Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
With about 70 billion stars and as many as 100 million life forms (at least here on Earth), the universe is a stunningly complex place. Did all of this matter evolve independently, or was it guided by a larger force – as proponents of intelligent design believe? With the debate raging in living rooms, classrooms and courtrooms, the stakes are high when it comes to determining intelligent design’s merit.
The statements that the designer need not be supernatural deserve to be flagged for some-head-scratching questions. There is nothing illogical in such conceptions, but I have to wonder what is being indicated: this opens the gray area of kind of gnostic demiurge or polytheistic divinity. Could conservative Christians be hosting such notions.
A far more likely candidate for resolving the confusion lies in considering that biological theory, eliminating teleological conceptions, is incomplete and leaves itself open to design arguments for that reason. Natural teleology as a conceptual extension to biology, as indicated, for example, by the philosopher Kant, would explain the design confusions that the ID group has created. Biochemcial systems are chock full of teleological subsystems, which are also appear as causal systems. For the distinction between G-design (supernatural) and N-design (a natural teleological process) see:
http://darwiniana.com/2008/09/10/n-design-g-design-from-world-history-and-the-eonic-effect /
- nemonemini September 13, 2008 3:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Just when you think you have seen and heard it all, the Landon's 'eonic effect' pops up again.
So what is the eonic effect?
--
A frequently asked question is, What is the eonic effect? The term simply refers to a basic set of three turning points or transitions visible in world history, the birth of civilization, the classical period, with its remarkable so-called ‘Axial Age’
--
Of course... How could we have missed such an obvious 'effect'...
Sigh
- PvM
September 13, 2008 6:36PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Both sides in the Darwin debate are bluffers. The point of the eonic effect is that the ONLY closely observed instance of 'evolution' is that in history itself. The relationship of 'history' and 'evolution' is tricky, yet discoverable, and in the end an immense clarification.
The eonic effect provides a real glimpse of 'evolution' at a particular stage of history/culture. And it voids the claims for natural selection.
It also flunks the design argument.
The Old Testament is a record of one aspect of the eonic effect, the Axial Age, and that period/zone of history falls into place, without design arguments!
Check out, http://eonic-effect.net
May as well get to work on it. It's the only evolution your going to discover in this century.
- nemonemini September 14, 2008 9:49AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
--
May as well get to work on it. It's the only evolution your going to discover in this century.
--
Ah the expected promissory note.
Thanks but no thanks, I have read about the 'eonic effect' and found it lacking in scientific relevance.
Compare this with the immense progress made by evolutionary science even in the last decade.
- PvM September 14, 2008 10:15AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Evolutionary science may have progressed but it has not explained the evolution of man, or history.
The presumption that biology explains the emergence of man is great.
It needs a new understanding
- nemonemini September 14, 2008 12:37PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
--Landon
Evolutionary science may have progressed but it has not explained the evolution of man, or history.
--
Neither has the eonic effect really, which at best seems to be a descriptive approach to historical events. Nevertheless, all of this depends on what one means by the 'evolution of man'. Science has uncovered a vast amount of fossils and other evidence that show how man evolved form a common ancestor. Does this explain all the aspects of human evolution? I doubt it.
--Landon
The presumption that biology explains the emergence of man is great.
It needs a new understanding
--
Why?
- PvM September 14, 2008 12:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
--the Eonic website claims erroneously
The one thing Darwinists don’t want to find is such a non-random pattern, anywhere. The data for seeing such a pattern has reached critical mass only in our own times, and can be highlighted by simple inspection using careful periodization. The conclusion is inescapable: this structure demonstrates the existence of an evolutionary driver operating where least expected. There is nothing complex in the method. Throw a sine curve at world history. The results are direct, and show a degree of correlation we cannot ascribe to chance.
---
In fact, Darwinists are looking for non-random patterns and have found it, which is why evolutionary theory and the evidence are so exciting where the evolutionary drivers included such concepts as variation, inheritance and selection. Of course, we cannot ascribe it to chance, which is exactly what evolutionary theory suggests.
And yet the proponent of Eonic effect suggests that a 'new understanding' is needed. I agree, as far as the understanding of evolutionary theory is concerned.
- PvM September 14, 2008 12:57PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
--Secrets of the genome, January 21, 2006 By John C. Landon "nemonemini"
"The work described in this book has led me to the conclusion that natural selection must work not just on each individual mutation, but also on the very mechanisms that generate genetic variation-as it does on all bio- logical functions. The research discussed in this book leads to the conclusion that mutations are not all accidents and that mutations are not always random. Our genomes, and those of other life forms, have evolved mechanisms that create different kinds of mutations in their DNA, and they reuse and adapt useful pieces of DNA, even to the point that there are genomic 'interchangeable parts.'
Biochemical mechanisms can arise that tend to focus genetic variation, resulting in "hot spots" of genetic change at certain places in the genome."
---
In a review of "Darwin In the Genome: Molecular Strategies in Biological Evolution" by Lynn Caporale
Indeed, to understand what science means by 'random' when it applies to evolutionary theory, one has to do more than claim that random must mean without pattern. Such a confusion, which could have laid to rest quickly, can cause one to hold to a flawed assumption that evolution is 'random', when all evolutionary theory (not necessarily Darwinism) observes that the source of variation is 'random' with respect to its immediate effects given an environment.
Of course, that evolutionary processes themselves can improve mechanisms of variations, or that variation comes in hot spots, is nothing new, let alone at odds with how science uses the term 'random' when it comes to evolution.
- PvM September 14, 2008 1:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
It is certainly true that the eonic effect has a descriptive aspect: before explaining evolution you need to know what it is, what it 'looks like', how its 'macro' factor can be detected. Darwinism never observes deep time, and simply throws an explanation in that direction, sight unseen. The eonic effect shows an example of evolution in action
- nemonemini September 14, 2008 2:25PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
The response by the Discovery Institute says that the "methodology for detecting design (which I discuss in my first opening statement) is entirely empirical and scientific." and "As William Dembski explains: "Intelligent design is the science that studies signs of intelligence."
Unfortunately, a review of the entire corpus of actual scientific journal articles reveals an inconvenient truth: The so-called empirical scientific truths of intelligent design creationism seem to be entirely missing.
A disinterested observor searching for signs of intelligence in the search for signs of intelligence would find statements such as this 2003 quote from Philip Johnson, one of the originators of the intelligent design movement, on a Christian radio talk show: "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit, so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."
And here's a 1996 quote from Philip Johnson: "This (intelligent design) isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science. It's about religion." This is as good as it gets, straight from their prophet's mouth.
And as Judge Jones ruled in 2005, "We have concluded that intelligent design is not science, and moreover that intelligent design cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Judge Jones also stated: "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the intelligent design policy."
Intelligent design creationism may have religious merit, but it certainly has utterly no scientific merit.
- Paul Burnett September 13, 2008 3:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
--Paul
Unfortunately, a review of the entire corpus of actual scientific journal articles reveals an inconvenient truth: The so-called empirical scientific truths of intelligent design creationism seem to be entirely missing.
---
Of course, since ID makes no scientifically relevant positive predictions relevant to intelligent design, it is not surprising that the 'best' of ID is still ranking as mediocre in science. I'd love to discuss with some ID proponents what they consider to be ID's most impressive contribution to the cause.
- PvM September 13, 2008 6:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
To sneer at AynRandInstitute and Ayn Rand's philosophy is to fail to address the growing primary reason why people are deciding "God" is not an explanation of anything.
I won't flesh out the arguments from philosophy here. But, if you care to know why "God" is not included in the growing philosophy of the present and the future, I point you to Rand and Leonard Peikoff for the details.
The view that there is nothing in existence that can give meaning to the anti-concept "supernatural" comes from several points in Objectivism.
The Primacy of Existence places all consciousness in a dependent position on reality, cannot be the creator of it.
The full acceptance of existence, as the place where you live and as the concept which names the nature of the place where you live renders invalid the notion that there is any alternative to it.
The law of identity makes notions like design, created order, creation, miracles, creation by speech (the Word) all meaningless. There's literally nothing which gives meaning to those notions, once you grasp that everything has an identity and behaves according to its nature.
Reason is the capacity for knowledge and the barrier past which any claims of supernatural revelation cannot pass. To claim that God told you somethng which reason cannot identify or validate means that you think you somehow received knowledge which your mind is not capable of getting.
Reason again is the instrument of proof and insists that, before an honest man will "believe" any idea, he will view and understand the proof for that idea. And, proof means showing how the idea is a logical conclusion drawn from evidence coming from the world in which we live. In all of world history and among the best thinkers of mankind, no proof of the existence of God or any other supernatural entity has been provided.
So, from the simple basis of the nature of reality and the inescapable nature of human knowledge-gaining (cognition), God simply fails to put in an appearance. There is no evidence to support such a supposed being.
Whether you are a (groundless) believer or a person of sincerity, devoted to reality and reason, you need to know where this conclusion about "God" comes from. So, you owe it to yourself to take up the study of Rand's Objectivism to find out. Because, it is the foundation for all persuasive thinking in the next century and forever after that.
- pbeaird September 17, 2008 7:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
You're lucky not enough people know or care enough about your religion to throw out opinions based on it presented as science, philosophy, logic, or fact on the spot. Claims that the world was created in exactly 6 days exactly as the Bible says it was have just as much credence as your religious argument. NONE! There is nothing persuasive about Objectivism, especially when it's disciples cite it as fact without any evidence other than, "Well Ayn Rand said so." Come back to me with arguments not based on Objectivism, and we'll talk. The sad part is, Ayn Rand seems like she was a very rational and logical person. It is a shame that her modern disciples have so perverted that image.
- richardsonkr January 21, 2009 9:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Hello Richard,
I admire your wealth in cash funds. That being the kinder way to explain you chasing my comments all over the Internet in order to add hateful and irrational comments about whatever I've written.
Your statements about Objectivism are without any meaning of any kind until you define the word "religion" which you apply to a philosophy of reason, not faith, of this world, not supernaturalism, of morality, not the sacrifice of a deity in order to save sinful mankind, of disbelief in God, not abject theism. If you want anyone, including yourself, to know what you are talking about, define your key terms.
Oh, and while you are at it, consult a reliable text on logic, on reasoning fallacies, on epistemology...because, if you think that Ayn Rand's Objectivism does not rest on proof, you have a gap in your knowledge of what constitutes proof and how one goes about establishing it.
Don't be so angry and hasty, Robert. You are not a sinner, don't behave like one.
- pbeaird January 21, 2009 9:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Quote from this argument:
| This argument is false because ID doesn’t make claims
| about chains of designers because design detection can
| be made without investigating questions about the origin
| of the designer.
However, in the argument titled "ID Uses Scien. Method; Infers Design by Testing Positive Predictions", Casey Luskin writes:
| Scientists employing ID compare observations of how intelligent
| agents act when they design things to observations of phenomena
| whose origin is unknown. Human intelligence provides a large
| empirical dataset for studying the products of the action of intelligent
| agents.
In other words, ID does make claims about the designer. ID makes the claim that the designer is (like a) human.
Considering that humans aren't even close to making anything even remotely as complex as a human being, how can one look for human design in life? Would the designer not have to be nearly infinitely more complex than any of its creation? In other words, you either have no idea how to detect this mysterious designer's design, or you have to make groundless assertions about the creator (as you did when you claimed that human design can be used to find design in life - but how can we detect human design in life when humans have never designed life in the first place?).
(As a side note, does the Discovery Insitute itself not claim that a mere cell is more complex than anything we've ever created? Note that this is not really important to my argument here, but it's interesting to note.)
The dishonesty continues:
| Their first argument is false because in historical sciences like
| ID, causes must be sufficient to explain the observed data.
We have already established that ID is not a historical science because there is no data to use as a foundation of design detection. The best the Discovery Institute can come up with is a groundless assertion that human design is like the "design" of life, but this has clearly been shown to be false. In fact, human designs are always completely different from any life, although we have lately tried to learn from nature to improve our own technologies.
| Their argument thus imposes an arbitrary rule that
| scientists can never detect design if the designer is
| complex—leading to preposterous outcomes in fields
| such as archaeology, code-breaking, environmental
| science, or the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence
| (SETI) Project.
This is false. In the case of archaeology, code-breaking, and so on, we do have actual empirical data to use for comparison. Not so with life, which we do not know who "designed", if anyone. Unless, of course, the Discovery Institute wishes to make groundless assertions about the nature of a designer, which contradicts their mantra that we don't need to know anything about the designer to know his design!
As for the SETI project, they don't actually know what they are looking for. They don't even know if it exists or if they'll be able to find if it if exists. At least they are honest enough to admit that. The ID movement isn't, and keeps making up bogus arguments.
- WayOfTheDodo September 19, 2008 1:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
This is a reply to, "In other words, ID does make claims about the designer. ID makes the claim that the designer is (like a) human."
His quote is "ID doesn’t make claims about chains of designers" and not "ID doesn’t make claims about designers". The difference is "chains of".
- Screen Name September 2, 2009 12:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
What is the relevant difference? I can't see how "chain" or not makes a difference. The point is that he says that they don't make claims about the designer, but they do.
- WayOfTheDodo September 3, 2009 7:13AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
No ID does not claim the designer is human like, but since humans are the only known intelligence, that is the only thing they have to compare ID to.
- mike1948 September 3, 2009 3:37PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
| This argument is also false because it imposes an
| arbitrary and preposterous rule that designers of
| "biological complexity" can never be natural. The
| fact that humans engage in genetic engineering
| refutes their arbitrary rule.
Once again, the Discovery Institute asserts that the designer of all life must be human(-like). This means that they once again make assumptions about the designer, which they have previously claimed makes no difference.
| Their third argument is false because it is plain
| and obvious that biological complexity need not
| require a supernatural designer.
Here, it is seemingly claimed that the nature of the designer need not be known. However, as we know, in the "historical sciences", one looks for existing known patters. We know the capabilities of the designer. We know the nature of the designer. Thus, for ID to be remotely like the historical sciences, it must know something about the designer.
Just another fundamental contradiction in ID.
| ID isn’t focused on studying the designer, but rather studies
| natural objects to detect design
As has already been established, you cannot detect design without having data to compare it to. And to compare it to data, you must know the capabilities of the designer.
| Moreover, ID proponents have been very clear that
| their theory does not try to address religious questions
| about whether the designer is natural or supernatural.
As shown in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, Intelligent Design is just creationism with a new name, and with the "Goddunnit" parts carefully hidden to pretend that it's got nothing to do with religion.
However, as the conservative, Bush-appointed (on recommendation from creationist senator Rick Santorum) Judge Jones found, ID is indeed religious in nature.
| To elaborate, by focusing on the designer, The
| Ayn Rand Institute misrepresents ID
This is being repeated over and over, but it does not change the fact that the historical sciences rely on knowing the abilities of the designer. We know it's been designed because we can measure it against other data from the same designer which we know to be designed.
- WayOfTheDodo September 19, 2008 1:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Science is testable.
Suggest an experiment that would prove Intelligent Design.
- sharky September 24, 2008 5:10PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
If Intelligent Design says nothing about the supposed Designer, then of what value is it? If the Designer created life millions or billions of years ago, what was His purpose in doing so? What is/was the Designer like? Did the Designer give specific instructions to his creations, as most religions teach? The ID promoters delibrately leave such questions unanswered in their official pronouncements about ID. Why?
That's assuming that the objection above is to be taken at face value. I do not and think the Discovery Institute is just bull$#itting us. They avoid the questions about the Designer because of the church/state separation issue. That's just a cop-out. Science does not end with an inference of design, ever. If it did, Darwin himself would have not bothered to come up with his natural selection theory. You either go on to determine the nature of the Designer or you conclude that your preception of design was flawed because you cannot do the former.
Intelligent Design is not only scientifically meaningless, it is theologically worthless as well. If I were still a Christian, I'd scorn those hypocrites at the Discovery Institute just as much as I do now as an agnostic.
- Dale Husband October 10, 2008 2:13PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Discovery Institute writes, "...by focusing on the designer, The Ayn Rand Institute misrepresents ID: ID studies natural objects to determine if they bear the informational signatures that reliably indicate design by an intelligent cause. ID doesn't study designers."
The "informational signatures?"
Only conscious beings produce signatures. And saying that a consciousness exists necessarily presupposes that existence exists. You can't have consciousness without first having existence.
Discovery's objection here reveals that he's claiming the primacy of consciousness over existence - a contradiction.
Paraphrasing Ayn Rand's statement on the primacy of existence: existence exists, and consciousness is the faculty of perceiving (not creating) existence.
To look for signatures is to look for a consciousness that came before/was apart from/was outside of/etc. -- existence.
Jargon like "informational signatures" does not a valid concept make.
- Peter M December 2, 2008 11:48PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"The "informational signatures?"
Only conscious beings produce signatures. And saying that a consciousness exists necessarily presupposes that existence exists. You can't have consciousness without first having existence."
So what? If consciousness and existence are the same thing what difference does it make?
"Discovery's objection here reveals that he's claiming the primacy of consciousness over existence - a contradiction."
Could've sworn that "existence" as used by the DI refers to everything (Life, Physics, Universe itself, etc) except the intellect behind them, nothing contradictory there.
"Paraphrasing Ayn Rand's statement on the primacy of existence: existence exists, and consciousness is the faculty of perceiving (not creating) existence."
If all this is just wordplay on the criteria for "existence" then I'm afraid I've missed your point. Are you trying to argue over which came first, existence or consciousness?
"To look for signatures is to look for a consciousness that came before/was apart from/was outside of/etc. -- existence."
OR came at the same time as existence, which would be perfectly consistent with the search for signatures.
"Jargon like "informational signatures" does not a valid concept make."
Wordplay on consciousness vs. existence does not a valid argument make.
- F2XL December 3, 2008 6:35PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
First, ID is being applied only to objects that have high levels of CSI. Since there is no data concerning the amount of CSI the designer has, then ID is not currently applicable to the designer. Perhaps the designer must have a designer, and perhaps not. Science cannot make this determination at this time.
Second, whenever scientists hypothesize that A causes B, they will inevitably have to search for the cause of A. Should this stop them from hypothesizing A as a cause of B? Science, like evolution , occurs one step at a time. After we test ID, if we find that it leads to successful predictions and never (or hardly ever) leads to failed predictions, then and only then should we worry about the cause of the designer. Reasoning otherwise puts an end to scientific inquiry. The Ayn Rand Institute is anti-science.
- ufcarazy January 21, 2009 10:06AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
5
8
15
11
14
12
11
9
7
7
10
8
6
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
It's Peddled as Science
- From Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights
By Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights - Advancing Objectivism
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Catholic Church rejects Intelligent Design
As a final blow to the Discovery Institute's attempts to get Intelligent Design into the Catholic 'door', the church announced an evolution congress which failed to invited creationists, and intelligent design
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804713.htm
The Congress, titled "Biological Evolution: Facts and Theories. A Critical Appraisal 150 years after 'The Origin of Species'" is scheduled for March 3-7, 2009 in Rome and is organized by "[t]he Pontifical Council for Culture, Rome's Pontifical Gregorian University and the University of Notre Dame in Indiana [who] are organizing an international conference in Rome March 3-7 as one of a series of events marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species."
The reason for rejection?
--
He said arguments "that cannot be critically defined as being science, or philosophy or theology did not seem feasible to include in a dialogue at this level and, therefore, for this reason we did not think to invite" supporters of creationism and intelligent design.
--
It seems to me that the Catholic church has come to understand that intelligent design fails to contribute either to science or to theology in a manner fruitful to be discussed.
- PvM
September 17, 2008 11:33AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The relevance
For years now the Intelligent Design proponents and the Discovery Institute have been working the 'catholic angle', getting some of its cardinals into trouble. Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna Christoph Schönborn was the first noticable victim of the bait and switch and it took a while before the Catholic church could restore order and continue in its position that good theology requires good science and that ID creationism provides neither.
Although I am not a fan of some of the Catholic Church's position, I am encouraged by its ability to shake of its past dealings with Intelligent Design.
In similar news, noted scientists and Jesuit astronomer George Coyne is on a mission to expose the scientific and theological vacuity of Intelligent Design.
"Intelligent Design belittles God, Vatican director says"
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503
"Priest doubts accuracy of creationism: God should stay out of classroom"
http://media.www.signal-online.net/media/storage/paper771/news/2008/09/10/News/Priest.Doubts .Accuracy.Of.Creationism-3421726.shtml
--George Coyne:
"I am going to, for better or worse, take on the intelligent design movement in this country," Coyne began the lecture. "I'm not going to apologize on the statements I make."
--
and
--
He personally encourages evolution to be taught in school, not intelligent design. "You shouldn't talk about God in a science classroom," he said.
--
Well said and it should inspire other Christians to critically review their position on science and theology.
"Teach the controversy" so to speak
- PvM
September 18, 2008 9:36AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
If the Catholic Church says it, it has just gotta be true!
If the Catholic Church says it, it has just gotta be true!
- ufcarazy
February 12, 2009 2:53PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
And let's not forget
The fact that the evolution lobby is trying to cite statements by UCC ministers to bolster support against ID shows just how out of touch they really are. ;D
- F2XL
February 17, 2009 3:56PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Galileo
The problem with the Catholic Church is that it has been unable to disagree with any scientific theory ever since they got burned condemning Galileo. The problem over ID is more semantic than real. In science God is the Unified Force, ID is Chaos Theory. You can teach Creationism or ID in the public schools you just have to call it Chaos Theory.
- mike1948
July 24, 2009 2:19PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Quite true
Funny how being completely wrong about the Earth revolving around the sun can make the Catholic Church a bit 'gun shy' about claiming that science is incorrect (without evidence to back it up).
- MrBook
July 24, 2009 6:19PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
But science was incorrect.
In the 19th Century fundamentalist supported the idea that new species appear abruptly, Catastrophism. Then Charles Darwin came along with his theory of Natural Selection and "proved" that new species evolve gradually. But it wasn't true. The fossil record shows no change for a long periods of time, then abruptly new species appeared. In 1972 scientist began calling this Punctuated Equilibrium. But Punctuated Equilibrium was nothing but a 20th Century version of Catastrophism. The fundamentalist had been right and Darwin had been wrong!
- mike1948
July 25, 2009 12:36AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
changing itdeas
Like all theories Evolution has changed over the years because of new evidence was discovered. The most current theory (modern synthesis) does not support long periods of no change then the sudden appearance of species, rather it describes long periods of slow change punctuated by occasion bursts revolving around sudden environmental shifts.
Which is what science is about... changing theories when presented with new information that either reveals observations that the theory does not cover or is contradictory to that theory. Contrast that to religion which, when presented with evidence contrary or outside of its beliefs, acts to suppress or ignore that evidence.
- MrBook
July 25, 2009 6:22AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Darwin wrong.
You are ignoring my main point that Catastrophism was closer to the truth then Darwin. Are fundamentalist stubborn? Yes! Are scientist any less stubborn? No! The history of science is full of examples of scientists ignoring evidence contrary to established theory. The point is that in this case the fundamentalist were right and the scientists were wrong.
- mike1948
July 25, 2009 9:58AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Catastrophism?
How was Catastrophism closer then the original Darwinian theory? Catastrophism offered no mechanism for the changes that we see, was completely wrong as to what catastrophes occurred, how severe they were, and when they took place.
Darwin's original theory, as put forth in "Origin of Species", has long since been supplanted by modern theories of Evolution... it was wrong with regards to many things, but Catastrophism was wrong to a greater extent then Evolution ever was.
It should also be noted that once the evidence had accumulated showing that earlier theories had been wrong the Scientists changed their theories and agreed that the new interpretation was correct... when have the fundamentalists ever done so?
- MrBook
July 25, 2009 5:40PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Atheist scientists promote God as scientifically testable
Richard Dawkins and Victor Stenger argue that the existence of a creative super-intelligence or God are scientific questions.
"the presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." - The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, p. 58-59.
"The process I will follow is the scientific method of hypothesis testing. The existence of God will be taken as a scientific hypothesis and the consequences of that hypothesis searched for in objective observations of the world around us. Various models will be assumed in which God has specific attributes that can be tested empirically. That is, if a God with such attributes exists, certain phenomena should be observable." - God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger, p. 17-18.
Do these scientists not understand the difference between science and non-science?
- ufcarazy
February 12, 2009 2:51PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Does Ayn Rand have merit?
(read in the computer voice of the Starship Enterprise)
Science is logic. God is not logic even though He created logic. He cannot be part of logic that would
be illogical.
Whats really illogical is when the study of science excludes God because you don't want him to exist. We sit in the middle and look both ways into infinity at a most wondrous universe and argue
about what is or is not science. If your science has no room for God then your science is too small.
Evolution and billions and billions of years of hit or miss chance to get a finger that flexes and contracts to pick up a penny. The evolution of music, why?
You guys deserve to have some maniacal communist take over our country and force you stop all experiments and study only what he says you can. (Oh my)
- The Almighty God
September 23, 2009 12:41AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
elves and unicorns
"Whats really illogical is when the study of science excludes God because you don't want him to exist."
It is also illogical to include God in the study of Science just because you want him to exist. Before any deity can be included evidence for the existence of that deity needs to be found.
"If your science has no room for God then your science is too small."
How so, and why God as described in the Bible... not say the pantheon described by the Vikings or the Egyptians.
"Evolution and billions and billions of years of hit or miss chance to get a finger that flexes and contracts to pick up a penny."
We are not quite at the 'billions and billions' of years point... just as 'hit or miss chance' is not an accurate description of evolution .
- MrBook
September 23, 2009 6:22AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The very fact that public schools resist creationism is why
you have such books written as, THE CONSIPIRACY OF IGNORANCE, by Martin Gross. Because the school system only teaches evolution the children attending that school will always be dumber and less intelligent than any other school that promotes spiritual growth and truth. Truth is probably the best factor in determining intelligence and one cannot have it with Gd! So that is why, in many peoples opinions, including my own, that we have this:
1. A statement by Dr. James Conant in 1960's,a quote in reference to the Education establishment ( public school) he called it a "CLOSED ALLIANCE" and little did he know just how much of a corrupt alliance it would become in the years ahead.
2. Apparently one of the sad consequences of such a corrupted alliance is that our kids are dumber and we have to have as much as 45% of PHD's are given to non- Americans each year in our country, which our governement calls, NON-RESIDENT ALIENS, according to the book, Conspiracy of Ignorance.
3.June 1999,the chairman of the Federal Reserve board, Alan Greenspan, warned that the poor state of public school education would endanger its constitution , that being a people capable of maintaining its prosperity.
4.In Massachusetts, April 1998 teachers where tested, all of whom had received bachelors of education, and 3 out of every 5 flunked! And that was being able to write a gramatically correct sentence.
5. And sadest of all the book exposes a national crisis when it showed that at a national math test, 60% of American students could not show how to get an average number from 5 numbers provided.
AND THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE TEACHERS AND THEIR ASSOCIATIONS AND UNIONS ARE IN GREAT NEED OF HIGHER EDUCATION THEMSELVES. PS INCLUDING CREATIONISM AS A N OPTION AND STOPPING HYPNOSIS ON STUDENTS WOULD BRING UP THEIR IQ'S IMMEDIATELY! My opinion.
- angelmama
September 29, 2009 7:17PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I think someone changes my responses.
IT SHOULD READ:
Truth is probably the best factor in determining intelligence and one cannot have it withOUT Gd!
- angelmama
September 29, 2009 8:44PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Why do you recommend your own posts?
Hmm?
- SolarSanitizer
September 29, 2009 11:22PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Freud?
I think that is what is called a Freudian slip...
- MrBook
September 30, 2009 8:02AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
hypnosis?
"PS INCLUDING CREATIONISM AS A N OPTION AND STOPPING HYPNOSIS ON STUDENTS WOULD BRING UP THEIR IQ'S IMMEDIATELY! "
If we include creationism we should include all the creationist stories... the proof is about equal for all of them.
And really... the hypnosis bit again???
- MrBook
September 30, 2009 8:04AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.