bevin Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 Let me help you understand these quotes. Quote: But is it real design or apparent design? There are two answers to the question and both are profound in terms of their metaphysical implications How does one decide that a system is designed, as opposed to developed by trial and error? This is the first fundamental problem of the ID school - it is impossible to distinquish these two cases - indeed trial and error is a valid design technique, and probably the most common! Quote: Because their parts are so intricate and so interdependent, such systems could not possibly have been the result of evolution, ID supporters argue This is indeed their main point, and it is false. You can get such system by trial and error - as any person who has played Pick Up Sticks knows. You drop a bunch of sticks at random, remove all the loose ones, and the remaining pile is the result of Intelligent Design. Perhaps you will argue "but it took a mind to remove the loose sticks". No, it just took a filter. Look at any sand dune being blown by the wind, at any snow cornice, at a dead tree leaning against a live one. Each of these are complex irreducible systems produced by chance. Quote: the cascade of proteins that make up the human blood-clotting system Actually the cascade is an example of a REDUCIBLE system. Behe is playing on the readers ignorance by using it. The end goal - stopping bleeding and sealing off a wound - is done using several independent mechanisms. Any one of them would be sufficient, but having several makes it more effective. You can take away any one of them and you will NOT bleed to death. To quote from my Paramedic class text book [:"blue"]"The coagulation cascade can be activated BY MANY substances ... through EITHER OF TWO pathways ... the two pathways converge at a certain point and continue towards the same end product, fibrin. Substances produced during the cascade ALSO ENHANCE the inflammatory response, including the increase of vascular permeability and chemotaxis"[/] In other words the system is NOT a single entry, single exit, complex path. This, and the complementation cascade, are complex systems with multiple triggers and multiple outputs. To a person like me who designs complex systems for a living, these look like a series of additions and improvements over an initial poor scheme. Quote: His view is that a design (non-chance)-based theory of origins is more consistent with the evidence. Science, as I said before, is NOT about views. It is about experiments. The ID school lacks a single experiment. Quote: Guillermo Gonzalez is an Assistant Professor of Astronomy ... "ID theorists start with the evidence of nature and remain open to possible evidence of design. This approach is no different from the approach taken by many of the founders of modern science." Science, as I said before, is NOT about views. It is about experiments. The ID school lacks a single experiment. /Bevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted November 13, 2005 Author Share Posted November 13, 2005 I have read the debates that go back and forth in science magazines. I have also noticed they always give the evolutionists the last word. I too have noticed that evolutionists come off as very childish with an "you-can't-redefine-my-science" type of attitude. I see some weak issues with the arguements of Intelligent Design and of course with evolution. But that isn't the issue. Our schools are to teach children how to think, not what to think. Within the scientific community there are at least two tranes of thought in regard to the orgin of life. One of course is religious. Which secular science books could also reference by saying something like, "Many of the world's religions do not embrace the theory of evolution due to their faith." Another minority view is Intelligent Design. It is simply wrong to teach evolution as fact when it is speculative, there is minority-held, scientific desent and the majority of those which have been taught it do not believe it. Evolutionists are behaving in a way simular to those that believed the Earth was flat or that the Sun rotated around the Earth. Their reaction appears to be one of fear. Instead of inviting open debate, they seek to silence the desentors. Since they cannot behead the desentors, like they could during the Dark Ages, they try to push them out of the scientific community by painting them as religious or philosphers. Yet Intelligent Design proponents are far from fundamentalists. They don't believe in a literal creation week or a worldwide flood. Many of them are not even Christians. The issue is academic freedom. Should students be taught what to think or how to think? That is the issue. It is not which theory is right: Evolution or Intelligent Design. Educated scientists will disagree on the orgin of life thoughout our lifetimes here and debate will never settle the issue. However, how different scientific thought can be presented to students can be settled by debate. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bevin Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 Quote: Should students be taught what to think or how to think? That is the issue. In science classes children are taught HOW to think. They are told the experiments, the result of the experiments, and the model that explains the results. Where possible they do the experiments. The evolutionists have lots of such experiments. The ID's have none. They don't belong in a science program until they have experiments. Instead they are telling children what to think - telling them "there are gaps that can only be explained by a Designer" without a single experiment that demonstrates such a gap. This is why the ID's are so upset - they have been told they can't come to the party without an experiment, and they don't have one. This is why the evolutionists are so upset. People are trying to force them to allow the ID'ers in, when the ID'ers are coming without the required entry ticket. The evolutionists are upset because the ID's are trying to force their ideas on children with no supporting experiment. Get it yet? THE LACK OF AN OBJECTIVE EXPERIMENT IS THE KEY ISSUE. WITHOUT AN EXPERIMENT IT IS NOT SCIENCE AND DOES NOT BELONG IN A SCIENCE PROGRAM. /Bevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted November 13, 2005 Author Share Posted November 13, 2005 </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr /> Evolutionists are behaving in a way simular to those that believed the Earth was flat or that the Sun rotated around the Earth. Their reaction appears to be one of fear. Instead of inviting open debate, they seek to silence the desentors. Since they cannot behead the desentors, like they could during the Dark Ages, they try to push them out of the scientific community by painting them as religious or philosphers. Yet Intelligent Design proponents are far from fundamentalists. They don't believe in a literal creation week or a worldwide flood. Many of them are not even Christians. <hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bevin Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 Quote: they seek to silence the desentors On the contrary - they are welcome to play the game. They are invited to the party. All they have to do is play by the rules. The rules do not favor the evolutionists. The rules have been picked over the years precisely because they lead to the discovery of demostrable ideas that the players did not think were correct. The failure of the creationists and the ID's to produce a single valid experiment is what limits them - not some closed-minded issue by the scientific community. Look at all the ideas the scientific community has abandoned because they did not survive contact with experiments... The earth is flat. The earth is spherical. The sun goes around the earth. Rotten meat turns into flies. The heart is the center of emotion. Continents are stationary. Newtonian physics. Bleeding is good for you. Atoms can't be shattered. Protons can't be shattered. Electrons orbit nuclei. Photons are waves. Photons are particles. Time is the same everywhere. Now look at all the ideas Christians have abandoned because of lack of evidence.... << empty list >> Do you see a problem here? It isn't that the evolutionists aren't prepared to change - they just require some EVIDENCE. One valid experiment, that is all it would take... /Bevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted November 13, 2005 Author Share Posted November 13, 2005 </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr /> Our schools are to teach children how to think, not what to think. Within the scientific community there are at least two tranes of thought in regard to the orgin of life. One of course is religious. Which secular science books could also reference by saying something like, "Many of the world's religions do not embrace the theory of evolution due to their faith." Another minority view is Intelligent Design. It is simply wrong to teach evolution as fact when it is speculative, there is minority-held, scientific desent and the majority of those which have been taught it do not believe it. <hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.