Posted on 11/11/2005 9:27:07 PM PST by MplsSteve
Citizens in Dover, Pa, did the right thing this week by voting out most of its school board for its anti-science, pro-intelligent design stand. Voters there rejected a school leadership group that had tried to discredit the theory of evolution and teach students intelligent design (ID), the notion that lifeforms are so complex that a higher being must have designed them.
Under the leadership of the current board, Dover schools became the first in the nation to require that attention be paid to ID.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
I'd be shocked that you are suggesting that we don't need science at all, but then you already demonstrated a penchant for espousing the indefensable when you stated that slavery was perfectly acceptable.
When I am saying that Evolution is not an empirical science I am not discussing the sequence of species found in the fossil record. Rather I am most specifically referring to the naturalistic explanation of how and why this came about. It is this part of the theory that is untestable and therefore not an empirical science. This does not mean that it is not a proper science, only that it is a speculative one, not an empirical one. Speculation and conjecture are a necessary part of the scientific endeavor. Indeed, without them science could not advance. Natural Evolution should just be honest about the limits of its study and the speculative nature of its conclusions.
Does the inability to know exactly how the pyramids were built suggest they have a supernatural or alien origin?
Absolutely. After all, the Japanese, Koreans and Germans will always be around to handle that evil, darwin-tainted technology and science stuff. We can always strive to lead the world in the export of televangelists and missionaries!
I don't know about nauralism being coextensive with science, but explain how science can be done without assuming that phenomena are consistent over time.
It depends on what you classify as "genes". The actual sequence similarity is closer to 90% if you count introns, exons, and regulatory regions.
"Even plants and humans share some of the same genes."
And this shows what? Every program I've ever code has a while loop. Every web page starts with <html>. However, I don't believe in the Universal Common Ancestry of either web pages or computer programs.
Please show evidence for any complex adaptation being generated _specifically_ through random mutation + natural selection.
Most of the past 150 years of biology has only done neo-Darwinian speculation. The hard science has generally dealt with other forms of change.
"Evolution says nothing about the origin of life. You've been told this before, so why are you lying about it still?"
Universal Common Ancestry relies on a specific model of the origin of life. You can't say that evolution is separate from the origin of life without losing Universal Common Ancestry as well.
Actually, there is a difference between the _theory_ of gravity and the _law_ of gravity. A theory is a conceptual model, while a law is a mathematical model. The idea that a "theory" is somehow higher in scientific circles than it is in the general public is incorrect, and a literature search shows that scientists do not restrain themselves to using it strictly for things that are essentially proven.
Theories are more _useful_ for scientists because they are basically hypothesis generators. Using a particular model of thought, you can generate a testable hypothesis. However, this says nothing about the validity of the theory, or that "theory" in science imputes more validity on a subject than it would in society at large.
"Actually, he stated it perfectly, unless you want to start arguing the difference between 'higher being' and the 'intelligence' that cause these mysterious processes to occur."
One of the main points of ID is not even about biology. It is about intelligent causes (including humans as intelligent agents) being of a different category than material causes, and not being reducible to them. In addition, Dembski claims that certain effects are only attributable to intelligent causes. Therefore, we can examine systems and determine if intelligent causes had a role in their development.
Cite evidence and examples, please. I've heard this claim before but have never been presented with anything than handwaving and generalizations...
The role of intelligent causation as the core of ID ideas goes all the way back to Phillip Johnson. He makes his case very well in his book Reason in the Balance
"I don't know about nauralism being coextensive with science, but explain how science can be done without assuming that phenomena are consistent over time."
The problem is that there is a difference between experimental science and forensic science. Doing science doesn't require any sort of assumptions -- if something changes over time your experimentation will tell it. However, looking back, there is no way to tell if, historically, things have changed without experimentation. Therefore, there is no way to look back without pre-assuming a whole lot of what is plausible.
Normally, science tests what is plausible, and works from data. But when looking back, what is plausible is pre-assumed, and cannot be tested to the degree that it can in the present.
Sometimes these things can be tested, but ultimately even these tests still import a whole lot of plausibility assumptions in their testing.
"Maybe a divine agent zap-poofed the first life forms into existence. How would this falsify common descent?"
I didn't say it falsified it. I said that the proofs for common descent required a specific view of the origin of life. Those who want to separate the issues of evolution and origin of life cannot really do so, because the arguments _for_ common descent are based on a specific view.
Please show me a proof of common descent that doesn't require a specific view of the origin of life, and I'll retract my claim.
"several appeals to argument from incredulity"
Really? Point it out.
I'd be shocked if you could present one shred of evidence that I said we don't need science at all.
In this case I do believe that the term "We" refers to Christians because that is what we (Christians) have been commanded to do by God. If you have a complaint about this please take it up with God.
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.