Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This view is one of the fraudulent adaptions of the concept of intelligent design emanating from such as the Discovery Institute or the Creation Science frauds. The generic concept that they have co-opted for their religious purposes is the one Einstein referred to when he said that the true wonder of reality is that we can understand it at all. Its intelligibility is what makes the main argument for design . . . not how intelligent any specific outcome is for any specific purpose.
And to think that Mystic IS a man of Faith...Even though our views differ he is highly intelligent and calls it as he sees it...I think he would agree that an organization that attempt to prove something through deceptive means does more harm than good...
...and you seem to think that Behe is not a reputable source? I really don't find personal off-hand swipes to be very convincing. Would you care to offer up any evidence or reasons as to why you apparently consider Behe to be a scientist of ill repute? Is it because he simply brings a different view to the table? Could it be that he lacks the proper academic credentials - in your view? Perhaps his work not been subject to sufficient scrutiny under the peer review process?
Please clarify.
In terms of the ID debate, it strikes me as being simple logic. If one is willing to acknowledge that there actually is such a thing as design in nature, then it naturally follows that there would logically need to be a designer of some sort. As I now understand it, ID is not an argument for God or theism as much as it is a simple willingness to follow the empirical evidence wherever it leads.
He's ill reputable because someone else said so?...
His "work" has been reviewed, and much of it has been rejected....Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community, and his own biology department at Lehigh University published an official statement opposing Behe's views and intelligent design. ID is a fraud, plain and simple.
Well, Richard, whether you are willing to listen and debate or prefer to bat away all and every piece of input with one -liners, is your choice. The input is there for anyone who wants to look at both sides of the argument.
To me it is a theory that is based on inference just as evolution is. ID supporters have their variations. It is true that some do posit that theory and try to find whatever seems to support it. Others do go the other way around. The same can be said of evolution supporters though. Some are just as closed minded and may test of argue with the focus on showing that their theory is the "truth".
To me both cannot prove anything. Many on both sides interpret their facts to suit their views.
If anyone wants to claim that the Rossetta Stone evolved I venture to guess that most everybody will label that individual as ignorant or some other label. When you think about it, no one can factually show it did not evolve. Inference is the closest to prove that someone carved what is written in that stone. The same can be said about evolution and the claim that there is an intelligence behind systems in nature. Yet, many atheist are so closed minded that do not consider that a natural complicated system could possibly had some intelligence intervention. It seems that admitting that possibility is like admitting they are wrong, the same goes with theists. Notice in this forum how pretty much, with maybe some rare exception, everybody does not make a comment like "well, it is an interesting point, let me look further into it". No, it is wrong and that is it!
I read about Behe and it was interesting how the belief that his theory is disproved. To me it is an interesting tool to test whether there was a causal intelligence behind natural systems. I do not think it proves it, just that the possibility of intelligence intervention may exist.
I venture to guess that there are opponents of ID that are not truly honest. By their rhetoric about facts only seems to have an ulterior motive, dislike for religious views. It is no different than many of the ID supporters ulterior motive is to prove that God exist.
In the end both sides "preach" the "truth" as they see it. Look at this forum. There are atheists that make it their mission to "preach" God does not exists even when the topic has nothing to do with the existence of God. To me it is just as much preaching their views as they accuse theists of doing. Yet, many show disdain toward theists telling others their views. To me that is a double standard disguised under the banner of "true science", "facts only", etc. They take the opportunity to "show" the "truth" when in reality it is an assumption on their part on what they believe also. Take care.
What assumptions? Evolution is an accepted scientific fact that gives us products and technology that even you probably use regularly...ID is not even science.
Thinking ID makes any sense is like thinking it makes sense to light yourself on fire. Evolution is a verifiable fact of life and all the evidence points to it. ID is nothing but unsubstantiated fiction based on lies and twisted logic.
The theory of evolution has to be potentially false to fit the criteria of a scientific theory. A scientific theory is more or less a philosophical explanation bridging facts about the material world.
So far we know--speaking from a stand point of biology not of religion--evolution with descent with modification as the process by which humankind (Homo sapiens) got here is not a fact. May lines of evidence point to it though.
In evolution an "Intelligent Designer" can be a human being. When a human breeds dogs and artificially selects for traits he's "Intelligently Designing."
So, since you are intelligent, and you seem to imply it is fact Homo sapiens evolved from some earlier primitive primate, you shouldn't have any trouble "Intelligently Designing," through artificial selection, a Homo sapiens out of several generations of offspring resulting from a chimpanzee.
Fundamental to observable science, especially with organisms, is the principle of repeatability through tests. That's one reason scientists publish their papers. It allows other scientists to test their results and conclusions by performing the exact same tests and seeing if the results are repeatable.
But a lot of science today is not really "observable science" as much as science that draws inferences/conclusions from various findings or data. Findings like the fossil records.
I believe in Intelligent Design. That's to say I believe in God. I have no reason at this time to doubt the theory of evolution but the more I learn about the theory in college the more akin the Genesis story about one male offspring of Adam and Eve's going out to populate a non-populated earth. I try to wrap my head around a single cell (birth out of mere randomness) being the metaphorical "Cain."
Actually, Cain was a multicellular creature, a Homo sapien, so, him populating planet earth with humans sounds less fantastical than that single cell that birthed humans and every exotic life form on earth. (I've read different accounts as to how many human cells the human person has, and each account gave different numbers, buts lets just for the sake of here say the human body is typically made up of a trillion human cells--not the flora of bacteria in an on humans included.)
Here's a Chimp. You an some agnostic scientists should have no trouble deriving a human from its ancestral line over time.
That would probably be both real and difficult science. So, it's easy to do and teach science this way to kids:
Which reminds me of the similar way in which religions teach children (i.e., via images drawn etc.):
I came to biology with a very strong belief in evolution (I still have a pretty tight belief in it). In part because I was told it was true and simply parroted that without really knowing nothing about it. Consequently, I found studying biology paradoxically, simultaneously, strengthened and weakened my belief in the theory of evolution.
It is a good theory. And by all evidence seems to be right. But there are so many gaps and the fantastical tale of all life on earth having a common single cell ancestor (the metaphorical biblical "Cain") that it makes you wonder.
(Although Cain in Genesis oddly went out to a populated earth that to my mind shouldn't have been populated if Adam and Eve were the first two people.)
There are a lot of information gaps in Genesis however there are a lot of other mssgs. that fill in those gaps, unfortunately, they have been deemed heresy...
Evolution is a scientific theory which is what a layman would consider a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
No it is not verifiable...
Yes, it is. You can go out and test it. This is why ID is a morally bankrupt concept. You have to ignore the facts and accept obvious dishonesty in order to believe it is true.
He's ill reputable because someone else said so?...
Voilà !
Last edited by tigetmax24; 08-17-2013 at 09:52 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
