Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Future of Conservatism: Darwin or Design? [Human Events goes with ID]
Human Events ^ | 12 December 2005 | Casey Luskin

Posted on 12/12/2005 8:01:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 701-750751-800801-850 ... 1,101-1,137 next last
To: Fester Chugabrew
"Of course these things are observable. They are intelligently designed."

?? Natural selection is by definition, NOT intelligent design. What evidence is there that mutations, genetic recombination, the fossil record, and speciation are intelligently designed? None. You are defining EVERYTHING CONCIEVABLE as being intelligent design, a priori. This is absurd. How can a grown man make such a ludicrous statement? BTW, before you said these things weren't observable. Try to be consistent. :)

"Of course, most of the claims of evolution are by indirect observation - certainly a legitimate form of observation, but not as reliable as direct observation, such as was practiced by astrologers in times of old."

This is farcical. The only thing the ancient astrologers recorded was the movement of the planets and stars. They NEVER directly observed the alleged *forces* that were supposed to affect people's lives because of the movements of the stars and planets. They never INDIRECTLY observed these *forces* either. They are as observable as your alleged designer.
751 posted on 12/13/2005 4:47:35 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 747 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
"When an object is intelligently designed, it by necessicity entails the organization of matter for the purpose of having it perform consistently and according to the purpose the designer intended."

Only if you assume a designer a priori.

"If you are attempting to convince someone of the sensibility of your arguments it does little good to posit a fake theory that makes a mockery of conventional meanings and has no basis in reality."

Advice you could do good to take yourself.

BTW, my assertion is not a joke, really. As I already said to your earlier, it is just as testable as yours. I am just intellectually honest enough to admit it is outside of science.

"The presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws is a reality, and it is best explained by intelligent design."

Only if you assume intelligent design a priori. Otherwise, either is just as testable and logical.
752 posted on 12/13/2005 4:52:00 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 750 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

I find little fault with your assessment of my position insofar as you are absolutely correct that I begin with a set of working assumptions that color my interpretations and explanations, but I question your assumption that my position is not falsifiable. As I said, if science can demonstrate the absence of organized matter along with the absence of predictable laws, it will have a strong case for falsifying the theory of intelligent design.


753 posted on 12/13/2005 4:52:02 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 749 | View Replies]

"Third Base!" Alert and Placemarker
754 posted on 12/13/2005 4:53:05 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 753 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
It can be dizzying as the wheel keeps on turning and we keep ending up at the same spot. lol
755 posted on 12/13/2005 4:55:40 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 749 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Note the absence of any suggestion in the above definiton - the same one evos keep posting- that, in order to be a theory, there must also be evidence that can refute, or falsify it.

The suggestion is not absent. It's right there in "well substantiated". Theories are well substantiated because they're tested, and that they can't be tested except by exploring their relation to relevant data, and unless that relation is determined by substantive demands of the theory on the data: what the data must show (or fail to show) in consequence of the theory being true.

756 posted on 12/13/2005 4:58:56 PM PST by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 732 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
You are defining EVERYTHING CONCEIVABLE as being intelligent design, a priori. This is absurd.

No more absurd than assuming the opposite, a priori. In fact, it is more reasonable. Wherever there is data available for reason and senses to comprehend it is reasonable to assume the data is fashioned in such a way as to make itself accessible to comprehension and evaluation. Hence natural selection, mutations, and the like, are all manifestations of organized matter behaving according to predictable laws. I would expect this in an intelligently designed universe.

I've never doubted the presence of natural selection, mutations, new species, and the like. But I seriously doubt they account for all that is behind the history of the world as we know it. I also doubt their scientific usefulness.

The only thing the ancient astrologers recorded was the movement of the planets and stars.

They directly observed the movements of the planets and the stars, and they directly observed the behavior of people at the same time. They noticed recurring patterns of behavior at certain times of year and recorded that, too, over more than a thousand years of direct observation on the part of thousands of people. I would not be surprised if the foundations of astrology involved as much or more direct observation than Charles Darwin and all who have followed in his footsteps.

757 posted on 12/13/2005 5:04:12 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 751 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Now, given that we need to keep tabs on the behavior of others in order to be able to engage in reciprocal altruism without being continually cheated;

LOL. Kind of sums up what some people preoccupy themselves with.

758 posted on 12/13/2005 5:04:52 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 730 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

I hope you're saving that post so it can be trotted out again. It's probably needed in every thread.


759 posted on 12/13/2005 5:04:56 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 704 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
From the general theory of intelligent design science engages in specific fields of study

You're just verbally identifying the presupposition of the uniformity of natural law as the "general theory of intelligent design." (You could name it "Bob" just as easily.) First it has nothing to do with the (putatively) scientific approach called "intelligent design". Second, as I've already said, if anything it contradicts ID. So far as you philosophically generalize the uniformity of natural law, the result is naturalism. ID is nothing if not a denial of naturalism.

760 posted on 12/13/2005 5:05:35 PM PST by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 733 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
The suggestion is not absent. It's right there in "well substantiated".

Please explain to me how "well-substantiated" means "capable of refutation," or "vulnerable."

761 posted on 12/13/2005 5:06:39 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 756 | View Replies]

To: aNYCguy
[ A group of pearls composed of pearls.. is what hosepipe is Casting to the Public (swine)... whence we do not/cannot deserve these gems of wisdom... ]

You said it I didn't... hecklers are allowed but graded..
"C"

762 posted on 12/13/2005 5:12:49 PM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 632 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
As I said, if science can demonstrate the absence of organized matter along with the absence of predictable laws, it will have a strong case for falsifying the theory of intelligent design.

LOL! Now that's it. No one can be THAT dense and perverse. Seriously. I won't say I know for sure, but I'm openly positing that you are actually an evolutionist having us on for a laugh, or that your posts and persona are some manner of farce or imposture.

I'm calling you out. You don't have to reveal your real handle, but honor binds you to retire this one now that you've been fingered. Fess up and take your bows.

763 posted on 12/13/2005 5:14:08 PM PST by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 753 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; CarolinaGuitarman

People keep forgetting that Fester Chugabrew has previously stated that he starts with the assumption that he is correct, and concludes that any observations must be in line with his correctness.

When someone asserts that "everything is supernatural", where do go from there?

764 posted on 12/13/2005 5:14:33 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 749 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

The sounds of rational thought.
Thank you.


765 posted on 12/13/2005 5:15:19 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 704 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
[ The modern translations accommodate science tunneling its field of view to nature alone and use the word "philosophy" to keep an overarching meaning - all attempts of science to unseat philosophy notwithstanding. ]

Ouch... that had to hurt some calloused conciences..
Hmmmmm.. calloused conciences don't feel pain... DuuuH on my part...

766 posted on 12/13/2005 5:20:23 PM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 631 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
"You are defining EVERYTHING CONCEIVABLE as being intelligent design, a priori. This is absurd." (me)


"No more absurd than assuming the opposite, a priori. In fact, it is more reasonable." (you)

I don't assume that intelligent design is false; I know it is untestable, because it IS. I can make no scientific claims to it's truth or falseness. Science is an a posteriori method, not an a priori one. And when you define everything conceivable as being intelligent design, then there is NO WAY to test that. It cannot be a scientific theory, no matter how much you twist and stretch every word used to describe your claim. You were much less incoherent when you used to argue for YEC.

"Hence natural selection, mutations, and the like, are all manifestations of organized matter behaving according to predictable laws. I would expect this in an intelligently designed universe."

No, you ASSUME it because that is what you WISH to be. Organized matter following predictable laws and processes is perfectly consistent with a universe that *just is*. It is also perfectly consistent with a universe that was created by 1, or 2, or 1,000 designers. They could have been good, evil, indifferent. They could also not exist. All of this is consistent with the universe we see.


"They directly observed the movements of the planets and the stars, and they directly observed the behavior of people at the same time. They noticed recurring patterns of behavior at certain times of year and recorded that, too, over more than a thousand years of direct observation on the part of thousands of people."

Nonsense. They made it all up. That is why they almost never made accurate detailed predictions. They only ones that were predicted consistently were the very vague ones. Just like the astrologers of today.

"I would not be surprised if the foundations of astrology involved as much or more direct observation than Charles Darwin and all who have followed in his footsteps."

Well, since you don't believe in the utility of having to test ideas, I am sure you do believe that.
767 posted on 12/13/2005 5:23:19 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 757 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

The presence of organized matter behaving according to predictable laws is well-substantiated.

The fact that intelligent design entails the organization of matter so it behaves predictably is also well-substantiated.

The fact that the organization of matter occurs under the agency of intelligent agents is also well-substantiated.

When one is faced with these well-substantiated facts, it is hardly an unreasonable stretch to infer an intelligent agent as responsible for the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws.

The best way to falsify this theory is to provide an example of matter that is wholly disorganized and behaves entirely contrary to any predictable laws. Who's to say it cannot be done?


768 posted on 12/13/2005 5:23:34 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 760 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith
Anyone that contemplates their navel and documents any portion of the contemplation is doing science. Did you not know that?

As a up and coming young philosopher once said.

"Hey, what's it like being a rationalist in a world of empiricists? Must be uncomfortable, but I'm sure that if you think about it hard enough it will all go away. "

769 posted on 12/13/2005 5:28:16 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 722 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Science is an a posteriori method, not an a priori one.

Science partakes of both inductive and deductive reasoning. The theory of intelligent design works well in both directions, and it covers every conceivable situation in the known universe. If you think you can engage science without any a priori method then you may indeed be a candidate for belief in the spaghetti monster.

770 posted on 12/13/2005 5:29:44 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 767 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; cornelis
[ More nonsensical gobbledygook. I am still waiting for a coherent response to my question about how an untestable assumption (divine interference) is better than a testable one (natural, physical causes)? ]

SO, you're PURE are you.. pure logician..
No spooky ghost in the closet for you for three months..
there I said it - the Spirit-Nazi..

771 posted on 12/13/2005 5:31:56 PM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 642 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
[ Sorry, that last question was for Cornelis, not you. I misread who posted to me. Busy day. :) ]

Too late.. punch line already posted..

772 posted on 12/13/2005 5:33:18 PM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 645 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
"Science partakes of both inductive and deductive reasoning."

This does not mean it is not a posteriori.

"The theory of intelligent design works well in both directions, and it covers every conceivable situation in the known universe."

It therefore is completely worthless. It explains nothing in particular.

"If you think you can engage science without any a priori method then you may indeed be a candidate for belief in the spaghetti monster."

If you think that you can have a scientific theory that can never be falsified or tested, because, as you said, "...it covers every conceivable situation in the known universe.", then you haven't a clue what science is.

773 posted on 12/13/2005 5:34:23 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 770 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Nonsense. They made it all up. That is why they almost never made accurate detailed predictions. They only ones that were predicted consistently were the very vague ones. Just like the astrologers of today.

Do yourself a favor and look up a brief history on the science of astrology. You might be surprised at the amount of direct observation that was made and recorded, both on the part of stars and planets and human behavior. Of course there were elements spun out of whole cloth from time to time. Fact is, they were able to make some decent predictions, not unlike the predictions we can make to this day r.e. PMS.

774 posted on 12/13/2005 5:35:18 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 767 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
[ True enough. It's what we disagree on that makes it difficult (and a test of virtue). ]

LoL... Corny you're a ham..

775 posted on 12/13/2005 5:36:24 PM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 656 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
" SO, you're PURE are you.. pure logician.. No spooky ghost in the closet for you for three months.. there I said it - the Spirit-Nazi.."

"Too late.. punch line already posted.."

Now I can say that's nonsensical gobbledygook. :)

776 posted on 12/13/2005 5:36:33 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 771 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

"You might be surprised at the amount of direct observation that was made and recorded, both on the part of stars and planets and human behavior."

But it was all BS. They weren't really observing any forces.

"Of course there were elements spun out of whole cloth from time to time."

Most of the time.

"Fact is, they were able to make some decent predictions, not unlike the predictions we can make to this day r.e. PMS."

They only made *decent* predictions when they made very very vague ones. And what predictions did they make regarding PMS.? This aught to be good.


777 posted on 12/13/2005 5:39:25 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 774 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
It therefore is completely worthless. It explains nothing in particular.

It particularly explains why there is, on a universal scale, the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws. This is valuable because it relieves the observer from anticipating occasions where matter will behave in a way other than the intelligent designer intends. It is also valuable because it instills in the observer a sense of respect and awe for the manner and degree of detailed design with which the observable universe is imbued.

778 posted on 12/13/2005 5:43:03 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 773 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
See? It's valuable because it makes you feel good to believe it. And that's what science is all about, right?
779 posted on 12/13/2005 5:51:33 PM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 773 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
[ Now I can say that's nonsensical gobbledygook. :) ]

Alrighty... better late than logical..

780 posted on 12/13/2005 5:52:26 PM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 776 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman; Fester Chugabrew
Give it up CG, Fester's insistence on defining the world according to his own personal views is a demon even science can't exorcise.
781 posted on 12/13/2005 5:53:36 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 777 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
"It particularly explains why there is, on a universal scale, the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws. This is valuable because it relieves the observer from anticipating occasions where matter will behave in a way other than the intelligent designer intends."

You mean supernaturally? :) BTW, how do we have any clue what the designer *intends*? What's to stop the designer from breaking any of these predictable laws? Like I said, you were much more coherent when you used to argue YEC.

"It is also valuable because it instills in the observer a sense of respect and awe for the manner and degree of detailed design with which the observable universe is imbued."

I already had that awe and respect for the intricacies of natural processes without needing to invoke an untestable designer.
782 posted on 12/13/2005 5:54:35 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 778 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
" Alrighty... better late than logical.."

I was already expecting late, so I wasn't disappointed. :)
783 posted on 12/13/2005 5:56:09 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 780 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow

"See? It's valuable because it makes you feel good to believe it. And that's what science is all about, right?"

Maybe if we're talking Whole Science. Real science on the other hand... :)


784 posted on 12/13/2005 5:57:09 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 779 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
But it was all BS. They weren't really observing any forces.

You didn't do any reading, did you? No, it was not all BS. They were observing the same stars and planets we observe to this day. Of course they weren't observing the "forces" any more than you can observe the "force" of gravity. As they observed the planets they also observed and recorded human behavior. Over time they noted predictable, repeatable behaviors during certain times of year. Their observations are largely responsible for the analog clocks we've been using, divided into twelve hours.

And what predictions did they make regarding PMS.

I specifically referred to our ability to predict it these days. I suspect they also came to know and predict certain behaviors each lunar month, IYKWIM.

785 posted on 12/13/2005 5:57:21 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 777 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Future of Conservatism: Darwin or Design?

Design by God.


786 posted on 12/13/2005 6:00:47 PM PST by Baraonda (Demographic is destiny. Don't hire 3rd world illegal aliens nor support businesses that hire them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Again, an intelligent designer is a reasonable way to explain the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws.

Not all reasonable explainations are theories - in the scientific sense.

I have yet to see an evo suggest a better alternative to fit the evidence, and I have yet to see any evo enumerate those things science can accomplish without the presence of either intelligence, design, or some combination of the two.

Even the explaination that we are brains in jars imagining the universe "fits the evidence". Simply fitting the evidence is not what makes an explaination scientific. Explainations that fit the evidence are a dime a dozen.

Nothing in the scientific definition of "theory" suggests there must be evidence to confute it in order for it to be a theory.

It's called falsifiability and it is considered a requirement for scientific explainations, whether or not they become theories. The reasoning behind this is that explainations that cannot be potentially disproven cannot be tested. Therefore what use are they other than philosophical curiosities? Again I present the "brains in a jar" explaination as an example of an idle curiousity that explains the whole universe perfectly and yet is not testable and therefore cannot be a scientific theory.

Even so, I told you that the evidence which best refutes the theory of intelligent design is matter that is not organized and does not behave according to predictable laws.

How would that refute intelligent design? Why would intelligence be unable to design unorganised and unpredictable systems? An omnipotent being, as you suggested, would be capable of anything. Therefore anything we possibly observe would never disprove it.

787 posted on 12/13/2005 6:03:05 PM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 727 | View Replies]

To: Baraonda

Future of Conservatism: Darwin or Design?

Design by our Christian God.

I thought this is more meaningful and truthful.


788 posted on 12/13/2005 6:03:45 PM PST by Baraonda (Demographic is destiny. Don't hire 3rd world illegal aliens nor support businesses that hire them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 786 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Added post 704 to The List-O-Links in this section: ESSENTIAL INFORMATION ABOUT SCIENCE.
789 posted on 12/13/2005 6:05:26 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 704 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
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"

-------

Note the absence of any suggestion in the above definiton - the same one evos keep posting- that, in order to be a theory, there must also be evidence that can refute, or falsify it.

The scientific method contains an important part about testing. If an explaination cannot be potentially disproven then it cannot be tested. It's not a criticism of the explaination that this is the case, it's just that science cannot do anything with it.

790 posted on 12/13/2005 6:06:08 PM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 732 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
BTW, how do we have any clue what the designer *intends*?

That would require a revelation of some kind if it entails matters of attitude, future plans, wishes, or other attributes one might ascribe anthropomorphically. Othwerwise the only clue we have is that organized matter continues to behave according to predictable laws exactly as planned.

What's to stop the designer from breaking any of these predictable laws?

In view of the ubiquity of the designer's work I cannot think of anything, and I do not have to in order for the theory to work. I mean, causing a virgin birth, or changing water into wine, or walking on water - these are not "breaking predictable laws." They, too, are fully in accord with intelligent design, just as it is necessary with an automobile for the designer to jump in and tweak things occasionally.

791 posted on 12/13/2005 6:06:16 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 782 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

" Of course they weren't observing the "forces" any more than you can observe the "force" of gravity."

But we can test the force of gravity. We can indirectly observe it. No such luck with astrology.

". As they observed the planets they also observed and recorded human behavior. Over time they noted predictable, repeatable behaviors during certain times of year."

No they didn't. There aren't predictable behaviors based on birth date. It was much more than physical cycles they were attempting to predict; they predicted, as they do today, all sorts of things about love and romance, fortune or misfortune in wealth, the rise and fall of kings. That was the nature of the predictions made. These are all nonsense.

"Their observations are largely responsible for the analog clocks we've been using, divided into twelve hours."

That has nothing to do with astrological aspects of their work.

"I specifically referred to our ability to predict it these days. I suspect they also came to know and predict certain behaviors each lunar month, IYKWIM."

But menstrual cycles occur at all different times of the month. And this has nothing to do with astrology. Women didn't have to go to an astrologer to know when they were going to menstruate. You are now making up the nature of the astrologer's predictions.


792 posted on 12/13/2005 6:09:42 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 785 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith
The scientific method contains an important part about testing.

Yep. Let science test for cases where matter is not organized and does not act according to predictable laws. Then it will assist in establishing a non-intelligent, non-designer as explanatory of the universe as we know it.

793 posted on 12/13/2005 6:11:28 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 790 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
[ I was already expecting late, so I wasn't disappointed. :) ]

(fileing fingernails)
Are you a pick'er?.. or a grin'er?... Teeth are irrelevant..
d;-)~',','

794 posted on 12/13/2005 6:11:51 PM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 783 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Yep. Let science test for cases where matter is not organized and does not act according to predictable laws. Then it will assist in establishing a non-intelligent, non-designer as explanatory of the universe as we know it.

But such an observation would not refute an intelligent designer...

795 posted on 12/13/2005 6:16:11 PM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 793 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
"That would require a revelation of some kind if it entails matters of attitude, future plans, wishes, or other attributes one might ascribe anthropomorphically. Othwerwise the only clue we have is that organized matter continues to behave according to predictable laws exactly as planned."

So in other words, when observing and examining the natural world, all we need to do is figure out the predictable laws that govern matter. That's methodological naturalism, which is the only method that science use. And ID falls outside it's domain. The only way we can have any clue as to the designer's nature is through direct revelation. This too is outside of science.


"What's to stop the designer from breaking any of these predictable laws?

In view of the ubiquity of the designer's work I cannot think of anything, and I do not have to in order for the theory to work. I mean, causing a virgin birth, or changing water into wine, or walking on water - these are not "breaking predictable laws."

They most certainly would be examples of breaking predictable laws. It's predictable law that Virgin births don;t happen. It's a predictable law that people don't walk on water, or change water to wine. You are trying to yet again redifine a word to suit your wishes and feelings, in this case *predictable*.

The only thing predictable about your posts are that they will continue to get zanier and zanier.
796 posted on 12/13/2005 6:16:41 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 791 | View Replies]

On that note, my hand is cramping up, (might be a pinched nerve, or carpel tunnel, whatever it is, it hurts and I can't use but two fingers on my right hand.) so I am going to bed. Night all :)


797 posted on 12/13/2005 6:20:04 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 796 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp; Fester Chugabrew
From a thread last summer:

I, Fester Chugabrew, am a Young Earth Creationist. I do not accept geology, or radiometric dating, or any part of modern science that might support an old Earth or evolution. Furthermore, I do not accept creation or evolution as proper objects of science in the strict sense. Lastly, VadeRetro notwithstanding, I attribute all tendencies toward verbal putzitude to be a product of those who ignore, disavow, or otherwise impugn the authority of biblical texts.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1456767/posts?page=198#198

798 posted on 12/13/2005 6:20:55 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 781 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Seems some just prefer to choose sides, irrespective of any morality that may apply to all people. Religion (under this interpretation) becomes a prescription for perpetual war. People do things because their religion requires it, not because of any good or evil involved.


799 posted on 12/13/2005 6:22:30 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 713 | View Replies]

Placemarker.


800 posted on 12/13/2005 6:22:43 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 798 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 701-750751-800801-850 ... 1,101-1,137 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson