design theory defeats itself

[katherine the great]

katherine the Great:

Thought you might get a chuckle from this....

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

That is funny. I am a sucker for good satire!

I have very mixed feelings about this issue though. My personal belief in God has not been challenged at all by my gradual understanding and acceptance of evolutionary theory. Nothing I've read about ID though convinces me that this should be taught in science class. I do believe in God as our creator, but I think it happened by a process that includes RANDOM mutation and natural selection.

[Makarios]

I'm not sure pyramids are a good example.  There are numerous supporting artifacts and documents that prove that the pyramids were not made through natural forces.  They obviously look designed, but there is also ample archaeology that proves that they were.

The point is that there are some things that cannot ever be explained by natural causes. Whether the bacterial flagella are among those things is a matter of debate, but one cannot dismiss the notion a priori because design is not 'scientific.'

[Makarios]

I do believe in God as our creator, but I think it happened by a process that includes RANDOM mutation and natural selection.

All of the leading scholarly advocates of evolution are atheists (Dawkins, Gould etc.) They pretend evolution is compatible with theism for political reasons, but make no mistake: they are advocating a materialistic worldview. Dawkins wrote in The Blind Watchmaker that Darwinsim made it possible for him to be an intellectually satisfied atheist. Doesn't that tell you something?

[katherine the great]

The point is that there are some things that cannot ever be explained by natural causes.

Apparently, the majority of the scientific community disagrees with that statement.

[Makarios]

The point is that there are some things that cannot ever be explained by natural causes.

Apparently, the majority of the scientific community disagrees with that statement.

They are wrong. The majority of scientists used to think eugenics was correct too: http://www.crichton-official.com/fear/

[katherine the great]

I do believe in God as our creator, but I think it happened by a process that includes RANDOM mutation and natural selection.

All of the leading scholarly advocates of evolution are atheists (Dawkins, Gould etc.) They pretend evolution is compatible with theism for political reasons, but make no mistake: they are advocating a materialistic worldview. Dawkins wrote in The Blind Watchmaker that Darwinsim made it possible for him to be an intellectually satisfied atheist. Doesn't that tell you something?

Do you think there were no atheists before Darwin? I simply don't believe that there is some vast scientific atheist conspiracy. Real science is impartial.

[Makarios]

Do you think there were no atheists before Darwin? I simply don't believe that there is some vast scientific atheist conspiracy. Real science is impartial.

I don't think it is a conspiracy.

Impartial? Why did so many advocate eugenics?

[katherine the great]

The point is that there are some things that cannot ever be explained by natural causes.

Apparently, the majority of the scientific community disagrees with that statement.

They are wrong. The majority of scientists used to think eugenics was correct too: http://www.crichton-official.com/fear/

Maybe so, but then you are back to teaching religion in public school.

[katherine the great]

Do you think there were no atheists before Darwin?  I simply don't believe that there is some vast scientific atheist conspiracy.  Real science is impartial.

I don't think it is a conspiracy.

Impartial? Why did so many advocate eugenics?

I said REAL science. Eugenics was based in some scientific fact. The problem came when people decided to take it upon themselves to determine which human beings were fit for life.

[Makarios]

Maybe so, but then you are back to teaching religion in public school.

That is a separate issue. Just because there is evidence of design in the universe does not mean we will teach religion in schools. The evolutionists want to conflate these issues as a scare tactic.

[Makarios]

As far as atheism and evolution are concerned see: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v...olutionists.asp

[Jon Haugo]

I posted this on the Evolution thread:

"Hi everyone,

I hope you guys don't mind that I copy/paste something that I used before. I can't really commit to any thread right now due to my shcedule.

When discussing the origin of Life we have to ask ourselves how all the right things came together. All life on earth has the ability to store and process information and replicate. We ask ourselves

[Knight who says Ne]

Maybe so, but then you are back to teaching religion in public school.

Yeah. SO?

and don't give me bunk about establishment clause because teaching the idea of God does not establish a religion. Thats 20th century bolonia.

[thesometimesaint]

katherine the great:

I have no problem with God using a logical process(evolution) to create a logical product(us). But I agree with idea that my "Beliefs" should not be taught in science classes.

[Loki]

1&0's shuffled at random, a sufficent number of times can express anything. Given the size and time of the Universe, it is inevitable that life would arise. This doesn't imply a creator at all, just an existence.

[Knight who says Ne]

I will repeat - for my own purposes - what I said in my first post and no one has bothered to refute, instead relying on insulting Inteliigent Design as silly or a joke.

All the evidences that support the theory of Evolution also supports the theory of Intelligent Design. The difference between pure Evolution and Intelligent Design is that the latter fills in the blanks of evolution, particularly those that evolutionsist shrug their shoulders with, as well as overcoming the very real problem of probability (a science), meaning the odds of pure Evolution being sucessful to produce the complex environment that exist today is so over whelming as to make pure Evolution highly unlikely if not wholey impossible.

To teach one theory without the benefit of equally plausable theories is to turn our schools into an institution of indoctrination.

[thesometimesaint]

loki:

It still takes a logical entity to recognize the pattern in the randomness.

Perhaps the greatest scientist that ever lived Sir Issac Newton was a devote believer.

[Loki]

Intelligence doesn't always require a higher intelligence. If so, where does it end? God needs a God, n+1, etc.

Can't intelligence be a natural byproduct of the Universe?

[cdowis]

>Given the size and time of the Universe, it is inevitable that life would arise.

What a remarkable statement. So, you are proposing that life developed "in the universe", and somehow landed on earth?

Or are we to restrict this development of life to just a few million years here on earth. That would greatly reduce the time and size of the event.

And the probability of complex live developing during this short time period and location is...... what? Not so inevitable, after all, I would suppose.

[thesometimesaint]

Loki:

Within the LDS theology that is entirely possible but not substantiated.

Not necessarily a product of. But as a "Pre-Existing" condtion of the universe.

[Loki]

>Given the size and time of the Universe, it is inevitable that life would arise.

What a remarkable statement. So, you are proposing that life developed "in the universe", and somehow landed on earth?

Or are we to restrict this development of life to just a few million years here on earth. That would greatly reduce the time and size of the event.

And the probability of complex live developing during this short time period and location is...... what? Not so inevitable, after all, I would suppose.

What makes you so sure that this planet is so special? The sun is an ordinary star, untold billions of them exist in the universe.

Complex life is the symettrical partner to entropy. The greater organization of matter/energy is a natural consequence to the Universe.

Are you proposing that the earth is a few million years old at least? That would directly contradict the bretheren's teaching of our earth, now, wouldn't it?

[spinner]

I will repeat - for my own purposes - what I said in my first post and no one has bothered to refute, instead relying on insulting Inteliigent Design as silly or a joke.

All the evidences that support the theory of Evolution also supports the theory of Intelligent Design. The difference between pure Evolution and Intelligent Design is that the latter fills in the blanks of evolution, particularly those that evolutionsist shrug their shoulders with, as well as overcoming the very real problem of probability (a science), meaning the odds of pure Evolution being sucessful to produce the complex environment that exist today is so over whelming as to make pure Evolution highly unlikely if not wholey impossible.

To teach one theory without the benefit of equally plausable theories is to turn our schools into an institution of indoctrination.

Fair enough, I will also post my previous response to this point, which you did not answer.

"You misunderstand the scientific process if you think that you can make a claim (i.e. there is an intelligent power behind evolution) and then demand that a skeptic such as myself prove you wrong. There is a logical and well established principle behind evolution: that random variation as a result of natural genetic mutation is the catalyst of organic change. For a proponent of ID to inject the idea of a controlling intelligent power into the equation and then demand science prove him wrong is simply not scientific. I could, using your approach, demand that schools teach that little green elves may cause gravity until science can prove that claim to be false."

Now, an addendum. It is not enough in the scientific community that an explanation sound plausible; you need some sort of proof for your own theory before it can be accepted. Such proof consists of much more than stating a bunch of conundrums that you think are problematic under the current theory. Until ID can present some proof for the idea that god guides evolution, it is not science and in no way, shape, or form deserves equal time in the classroom with evolution.

[Knight who says Ne]

"You misunderstand the scientific process if you think that you can make a claim (i.e. there is an intelligent power behind evolution) and then demand that a skeptic such as myself prove you wrong. There is a logical and well established principle behind evolution: that random variation as a result of natural genetic mutation is the catalyst of organic change. For a proponent of ID to inject the idea of a controlling intelligent power into the equation and then demand science prove him wrong is simply not scientific. I could, using your approach, demand that schools teach that little green elves may cause gravity until science can prove that claim to be false."

Thank you for your reply. No maybe you could go over my posts and find where I asked anyone to prove me wrong. I simply believe that ID should be taught as an equally plausable theory.

Now, an addendum. It is not enough in the scientific community that an explanation sound plausible; you need some sort of proof for your own theory before it can be accepted. Such proof consists of much more than stating a bunch of conundrums that you think are problematic under the current theory. Until ID can present some proof for the idea that god guides evolution, it is not science and in no way, shape, or form deserves equal time in the classroom with evolution.

The same evidences that support evolution support intelligent design.....

[spinner]

Yes, but ID requires an additional proof--that god did it. Evolution has its catalyst which has been demonstrated--genetic mutation and natural selection. If you want to add god into that process, then you need to provide some proof of that involvement for your assertion to be a legitimate scientific theory.

[Knight who says Ne]

Yes, but ID requires an additional proof--that god did it. Evolution has its catalyst which has been demonstrated--genetic mutation and natural selection. If you want to add god into that process, then you need to provide some proof of that involvement for your assertion to be a legitimate scientific theory.

...The difference between pure Evolution and Intelligent Design is that the latter fills in the blanks of evolution, particularly those that evolutionsist shrug their shoulders with, as well as overcoming the very real problem of probability (a science), meaning the odds of pure Evolution being sucessful to produce the complex environment that exist today is so over whelming as to make pure Evolution highly unlikely if not wholey impossible.