Originally posted by frogstompI sumbit to you, for your reading pleasure, a website that defends the flagellum better than I could.
just a couple of views that answer Behe fairly nicely:
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/mgm/complexity.html
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm
Originally posted by kingdanwaThe second site I posted is Murray Gell Mann writing about complexity.
I sumbit to you, for your reading pleasure, a website that defends the flagellum better than I could.
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm
It's also one of the reasons I don't take arguments from incredulity serious.
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeYou are correct - I said nothing about proof of ID or supernatural causes. But you missed my point; what we have here is strong evidence. You cannot simply discard these arguments of complexity as "propoganda", or whatever you would like to call it, simply because they do not prove an alternative. I am not saying that evolution is false and ID is correct. I am pointing out the foolishness and paranoia that drives scientists to label anyone who points out contradicting evidence as motivated by religious notions, or as a conspirator against rationality. This is simply a cheap way of avoiding some difficult evidence.
As a response to a Supreme Court ruling I'd say that ID was indeed some sort of propaganda. Furthermore, highlighting interllectually complex aspects of science does not proove supernatural intervention, it merely highlights nterllectually complex aspects of science.
There are problems for many aspects of science. They are opportunities for research rather than proof of ID
Originally posted by yousersThere is no shortage of controversy in evolutionary biology. Scientists do not cry foul if contradictory evidence is presented. The more usual response is to examine the evidence and to design experiments that might resolve the contradiction. Controversy is the essence of science.
You are correct - I said nothing about proof of ID or supernatural causes. But you missed my point; what we have here is strong evidence. You cannot simply discard these arguments of complexity as "propoganda", or whatever you would like to call it, simply because they do not prove an alternative. I am not saying that evolution is false and ID is correc ...[text shortened]... onspirator against rationality. This is simply a cheap way of avoiding some difficult evidence.
On the other hand, should the new evidence be shown to be facile its proponents will not cry foul either and they certainly won't wage a twenty year politically motivated campaign aimed at the lay public in an attempt to discredit science for idealogical reasons.
Originally posted by yousersIm amused when the believers in the genesis creation story try to adopted ID to disprove the TOE , since ID actually is in just as much conflict with the creation story of the OT as the TOE is.
You are correct - I said nothing about proof of ID or supernatural causes. But you missed my point; what we have here is strong evidence. You cannot simply discard these arguments of complexity as "propoganda", or whatever you would like to call it, simply because they do not prove an alternative. I am not saying that evolution is false and ID is correc ...[text shortened]... onspirator against rationality. This is simply a cheap way of avoiding some difficult evidence.
Evolution and ID can co-exist.
Genesis can't co-exist with either.
Originally posted by frogstompExcellent point on ID not fitting with Genesis. You say evolution and ID can co-exist. How is that?
Im amused when the believers in the genesis creation story try to adopted ID to disprove the TOE , since ID actually is in just as much conflict with the creation story of the OT as the TOE is.
Evolution and ID can co-exist.
Genesis can't co-exist with either.
Originally posted by yousersWithin science conflicting theories can easily co-exist and frequently do. What is unusual about the ID vs natural selection is that ID is promoted by groups with a highly political agenda The other unusual facet is the way in which ID is heavily promoted in the popular media in the US. It is virtually unheard of in Europe where fundementalism does not hold the same political clout. The ID argument is being used to undermine rationalism and liberalism in a way that echo the Nazi use of racialist scientific theories.
Excellent point on ID not fitting with Genesis. You say evolution and ID can co-exist. How is that?
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeOk, great. The Christians are trying to take over the world, starting with biology. Their major goal is to destory rationalism in favor of a religious agenda. Hahaha. Let me restate:
Within science conflicting theories can easily co-exist and frequently do. What is unusual about the ID vs natural selection is that ID is promoted by groups with a highly political agenda The other unusual facet is the way in which ID is heavily promoted in the popular media in the US. It is virtually unheard of in Europe where fundementalism does not ...[text shortened]... ine rationalism and liberalism in a way that echo the Nazi use of racialist scientific theories.
Why can evolution and ID coexist, but not ID and creationism?
Originally posted by yousersI don't think they are starting with biology. Even I'm not that stupid. The rest of it has a ring of truth.
Ok, great. The Christians are trying to take over the world, starting with biology. Their major goal is to destory rationalism in favor of a religious agenda. Hahaha. Let me restate:
Why can evolution and ID coexist, but not ID and creationism?
How can rival theories coexist...because the hypotheses that divide them can be tested with real data. This is the stuff of science.
ID and creationism? They are two sides of the same coin as far as I'm concerned, one promoted when the US Supreme court prevented the teaching of the other as science.
1 edit
Originally posted by yousersmainly in the sense that ID and evolution carry no moral baggage. it's only when it's in the hands of "creation scientists" that ID becomes something other than what the Deists had intended it to be. You see ID has been around for centuries.
Excellent point on ID not fitting with Genesis. You say evolution and ID can co-exist. How is that?
so has the has the non ID view:
The Physical World
45 The universe is infinite because it has not been produced by a creator. The causes of what now exists had no beginning.
46 There is an infinite number of worlds of different sizes: some are larger than ours, some have no sun or moon, others have suns or moons that are bigger than ours. Some have many suns and moons. Worlds are spaced at differing distances from each other; in some parts of the universe there are more worlds, in other parts fewer. In some areas they are growing, in other parts, decreasing. They are destroyed by collision with one another. There are some worlds with no living creatures, plants, or moisture.
47 The material cause of all things that exist is the coming together of atoms and void. Atoms are too small to be perceived by the senses. They are eternal and have many different shapes, and they can cluster together to create things that are perceivable. Differences in shape, arrangement, and position of atoms produce different things. By aggregation they provide bulky objects that we can perceive with our sight and other senses.
48 We see changes in things because of the rearrangement of atoms, but atoms themselves are eternal. Words such as ‘nothing’, ‘the void’, and ‘the infinite’ describe space. Individual atoms are describable as ‘not nothing’, ‘being’, and ‘the compact’. There is no void in atoms, so they cannot be divided. I hold the same view as Leucippus regarding atoms and space: atoms are always in motion in space. ...... Democritus born c.458 BCE
now while Democritus might have been proven wrong on details,,by scientists that had research equipment and mathematic tools that the ancients couldn't even have dreamed of, he certainly was far ahead of his time as it's truely amazing how close he got to 20th century science.
Leucippus, the founder of atomism, probably as a response to Zeno's paradox.