I voted with the 39% because I can't stand the way that Darwinism theory is passed off as science and ANY other theory is dismissed as non-science. You can still vote here ... let me know how and why you voted - even if you didn't vote :)
Intelligent Design
I voted with the 39% because I can't stand the way that Darwinism theory is passed off as science and ANY other theory is dismissed as non-science. You can still vote here ... let me know how and why you voted - even if you didn't vote :)
13 comments:
I love to get comments and usually respond. So come back to see my reply. You can click here to see my comment policy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No. I don't know what you mean by "Darwinism" but whatever the strengths of various evolutionary mechanisms it all boils down to common descent and descent with modification. Intelligent Design is not coherent enough to be considered a theory or even a testable hypothesis.
ReplyDeleteThanks for stopping by scripto.
ReplyDeleteFrom Wikipedia: Darwinism is a term for the underlying concepts in those ideas of Charles Darwin concerning evolution and natural selection. Discussions of Darwinism usually focus on evolution by natural selection, but sometimes Darwinism is taken to mean evolution more broadly, or other ideas not directly associated with the work of Darwin.
Maybe ID shouldn't be taught but don't you think that other theories should be taught? Or is there but one theory that we should all bow to? Of course if there is only one theory then I guess there is only one thing to be taught. Guess that is how we got to where we are in academia :(
It's possible that ID is a more testable hypothesis than independent evolutionary theories.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, in the most effective tests of those evolutionary theories we "re-design" the original quite often with DNA manipulation.
I don't see why ID and evolution can't be compatible theories.
"It's possible that ID is a more testable hypothesis than independent evolutionary theories."
ReplyDeleteI don't see how. Right or wrong evolutionary theory posits certain processes. Intelligent Design posits none. They don't even start out on the same footing.
"In fact, in the most effective tests of those evolutionary theories we "re-design" the original quite often with DNA manipulation."
To me the most effective tests concerning common ancestry and descent with modification are those predictions which have born fruit. Tiktaalik, the discovery of whale transitionals, the fused chromosome #2 in humans. You're not suggesting that humans are responsible for the diversity of life or that some technologically advanced society created life and has hung around for 3.5 billion years to tweak it? Where's the lab equipment?
"I don't see why ID and evolution can't be compatible theories.
Because only one has process and confirmed predictions. The Designer might be responsible for everything or he may be working behind the scenes on some undetectable quantum level. I don't think science can address that. I think that to require science to address theology elevates science and diminishes God.
Scripto, by "more testable" I am inferring that I will die long before we see first hand consistently predictable fruition of a natural evolutionary process. And when I die, I have faith that I will then know the answer. :)
ReplyDeleteYes, there seems to be an evolutionary process, we see evidence of that, and I believe it should be taught in school. But in nature, it is not always a process for the best of the being - it is not always a selective process that is predictable. There are many more predictions that have not bore the expected fruit.
"You're not suggesting that humans are responsible for the diversity of life or that some technologically advanced society created life and has hung around for 3.5 billion years to tweak it? Where's the lab equipment?"
Huh? There is much diversity that humans are responsible for due to animal husbandry and agricultural endeavors, not to mention our modern genetic tampering. Science has proven a fraction of the "rules" by which the process occurs, and we have continued to use what we have learned of them to our benefit for as long as man tell tales - often at the peril of the earth itself.
ID and evolution are compatible. One is not to be theorized at the expense of the other. Evolution did not begat itself. Evolution is a process set into motion by the creation of life. Science does support that as a theory. If schools teach an untestable theory such as the "Big Bang" theory, they should teach ID as a theory of creation as well.
Just an abstract question:
ReplyDeleteIf we and the animal kingdom have a common ancestry then why is it wrong to kill people and not wrong to kill animals?
If we and the animal kingdom have a common ancestry then why is it wrong to kill people and not wrong to kill animals?
ReplyDeleteFirst, if anyone thinks Intelligent Design is a "theory", then I have some voodoo dolls to sell you.
To the question: out of all the species of our genus, we just happened to luck out.
Scripto - Maybe you could explain where you are coming from when you say "luck out" ... why would luck have anything to do with the question?
ReplyDelete"If we and the animal kingdom have a common ancestry then why is it wrong to kill people and not wrong to kill animals?
ReplyDeleteSome people think it is wrong to kill animals. We share common ancestry with plants, too. (yes, even the banana). But an organism gots to eat.
I don't think any thorny moral dilemna speaks to the accuracy of the science, though. There are a lot of things in this world that I wish were different.
Thanks for the feedback philo and scripto. My sense is that you both would agree that science doesn't factor in other disciplines such as religion. How about mathematical disciplines?
ReplyDeleteI think that the degree of probablity for events to occur that result in a new species is so low that it is probably not deemed mathematically feasible. What do you think?
I think the probability arguments against evolution are based on incomplete background knowlege. The relative importance of mutation and selection, genetic drift, changes in non-coding regulatory genes is still being investigated. Add that to the fact that evolution could have taken a multitude of different paths make calculating accurate probabilities impossible.
ReplyDeleteThe historical record shows that organisms have changed through time. We work with what we got. There is no proof, just the best interpretation of the evidence. Until Intelligent Design deals with this fact, it can't be considered a serious alternative.
"There is no proof, just the best interpretation of the evidence."
ReplyDeleteThat is an honest statement scripto.. unfortunately many present their interpretation as truth and proof. I guess it is all about who is doing the interpretation :)
"I guess it is all about who is doing the interpretation :)
ReplyDeleteSure. I've always been partial to mine. :)