Posted: 10/23/2007 8:14:45 PM EDT
|
www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf Calvert is a geologist and lawyer. Harris has a PHd in Biochemistry. Very interesting stance the ID community has established. |
|
The bottom line on ID vs Evolution is that science demands evidence. Until the ID types can produce more evidence than the Bible (and saying something is too complicated to have evolved naturally is NOT evidence), they will get no standing in the scientific community. |
You have obviously never taken an objective look at ID. It is more than quoting scripture. There is indeed science. |
The "science" I have seen associated with ID is mostly BS. Taking things out of context, focusing on one example while ignoring other examples that contradict them and trying to twist an existing fact to support their point. My oldest son is currently in a Veritas school. Most of the coursework there is excellent, but the "science"...is crap. So far, the whole book has been devoted to debunking ANY hint of evolution and proving the Bible is ABSOLUTE fact. I tell him to just shut up in class and put what the book says on the tests. At least the tests are easy... |
Not evidence to prove ID however. All there is evidence of is our temporary ignorance of all the pertinent data to fill in the blanks. |
A veritas school is a Christian School, right? (I've never heard of them before.) If so, you really shouldn't send your son to a Christian School then be surprised when they teach that the Bible is absolute fact. |
 Feel free to explain to me how exactly that would work. 
|
Would it be the same way that a man was treated who hypothesizes that those of african origin have lower intelligence than those of european origin. www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=629758 |
|
I take issue with some of Darwin's ideas. As in I have problems with Macro Evolution to a degree, but wholly agree with Micro Evolution. I'm not educated enough to debate it. That said, ID just seems stupid. God made natural law. There is nothing that prevents him from having created the earth in six days while maintaining natural law. Think about the USFA aged SAAs, but add some pitting. Trying to come up with science to back up Creation is a losing proposition and always will be. If you truly believe God is all-powerful, you would be able to read the Creation story and know full well God created a fully developed earth. I mean, how old was Adam when God created him? He wasn't an egg and sperm--that much is for sure. But I suppose it's beyond most people's ability to read that God would have created a mature earth and universe as well. |
Did I miss the part where an institution "revoked his tenure"? |
I'm sorry, you've obviously never actually looked at ID as a viable option. The science is more rock solid than the "science" the naturalists hide behind. |
www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=632245 |
Sigh... |
I was not surprised. I planned on it happening. He was prepared for it and had it drilled into him not to argue with the "science" teacher. He is a member here, maybe he will chime in on the subject. |
Can you cite this article? |
|
Having been born just four months after the launch of Sputnik I, my early life coincided with one of the greatest periods of technological and scientific development in history. Science education was being pushed heavily as a matter of national priority. Yet here we are in 2007, when at least three major party Presidential candidates say they don't "believe in" evolution. If you could go back to July of 1969 and tell my 11-year-old self that an idea like ID would get any kind of traction in 2007, I would not have believed you. But it's not real traction in the scientific world, it's mostly clever use of media hype exploiting people who somehow missed the bus on learning critical thinking. I mean no disrespect to people who choose to believe what they want to, and I recognize the importance of dissent from scientific orthodoxy. But ID proponents leave me quite unconvinced that their ideas have any real value. It's pretty clear to me they have an agenda other than advancement of knowledge. |
For example, they quote the second law of thermodynamics. Now, they don't actually understand what that law MEANS, so they draw unscientific conclusions from it. But they do quote it. |
Our national failure to teach basic scientific concepts provides fertile ground for that misapplication to thrive. |
James Watson lost his tenure? 
|
I read a ways into that article, and I'm still trying to figure out what the hell it is supposed to be. It is obviously not scientific, although they tried to make it appear like it could be printed in a science journal because they have footnotes and large words. But quoting a dead pope about how he thinks evolution is wrong is not scientific. Also the title "Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution" is misleading because "intelligent design" isn't scientific. I stopped after they bitched and moaned about how all the other scientists are mean for saying "intelligent design" won't be accepted because it isn't naturalistic, even though science deals with natural phenomena. |
We're often too simplistic. Because I don't belive in the divinity of a prophet, I'm often considered an atheist when nothing could be further from the truth. 5sub |
|
I've yet to read any creation science ID or whatever it's being called that convinced me that they are anything but masters of focused attacks on specific examples. The reason is that you can't explain any major process through it in the end. All you can do is point to scripture and god and say 'cause he did it'. You can attack a current theory and open some holes or point to areas where science has gotten it wrong but how can you have provable, repetable, and verifiable theory based on that + scripture/religion? It is not science. I'm not getting into which is right or wrong but the process I see them writing about is not science. |
BINGO! I knew a guy a few jobs ago, he was a pretty good guy, except for the creationism thing (pre-ID days). He used the second law and chaos theory ("Tornado in a Junk Yard") to try to convince everyone. When you poked holes in his little speeches, he would get PISSED! Creationism, or ID and trying to PROVE parts of the Bible has always confused me. Doesn't PROOF defy the concept of faith? If you have faith, why do you need PROOF? I always consider people who do that to be insecure in their faith. Either you have faith, or you don't. |
WHOA. This article loses all credibility when you look at the Pope John Paul II quote, as it is out of context to the point of being intentionally misleading. The article quotes him as saying:
What he actually said was:
What John Paul II is saying is that the Church accepts the idea that man's body may have evolved from pre-existing matter, but that his soul is created specially by God. This is not intelligent design by any stretch of the imagination. ETA: In the same speech, he also said:
|
Well you are one of many on this thread that are using preconceived ideas on ID and have zero clue about their stance. Um...they don't use scripture or a certain religion to prove their point. Go ahead in ignorance I guess. I guess you think Ulrey-Miller's experiment on adding electricity to a lab created primordial soup to make life related amino acids was legitimate. |
| ID was invented by certain "scholars" when they realized that people didn't buy into that creationism-thingy. The purpose of ID is to cash in on peoples lack of understanding of scientific methods. It is, and always will be, a pseudo-science kinda like astrology. |
The board that wrote this paper and other ID papers consist of a Geologist, a Biochemist, a Aeronautical Engineer, and a Mechanical Engineer. So they lack understanding of the scientific method, and they are pseudo-scientists like an astrologer? You are obviously wrong on this, so what else are you clueless about. By the way I have a masters degree in Geoscience so I understand the scientific method quite well. |
[boondocks]The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence![/boondocks] |
And until science produces evidence of the non-existence of God, I shall ignore those who claim that is the case. <--- Believer in ID and evolution, without conflict. |
A lack of evidence to the contrary is not confirming evidence. Disprove the existence of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc... Irrationally believe whatever you want, just don't claim that you're correct while the rest of us are wrong. |
|
Proving Intelligent Design is impossible and pointless. Either there isn't a God and evolution is truly just the result of random events, or there is a God, but He doesn't want us to know for sure that He exists. Either way, the evolution model is working fine for all practical purposes (like medicine and agriculture). Maybe God did that on purpose so humanity could have reap the benefits of knowing the Truth, but without making faith as effortless as believing in gravity. WWJD? If He really wanted us to know for sure, He could do so in a very effective way that would leave no doubt about His existence. If He wanted us to not know for sure, He could hide His influence over creation and make it completely indistinguishable from pure evolution. The point of ID is really just to prove the existence of God with scientific facts. Not to find the Truth, or whatever IDers may claim to be doing. The only acceptable answer is that the Judeo-Christian God made everything: If there was any evidence found that did indisputably prove Intelligent Design, it actually just proves that we were created by a very advanced non-deity. Maybe Martians came to Earth and put a blueprint in the DNA of the first bacteria. Then maybe they died out or went to some distant part of the universe. It sounds ridiculous, but that would give us an intelligence great enough to design all life on Earth but is currently lacking either the means or desire to just appear to us and say "I'm here". An all-powerful God without the desire to be proven would have better ways of hiding. Is THAT what the IDers are looking for? Would they accept THAT explanation of ID? No God but dead aliens? |
| I really don't get why people bother to argue about stuff like that. No one can prove God exists any more than they can prove that He doesn't. Have faith or don't have faith, it is up to you. Both sides of the debate look like bufoons when they try to enlist science in what is fundamentally a theological question. |
|
I believe in ID: Incompetent design An intelligent designer would do a better job. Instead, we get: * In the human female, a fertilized egg can implant into the fallopian tube, cervix or ovary rather than the uterus causing an ectopic pregnancy. The existence of a cavity between the ovary and the fallopian tube could indicate a flawed design in the female reproductive system. Prior to modern surgery, ectopic pregnancy invariably caused the deaths of both mother and baby. Even in modern times, in almost all cases, the pregnancy must be aborted to save the life of the mother. * In the human female, the birth canal passes through the pelvis. The prenatal skull will deform to a surprising extent. However, if the baby’s head is significantly larger than the pelvic opening, the baby cannot be born naturally. Prior to the development of modern surgery (caesarean section), such a complication would lead to the death of the mother, the baby or both. Other birthing complications such as breech birth are worsened by this position of the birth canal. Birth would hypothetically be easier if the birth canal passed through the front of the abdomen. * In the human male, testes develop initially within the abdomen. Later during gestation, they migrate through the abdominal wall into the scrotum. This causes two weak points in the abdominal wall where hernias can later form. Prior to modern surgical techniques, complications from hernias including intestinal blockage, gangrene, etc., usually resulted in death. * Barely used nerves and muscles (e.g. plantaris muscle) that are missing in part of the human population and are routinely harvested as spare parts if needed during operations. * The use by pandas of their enlarged radial sesamoid bones in a manner similar to how other creatures use thumbs. * The pointless existence of the appendix in humans, also the corresponding potentially fatal condition of appendicitis. The appendix, which is highly developed in herbivores, is meant to aid in the bacterial digestion of cellulose. Since people use fire and heat to cook now the appendix has become useless. (It has also been proposed that the appendix is involved in development of the immune system within the first year after birth, but subsequently has no function. However some people have congenital absence of their appendix without any reports of impaired immune system function.) * The existence of unnecessary wings in flightless birds, e.g. ostriches. * The existence of apocrine sweat glands in the armpits. Unlike the sweat glands in all other parts of the body, the sweat glands in the armpits produce sweat that contains proteins and lipds. This causes yellowish stains on clothing, and also creates an odor when bacteria start to digest the proteins and lipids. No other sweat glands release proteins and lipids through sweat, and as a result, sweat from other parts of the body is virtually odorless. * The route of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is such that it travels from the brain to the larynx by looping around the aortic arch. This same configuration holds true for many animals, in the case of the giraffe this results in about twenty feet of extra nerve. * Portions of DNA — termed "junk" DNA — that do not appear to serve any purpose. * The dystrophin gene is the largest ever found in nature — 2.4 million DNA base pairs; or 0.1 percent of the human genome. Its only known function is to inhibit muscular dystrophy; and such a large gene is highly susceptible to harmful mutations. * The prevalence of congenital diseases and genetic disorders such as Huntington's Disease, and the inability for DNA to self-repair, leading to poor genetic performance, hereditable malformation and eventual death. * The common malformation of the human spinal column, leading to scoliosis, sciatica and congenital misalignment of the vertebrae (vertebral subluxation) * Photosynthetic plants that reflect green light, even though the sun's peak output is at this wavelength. A more optimal system of photosynthesis would use the entire solar spectrum, thus resulting in black plants. * The existence of the pharynx, a passage used for both ingestion and respiration, with the consequent drastic increase in the risk of choking. * The structure of humans' (as well as all mammals') eyes. The retina is 'inside out'. The nerves and blood vessels lie on the surface of the retina instead of behind it as is the case in many invertebrate species. This arrangement forces a number of complex adaptations and gives mammals a blind spot. (See Evolution of the eye). Six muscles move the eye when three would suffice. * Crowded teeth and poor sinus drainage, as human faces are significantly flatter than those of other primates and humans share the same tooth set. This results in a number of problems, most notably with wisdom teeth. * Almost all animals and plants synthesize their own vitamin C, but humans cannot because the gene for this enzyme is defective (Pseudogene ΨGULO). Lack of vitamin C results in scurvy and eventually death. Defective vitamin synthesis pathways are a hallmark of "higher" animals — of which many are predators — because the prey accumulates vitamins that stems either from the eaten plants or are self-synthesized in the captured individual. Thus, higher animals are mostly unable to return to a purely "vegetarian" lifestyle; while conservation of such pathway genes is of no apparent cost to the animal. * If rodents do not regularly wear down their incisors, which self-sharpen by chewing on wood, such upper and bottom teeth curl toward the rodents' skull and drill into their brain. Above ahamlessly stolen from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design BSW |
|
" * The pointless existence of the appendix in humans, also the corresponding potentially fatal condition of appendicitis. The appendix, which is highly developed in herbivores, is meant to aid in the bacterial digestion of cellulose. Since people use fire and heat to cook now the appendix has become useless. (It has also been proposed that the appendix is involved in development of the immune system within the first year after birth, but subsequently has no function. However some people have congenital absence of their appendix without any reports of impaired immune system function.)" This one needs updating. As of about last week, they found a use for the appendix as a store house of "backup bacteria" in cases where the intestinal flora have all been wiped out. |
Yeah.... it's my preconceived slip that's showing. Go on, tell me what else I believe. |
God is not worried about perfection of the body while on earth. It is clear from the bible that man is a "fallen" creature. The only perfection will come after judgment and those in Christ are raised with a new, perfect, infalible body as Christ did. |
It falls on deaf ears. You either fall in line and accept it as valid or you are attacking it. There is no middle. I can simply make the point that trying to prove the existence of an all powerful God who can bend the universe to his will can not be done or undone by science and now I'm one of those terrible people with preconceived notions that the 'intelligence' in the design they argue for is God. I guess I was gravely mistaken. |
It was "Miller-Urey". As to the electricity, yeah, there is none of that stuff in nature, no sir...  And, yeah, I approve. PLEASE read more than your ID book before you post. Here is a good starting place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment |
It's possible the guys who wrote the article are familiar with the scientific method but simply hope to cash in on the ignorance of some people. They would be just as credible if they claimed the earth was flat. Evolution is accepted as a fact by all serious scholars and anyone who tries to advocate that the belief of ID is a science is either ignorant or has a hidden agenda. |
Oh, I thought this was the intelligent design discussion. However your reply doesn't sound like it's based on science or the scientific method. BSW |
It is more the "funding, etc...." side of the equation. Watson's words disowned by own institute Lab suspends DNA pioneer Watson |