Skip to comments.We're not in Kansas anymore (Krauthammer slams Intelligent Design)
Posted on 11/18/2005 7:58:33 AM PST by UncledaveEdited on 11/18/2005 6:57:43 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON -- Because every few years this country, in its infinite tolerance, insists on hearing yet another appeal of the Scopes monkey trial, I feel obliged to point out what would otherwise be superfluous -- that the two greatest scientists in the history of our species were Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, and they were both religious.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
He meant that Science doesn't work on proofs it works on evidence. Proofs only exist in Math and Whiskey.
I believe most people, perhaps erroneously according to your post, interpret evolution as the explanation of how life arose on this planet. You know, from the primordial ooze to me and you.
I think what is confusing me here is Darwin's reference to Origins of Life. I understand that he is looked at as the father of the theory (though others had proposed it previously).
Well, you have to keep in mind that Darwin isn't the Theory of Evolution just as Einstein isn't the Theory of Relativity. And just like Einstein speculated about other things not necessarily related to his main work, so could Darwin speculate about issues which are not covered by the ToE.
The Theory of Evolution is by it's very nature a theory that covers the dynamics of a system (i.e. imperfect self-replicators) and not it's initial conditions (i.e. how those replicators arose). It seems that this is the point that so many creationists seem not to understand.
I understand that he is looked at as the father of the theory (though others had proposed it previously).
No, not quite. There have been other theories of evolution like that of Lamark but Darwin was the first to propose the one that is accepted today because it is supported by several independent lines of evidence.
However, he wasn't the only one who came up with this theory. Alfred Russel Wallace was a contemporary who had basically the same idea, although not as developed as Darwin's. An exchange with Wallace prompted Darwin to publish his theory sooner than he had intended.
> I never claimed that an airplane is self-replicating
As well you shoudl not have. Because *that* is the difference between an airplane and an ameba. Life replicates, and in the process often gets more complex through *entirely* material processes.
> the evolutionist claims that a "mechanism" is very different from a process guided by "intelligence." But is it really?
Often, yes. The "mechanism" through which water flows uphill is sunlight evaporating lake and ocean water, the water vapor being lower density than air, floating up, gathering in clouds and raining back down. Here is a mechanism through which energy is added to a system and work is done and complexity and information are made, but not the slightest shred of intelligence anywhere in the process.
Non sequitur. Unless you're claiming that "The Iliad" is authentic history and thus evidence that the Olympian gods were real critters.
Would you claim Caesar's Commentaries as authentic history? What is more reliable the Gospels or Caesar?
There. Fixed it.
Why would you think that?
Why not? At least we know he lived. We don't know if there is a God.
Weren't you claiming to be a Christian or am I confusing you with someone else?
When I was baptized I was told I was saved for life. So I guess I have that base covered, for whatever it is worth.
Someone has to keep the kooks off the kool-aid.
Name ONE that says that evolution of man did not occur.