 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike Hough" <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote in message
news:498736d9$1@news.povray.org...
> That says it all, really. While scientists must provide sound experimental
> or empirical evidence to support a hypothesis, ID proponents merely point
> out the things that scientist do not know for certain and use that to
> dismiss everything else. Something you often hear in the scientific
> community is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The only
> logical conclusion one can make is that ID is not a science.
Not really, I am afraid, for if absence of evidence (that ID is science) is
not evidence of absence, whether ID is science or not would remain an open
question. The much more rigorous principle to apply in such cases is the "if
it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck" principle.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Behe actually spoke at our church once.
His talk said he supported John Paul II's view of evolution. I asked him if he
felt that a process of "change through descent" could be responsible for
speciation. He replied that it has.
What's so bad then?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn wrote:
> Behe actually spoke at our church once.
>
> His talk said he supported John Paul II's view of evolution. I asked him if he
> felt that a process of "change through descent" could be responsible for
> speciation. He replied that it has.
>
> What's so bad then?
According to his book, all the species that now exist were "programmed
into" the first lifeforms when the Intelligent Designer first built
them. Over time, these species came and went, according to the
Designer's original plan.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> According to his book, all the species that now exist were "programmed
> into" the first lifeforms when the Intelligent Designer first built them.
> Over time, these species came and went, according to the Designer's
> original plan.
Well, if you make your program well enough, and let it run for however-many
aeons, and it spits out huge varieties of things, couldn't you say that, in
a way, they were "programmed into" the first things?
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> According to his book, all the species that now exist were "programmed
>> into" the first lifeforms when the Intelligent Designer first built
>> them. Over time, these species came and went, according to the
>> Designer's original plan.
>
> Well, if you make your program well enough, and let it run for
> however-many aeons, and it spits out huge varieties of things, couldn't
> you say that, in a way, they were "programmed into" the first things?
He made it sound as if all the species that would ever exist, and the
exact time that they would arrise and die out was pre-ordined in the DNA
of the first lifeforms. In particular, that the "unused" parts of the
DNA are actually the encodings for later lifeforms.
All of which is *highly* implausible. How is the supposed Designer
supposed to know how the climate of the planet is going to evolve over
the next thousand millennia? Or, for that matter, how do you encode
several hundred billion genomes into just one (deterministically)?
Of course, he could be right... but it's not falsifiable.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> How is the supposed Designer supposed to know how the climate of the
> planet is going to evolve over the next thousand millennia? Or, for that
> matter, how do you encode several hundred billion genomes into just one
> (deterministically)?
Those would fit with the definitions of omniscient and omnipotent. One nice
thing about religion is that you can make the creator anything you want.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Hough wrote:
>> How is the supposed Designer supposed to know how the climate of the
>> planet is going to evolve over the next thousand millennia? Or, for that
>> matter, how do you encode several hundred billion genomes into just one
>> (deterministically)?
>
> Those would fit with the definitions of omniscient and omnipotent. One nice
> thing about religion is that you can make the creator anything you want.
Indeed. If we assume that God was the designer, all of this is quite
easy to accept. But this guy is trying to claim that this is a real
scientific theory. As in, a mere mortal could have done all this.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Hough wrote:
> From the wiki article: Behe eventually testified under oath that "There are
> no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design
> supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed
> rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system
> occurred"
>
> That says it all, really. While scientists must provide sound experimental
> or empirical evidence to support a hypothesis, ID proponents merely point
> out the things that scientist do not know for certain and use that to
> dismiss everything else. Something you often hear in the scientific
> community is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Except when they're talking about whether there's a God. Then absence
of evidence--and evidence then is defined to exclude any observation
that cannot be duplicated--*is* evidence of absence.
> The only logical conclusion one can make is that ID is not a science.
On the other hand, it is a valid criticism of a theory to point out that
it does not explain certain observations, and that at times biologists
explain the existence of a certain feature by stating nothing more than
that it evolved.
Indeed, neither abiogenesis nor macroevolution have actually been
observed in nature (or accomplished in the laboratory); they are both
assumed to have happened without any direct supporting evidence.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> activist federal judge
>
> I remember once the supreme court said something like
>
> "Activist? Of course we're activist. You come and stand in front of us
> and ask us to make a decision. Who do you expect to act, Donald Duck?"
>
> How can you be an "activist" judge, if your job is to make the decision
> about what was intended by a particular law?
That's easy. You pretend the law requires "interpretation," and issue
the interpretation that fits what you wish the law said.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> That's easy. You pretend the law requires "interpretation," and issue
> the interpretation that fits what you wish the law said.
It burns! It BURNS!! >_<
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
