the natural tendency for entropy. If you look at your window you may see a glowing yellow ball that just happens to provide energy in abundance to this verdant orb.
Interesting how Jesus references an end. Does that mean there was a beginning? If he controls the end, would he not control the beginning?
OK, in other words, both sides use ad-hominem attacks. Perhaps it's the only thing left to debate with. One side has scientific (if incomplete) evidence (however you want to define that), while the other side has faith. I think it is difficult to carry on an intellectual discussion on those terms, thus resulting in the ad-hominem attacks.
And that which concerns him also has a beginning. And did he "control" the end or did the Romans drive the stakes and pierce his side? Much like in the beginning, it didn't take supernatural intervention for Jesus to reach his end - just the conditions necessary to fulfill God's plan.
FQA (Frequently Questioned Answers) place mark
First, something came from nothing (it could happen!)
Then, from organic rocks poof a single cell showed up! (it could happen!)
And the rest is, as they say, history!
End of fairy tale.
45. The Scientific Case for Evolution Has Never Been Proved!
So Why Do the Public Schools Teach It As If It Were a Fact?
A. What the theory of evolution proposes
1. In some ancient puddle, lake or ocean, life began when chance chemical reactions produced the first single-celled organism, some kind of self-reproducing bacterium.
2. These bacteria were able to reproduce themselves by cell division, but with occasional very slight changes from generation to generation.
3. Very gradually, very slowly, this process of change was able to "create" new complex biological designs.
4. In some 3 billion years the original organisms were able to change step-by-step as follows:
single cell
many-celled worm without a backbone
worm with a backbone
fish
amphibian
reptile with scales
mammal with hair
ape
university professor
5. This process obviously had to "create," one after the other, thousands of new, complex designs, in order to change a bacterium into a university professor.
B. What is required to prove the evolution case to you and to me?
1. Show us thousands of series of fossils which prove that a slow process of evolution "created", one after the other, thousands of new complex biological designs. For example, there should be a series of fossils to show the slow, gradual evolution of a backbone. There should be a series of fossils to show the step-by-step evolution of reptile scales into bird feathers.
2. Devise an experimentally testable theory of genetics to explain how evolution "created" a backbone or changed reptile scales into bird feathers.
3. Discover the mechanisms of genetics and embryonic development which are able to "create" complex new biological designs.
4. Show us the evolution of complex new biological designs happening in nature today.
C. Have the requirements of Section B above been achieved by evolutionary science? NO!
1. The beginning of life has been neither explained theoretically nor demonstrated experimentally.1
2. Not even one sequence of fossils has been found which demonstrates that slow, gradual evolutionary change ever "created" a single new complex biological design.2,3,4
3. There is no experimentally testable theory to explain the "creation" of complex new biological designs by evolution.5
4. The required mechanisms of genetics and embryonic development which "create" new biological designs have not been discovered and demonstrated experimentally.6
5. The "creation" of complex new biological designs by evolution has not been observed in nature. All that is observed is limited variations of what already exists.
http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_essays/essay45.htm
Certainly, Jesus "controlled" it. He allowed it to happen because it was Gods will it should happen.
Murdering him was easy and yes, physically done by men...but that does not mean God wasnt in control of it.
What was Gods plan? Clarity is important.
Was not Jesus reconciling man to God? Did not sin enter the world through Adam?
Please relate this back to evolution for me so I can understand what you beleive Gods plan was.
You left out "Bring us the broomstick of the Wicked Witch of the West South West."
I wasn't addressing you, but if you wish to jump in fine. I need no sympathy, nor do I desire any. If your effort at humor wasn't aimed at me, you should have not addressed it to me originally. I read nothing into it, just read it as you posted. If you meant nothing by it, fine, my misunderstanding. But it is nevertheless still there.
Degenerative thread placemarker.
But at least now were delving into an area where some of these Yahoo's may actually know something!
Blah blah and baloney.
BTW, while you guys were arguing all this stuff, I replaced the timing belt and water pump on my convertible. 8^>
See, we freepers CAN make good use of our time.
You've admitted to being a Presbyterian (with a a leaning towards deist-Unitarian as Thomas Jefferson has been described)...now I know your perspective.
That is all I wanted an understanding of.
BTW, did you realize Tommy believed in a Creator? At least thats the conventional wisdom.
Good quote from MR. TJ:
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-Thomas Jefferson (Notes on Virginia, 1782)
Degenerative placemarker.
They don't. But I have seen many a pretending Christian make that same lie.
The difference is that the evolutionists are speaking the truth.
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.