Posted on 09/30/2005 2:09:51 PM PDT by truthfinder9
Life must come from life. I am not saying that offspring may not be smarter than parents. What I am saying is that the forces of nature are incapable of producing life. Even seeds must come from a plant, they do not come from dirt. The wind will move dirt but is incapable of producing life.
An intelligent cause will produce a intelligent effect. An non-intelligent cause will produce a non-intelligent effect.
Go look at the chemical structures of more complex materials like Zeolites or clays. Surely those were designed? No? They are far more elaborate than...say...a Glycine molecule, which is actually pretty easy to create in abiotic conditions.
The idea that some molecules must have been designed, while other "obviously" are not, is a crock of s**t.
Ah, the isssue is must more complicated than what you describe. He is not so much whining as he is being attacked and his responses are being selectively filtered by the media (ironic, no?), at least right now. You seem to have first hand knowledge of what is going on at ISU (and so do I), but the fact is that Gonzalez is being attacked as indirectly being a threat to academic freedom is over the top. I will talk to Gonzalez next week and report my impressions to you. Hold your worst fire for a week, please.
So now you are saying that the government forbids people from coming to Christ. How is a scientist who understands the ontological reality of Christ in violation of a nonexistent church/state issue?
I have received tutelage on the subject from a couple of helpful folks, and look forward to an argument that requires more links. :>
Reductionist theory must assume a primary or uncaused cause. The Big Bang is an example. The origin of life is another. That, before which, nothing can be connected. Dark matter is a third.
Suppose a flagellum was bridging a brook....
Uncaused events are happening all around you, every minute of every day. Every time a radioisotopic atom decays, it does so spontaneously, uncaused and unbidden. What's one more uncaused event, among a nearly infinite number of such occurrences daily?
The idea that some molecules must have been designed, while other "obviously" are not, is a crock of s**t.
The point I made is that your example of the order of water molecules doesn't rise to the complexity of a machine with irreducible parts.
First, you can remove any number of the molecules without reducing the function of the machine. Thus, your ice machine has no irreducible core.
Second, the arrangement of your machine is not complex; it is the perfect, natural result of water getting cold. It doesn't begin to compare with the complexity of any machine.
Third, the function of your machine is rather accidental and happenstance. That is not to say that a block of ice laying across a ditch couldn't be used to walk across, but it is saying that the function has nothing to do with the reason the block exists as it does. This sets up nicely your claim that without a designer to call it functional, you have no function, and thus without an appeal to the designer, you have no IC or ID. The problem, though, is that in a machine such as flagellum, it doesn't matter who the observer is--the machine does work. It has a function independant of an observer coming along and walking across it. And further, whether flagellum evolved or was designed, it has a specific function that justifies its existence. Your block of ice can only claim this if something with intelligence comes along after the fact and invents it.
When you say "the idea that some molecules must have been designed, while others 'obviously' are not, is a crock..." you are correct. That is why no one on the ID side says it, and why your reference to complex clays is a strawman.
Mistook you for MHal; didn't notice a different person was answering, thus there are numerous "yous" that refer to someone else. You shouldn't mind, though, because it seems you were picking up where MHal left off.
Nice...It took me a minute to realize you weren't making a clever reference to the "Scaffolding" argument against IC.
There are even more witches who burn religious people.
You didn't respond to my question. Name a generally accepted scientific theory that has a 'religious view surrounding it'
ID is religion in a cheap tuxedo. The scam is blown, largerly because of the words of its proponents. It's not a scientific theory, it's a proseytizing mechanism for fundamentalist protestants. Dembski says so. I believe him.
I agree. They are not the same. And, no, I am not talking about determinism. The plan, as I understand it, is a dynamic process.
Your challenge to produce a generally accepted scientific theory that has an religious view surrounding it is evolution in two ways.
First, critics allege evolutionism is itself a religion (and if you study what makes a belief set a religion, it fits just as well as American Civil Religion and any number of other non-theistic religions.)
Second, in that evolution is surrounded by religion due to the exact scenario I started this post with. You have no doubt come across people who are athiests who support their atheism by their belief in evolution, which makes God unnecessary. Does their atheism disqualify them from being evolutionists? Does it alone make their claims invalid? Obviously not. It is up to the ID side to prove them wrong. And it is up to your side to prove ID wrong.
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.