Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
Interesting post. I'm sitting back in my fire retardant PJs, waiting for the sparks to fly!
Hi Dave,
Can you activate your ping list...thanks!
"What I found very interesting in the article was the discussion on "information"
Yes, yes. It reminds me of what I always say to hubby (who sort of gloats when he knows something I don't, even some mere factual thing, not a big secret): You can't withhold pure information!
Also the part about just one thing being out of wack will cause hemophilia. This reminds me of something a friend told me. her coworker had vertigo and was suffering muchly from it, she sympathized with him, saying something like: it's so mind boggling when our bodies aren't working correctly and he replied: it's actually mind boggling when they do!
So, thanks for posting this. I hope I got my reply to you before the unavoidable crevo melee is in full swing!
It's Paleyism, and it's not gaining ground
If ID is supposed to be a religious doctrine, which religion does it support or is it associated with?
ID is an exciting new scientific theory.
>What I found very interesting in the article was the discussion on "information".
So do I.
Without efficient and effective transmission of the messages at the molecular level, a system fails to be.
Very interesting.
The Darwinists can explain mutations and species adapting to environmental conditions; BUT they cannot say how a single celled creature mutates into something else with a backbone, heart, lung and brain. Or how bones, teeth came about from something such as a jellyfish? Darwin predates by a century the discovery of DNA, therefore the theory is primitive at best by todays standards. And full of holes tooo.
Good article. It's a subject that Darwinists don't really understand. Nor do they understand the limits of empirical science. The subject of the origin of life traditionally has been a religious issue. It is not one that science can deal with in a conclusive manner, because the data aren't available and the events cannot be reproduced or reobserved.
Darwin's explanation was not based on an scientific evidence, but on a belief that life developed in the same way humans (usually considered intelligent beings) developed technology or literary works. He knew nothing of genetics or the conplexities of the internal operations of the cell. Physicists of his day didn't even know that atoms consisted of smaller particles. His modern disciples, instead of attempting to develop a theory looking at modern knowledge, attempt to force scientific evidence to fit Darwin's beliefs. An exception is Carl Woese who suggests that different species developed from different cells with that accumulated large amounts of DNA before growing into multicelled animals.
Advocates of I.D. use science in the same way scientists use physical evidence to attempt to determine how fires occur or the cause of death in homocides. I.D. advocates recognize the near impossiblity of complex physical systems called biological life developing without the aid of some form of Intelligence. The only dynamic physical systems that are comparable to biological life in terms of complexity of structure and operation are machines constructed by humans.
Darwinists are confused by the fact that I.D. recognizes that more than one possibility exists for the nature of this Intelligence and how the Intelligence might have produced biological life. Religion can offer definitive explanations. Science often cannot. In a murder investigation a pathologist sometimes cannot do more than state that a murder occurred through the action "of a person or persons unknown."
Definitive explanations for the identity of any Intelligence requires evidence that cannot be discovered. There is "hearsay" evidence for dieties of various names creating life, but no physical evidence to prove which diety could have done it. Extra Terrestrials are another possibility. E.T. would not have had to actually visit earth. E.T. could have placed DNA or even spores on comet or asteroid type bodies and launched them through space to develop on any planet with appropriate conditions.
Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
Both by logic and by law, arguments and discussion regarding intelligent design should be welcome in any setting, whether it be science, public schools, or both; whether it brings religious implications or not. We do NOT live in a country where such things are forbidden from discussion in any case. Neither do we live in a country where it is forbidden to argue or discuss science or other subjects in a non-theistic way.
"Facinating."
I have never heard this comparison before. The SETI astronomers have a criteria for intelligent communication, a definite, recognizable pattern that can be discerned, yet biologists refuse to acknowledge the same.
I was always led to believe that certain observations that have been made in cellular biology have supposedly led to some of evolution's strongest arguments.