Posted on 12/12/2005 8:01:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Coprolites.
If nature (red in tooth and claw) doesn't have direction, purpose, values, or preferences, it in no way follows that I don't have those things, or that other people don't have those things, or that humanity as a whole doesn't have those things.
Value requires a valuer; I am a valuer. And whether or not my particular values matter to the stars in their courses--and I expect they do not--they matter very much to the person you asked, which is me.
Second, when you say MUCH better, what is the basis of that value judgement?
Effectiveness. The science of immunology prevents disease better than any trust in the commanding hand of the Divine. In order to prevent, say, influenza pandemics, scientists must have an understanding of the ways in which, say, the H5N1 virus can evolve. The Bible is reticent on this technical point, and if the future course of the virus is simply a matter of Divine Whim, then all we can do is wait and pray.
But there's still no standard of value in the cold numbers that show immunology to be effective. So OK, try this: I prefer not to be sick. Don't you?
An assertion bordering on the bizarre...
I understand exactly where you're coming from and agree. I was a delegate to my state Republican convention in 2004. I imagine ID and creationism would have won at the convention if a vote had been taken. The delegates were good people, but on this issue they would have been wrong.
I hope ID does not become more of a wedge issue than it already is.
"A requirement of a scientific idea is that it makes predictions which, if false, will discredit the idea. What experiment, or observation, could disprove ID? If there are none (and none have yet been proposed by the ID advocates), then it's not science."
OK, here's a prediction which, "if false, will discredit the idea." No macroevolution will ever be observed in the lab (or even in nature, for that matter). Many others could be given as well, of course. But I'm sure you will continue parroting your nonsense anyway.
The emperor has no clothes.
How does observing macroevolution in the lab discredit the idea that species on earth were intelligently created?
If we are the product of evolution then where, pray tell, did "those things" come from if they are not from undirected natural selection.
Go back to article. O.E. Wilson has written:
Ethics as we understand it is an illusion
I believe that logic requires that we agree.
You say that purpose, direction, values and preferences have meaning to you. But they are the result of mutation and selection. Those without that specific mutation didn't survive. There isn't any "real" meaning beyond the mutation. The fact that we think there is more to them ended up being an advantage in the fight for survival. But the cat is out of the bag. Really, there is nothing outside the box.
Agreed. So I await your explanation as to how evolution and morality coexist. That is, morality that is more than just an evolutionary advantage.
You seem to be very knowledgeable on the subject of the general theory of organic evolution (evolution). Perhaps you can help me with a project. Several years ago on the Johnny Carson show and in Time Magazine Dr. Carl Sagan stated unequivocally that evolution was no longer a theory, but a fact, and that he would be willing to debate anyone on the matter. Dr. Thomas Warren immediately accepted the challenge, whereupon Dr. Sagan conveniently hid under his desk. Both men are now deceased. Though not qualified myself to conduct such a debate, I have nonetheless challenged prominent evolutionists to meet on the polemic platform to defend their doctrine through the years. I regularly propose to provide a champion with a Ph.D. in microbiology to refute the theory. None have responded. I always make it clear that no reference to God, religion, or ID would be involved; only the merits of the theory pro and con. I am willing to bear some of the expense in the organization and conduct of the debate and the ensuing publication.
My position is that evolution is simply the religion of the secularist and is not science. I just think that the secularist can not tolerate the thought that there is a creator who is both superior and anterior to him.
The theory is not observable; it is not demonstrable in the laboratory; and it is not falsifiable. In the opinion of many it violates the second law of thermodynamics, the mathematical law of population statistics, and certainly the biological law of biogenesis. However, I would leave these and arguments concerning irreducible complexity etc. to the debate rather than this thread.
My goal is to simply expose the theory to some critical analysis with the hope that somehow the public schools will at least acquaint the students and teachers with it's weaknesses.
So, if you or a champion of your choosing would consider such a debate just let me know.
And, I am new, so flame away. And, if someone will let me know what all the abbreviations mean I would appreciate it.
See my home page and judge for yourself whether these views are compatible with my "personal religion." You should have noted by now that I consider the word "supernatural" to be arbitrary. Science can explain anything in "natural" terms, but that does not change the nature of the object described. For things to revert to a so-called "natural" state the elements would have to disintegrate into NOTHING.
"How does observing macroevolution in the lab discredit the idea that species on earth were intelligently created?"
Think about it. Try to imagine what Richard Dawkins would say if macroevolution were observed in the lab. I'm sure that would abundant enough evidence for him -- given that he is already convinced *before* such an occurrence was ever observed!
I need to get to work, so please do not interpret any lack of reply on my part as a tacit agreement with any posts that follow here.
This only shows you are not familiar with the crevo debate. All the criticisms you list above are rooted in some kind of error. I recommend you follow Patrick Henry's list of links on the subject, or visit This page which explains the error behind each of those arguments and more
If that's what you think you're debunking, you've touched down on the wrong planet, I'm afraid.
Sorry, your position is wrong.
Take a look at these definitions (from a google search) and try again:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)
Observation: any information collected with the senses
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith
Faith the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
Based on this, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
If Marxism is not a religion then what is it?..
Intelligent Design must be WORSE than Marxism..
Anybody know of where, when, any proponent of Marxism had the slightest problem with "Evolution"?.. Marxism and Marxists are always EXTREMELY active in "adjusting" what is taught in schools.. never has any Marxist had a problem with Evolution..
Must be because Marxists are so science oriented, and want science to be pure..
Ya think?.. On the other hand the reverse could be true.
What is macro-evolution and how does it differ from micro-evolution? Give an example of what you would expect macro-evolution to produce if it ever did occur in the lab.
I have another prediction. ID will never develop a set of tests that will allow us to objectively determine if an object was designed by a nonhuman designer. I also predict IDists will never be able to show that 'complexity' is a design only phenomenon.
So, you don't think a debate would be in order? I would be interested in the tested hypotheses.
Sorry to butt in, but what you said does not make sense.
Evolution and morality coexist because morality developed through evolutionary mechanisms. Why should morality need to be more than an evolutionary advantage to coexist with evolution?
"First, happiness, effectiveness and prosperity only exist under the evolutionary illusion. They can be nothing more than natural selections. To assign meaning to them is erroneous."
I don't find this to be well thought out, or even sensical. Evolution (as creationism would be if it were correct) is something that deals with origins, and extremely long time scales. It has little to do with day-to-day human experience, which is where "happiness, effectiveness, and prosperity" have meaning.
"Second, when you say MUCH better, what is the basis of that value judgement? Much better, how? Evolution is undirected - their is no ultimate goal or purpose. In fact, there is no such thing as "purpose". To suggest otherwise is to purposely forget what has been learned. We could teach students anything and, ultimately, it makes no difference."
Whether or not there is "purpose" to evolution, is irrelevant to whether we have purpose as people, as a nation, or as a species. Evolution got us here, in no way does it determine what we do now. The only relevance I see is that evolution endowed us with a strong survival instinct which we should apply at the personal, national, and global level. If this is truly done with "enlightened self interest" we'll see a real golden age dawn.
"If all humans died tomorrow, so what?"
The human species will have been an evolutionary dead end. I hope it doesn't happen.
On the other hand, I suppose you're hoping for such an event to fulfull your religious beliefs. How sad.
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.